The so-called no-self or anatman is among the key concepts in Buddhism. Along with other ideas about reality and illusion, the non-existence of the unchangeable self-distinguishes the Buddhist religion from numerous religious movements that recognize the human soul as something immortal and integral. When teaching no-self, the Buddha negated the presence of the permanent self, recognizing this idea as illusory, causing pain, and thus, complicating liberation from attachments.
In his teachings, the Buddha used the idea of no-self to disprove the logical consistency of seeing people as creatures that are independent in terms of perception and knowledge. According to Gethin, the notion of the self is criticized in Buddhism not in general, but about its particular features such as permanence (p. 135). The meaning of anatman can sometimes be understood in a simplified way just as the non-existence of the self. This definition does not reflect the notion’s complicated structure and the Buddha’s supposed goals.
Accepting the notion of atman that is central to more idealist perceptions of reality, one recognizes the existence of the self that possesses a few characteristics such as the inability to change and independence. In his conversations with monks devoted to the problem of the self and no-self, the Buddha did not mean that the former could not exist at all. Instead, only some features of atman such as its permanent nature were criticized regarding these ideas’ ability to produce unnecessary suffering. According to Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha asked his students whether “body…feeling…recognition…volitions” were permanent, and they agreed that all of those things were impermanent and, therefore, capable of producing pain (qtd in Gethin, p. 137). With that in mind, by introducing the concept of no-self, the teacher wanted to criticize the idea of permanence in self-perception.
As a separate idea, no-self is aimed at helping people to remove a significant barrier to achieving the key spiritual goal. In Majjhima Nikaya, the teacher makes the following conclusion based on impermanence and suffering: all things that people associate themselves with, be it the physical body or irrational feelings, have to be seen as “this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self” (qtd in Gethin, p. 137). The understanding of things that are not permanent as the sources of suffering descends from the second truth of the Buddhist religion related to the destructive nature of attachment (Gethin, p. 138). The risks that any part of what we call “I” can change or disappear are extremely high, which can make people suffer when trying to achieve accuracy in their self-image. Trying to prevent his students from suffering and becoming dependent on numerous things they could mistake for themselves, the teacher introduced the concept being discussed.
In Buddhist thought, by promoting the belief in personal identity that tends to be based on false conclusions and the misinterpretation of personal experience, any individual contributes to suffering and makes other people suffer as well. According to Gethin, “the belief in self serves as the function of both ignorance and greed” (p. 147). Both idealistic and materialistic perceptions of reality and the self can prevent people from becoming free. It is possible that the concept of no-self was the Buddha’s attempt to warn people against rushing into the extremes and mistaking their experiences for objective reality.
To sum it up, the Buddha’s no-self can be understood as the idea that criticizes people’s attempts to appropriate any things in the world and see anything as unchanging. In Buddhism, the idea of anatman implies that the sense of the self is illusory and creates barriers to one’s development. Therefore, the teacher taught no-self to prevent his students from supporting concepts that increase suffering, thus making the ultimate goal of spiritual growth unattainable.
Work Cited
Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press, 1998.
How Did Yogācāra Buddhism Change on the Way to China?
Buddhism started to spread to China for two centuries around the beginning of the Current Era. The study of the passage of the Buddhist thought from India to China raises numerous challenges. While scholars have to deal with a certain degree of uncertainty in attributing accurate dates to the vast corpus of scriptures, other factors make the research more complicated and multifaceted. Cultural differences and limited knowledge of Sanskrit favored the process of the Sinification of Buddhism. Moreover, the Indian doctrine was still developing, and several schools were thriving, each carrying unique seeds bound to influence other cultures. The most influential interpretations of Buddhism were the Theravāda and Mahayāna schools. The former spread to Southeastern Asia, the latter became especially prominent in China, Japan, and Korea. In turn, both the Theravāda and the Mahayāna created peculiar traditions, including the Mahayāna Yogakāra.
The importance of the Yogakāra is in its theoretical framework which offers a philosophical and psychological background to the notions of Buddhahood, consciousness, and reality. The ontological and phenomenal approach of the Yogakāra has suggested a comparison to Western idealism. However, the logical structure of the Yogakāra was not mere speculation, and the ultimate scopes of tradition remained the attainment of the Buddhahood and liberation from the Samsāra.
After a short section aimed at framing the spread of Buddhism from India to China, this paper describes the cultural background that favored the thriving of the Yogakāra. Similarities and differences between Mahayāna and Theravāda are explained to introduce the basic concepts of the Mahayāna phenomenology from the Yogakāra perspective. Divergences between Indian and Chinese Yogakāra are also highlighted, such as in the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine. Finally, the text offers further hints on the influence of the Yogakāra tradition on modern Chinese thought and the rise of the New Confucianism.
The spread of Buddhism into China and basic notions on the Mahāyāna
The spread of Buddhism into China is shrouded in mystery. The Buddhist doctrine reached the imperial court during the Han dynasty which ruled China from 206 BCE to 220 CE. Realistically, the Buddhist tradition penetrated China during the first century BCE or the first century CE following the commercial silk routes across Asia. The official historiography, however, found it convenient to resort to mythological narratives to celebrate the emperor, while the apocryphal Buddhist literature tended to enhance the prestige of the monks (Zurcher, p. 19). As a consequence, assigning accurate dates to most of the early work that marked the passage of Buddhism to China is a hard task. Also, the Chinese started to have some knowledge of Sanskrit in the fourth century CE, and the early translations were convoluted and somehow misleading, with significant use of Chinese terms and categories usually associated with non-Buddhist concepts (Zurcher, p. 2). Inevitably, these factors concurred with the Sinification of early Buddhist teaching.
The rise of the Mahāyāna Tradition
During the initial stages of the diffusion of Buddhism across China, the Indian doctrine was still in its early period, and the Mahāyāna tradition was emerging as a prominent school of interpretation of the Buddhist scriptures. The Mahāyāna started as a movement aimed at returning to the original teachings of Buddha, and it became one of the most important currents of Buddhism together with the Theravāda. However, the two traditions take a different stance on the possible paths to reach perfection. While the Theravāda privileges the way of the disciple to attain arhatship, the Mahāyāna favors the heroic path of the Bodhisattva to obtain the perfect awakening of the fully awakened samyak-sambuddha (Gethin, p. 225). The difference is substantial because the heroic path of the Bodhisattva includes compassion (karunā) and the implicit mission of enlightening the other sentient beings. While the attainment of perfection remains the common goal, the disciples who manage to reach arhatship disappear from the samsāra, the bodhisattva choose to come back to the suffering of the world out of compassion. For this reason, this tradition is called Mahāyāna, the “great vehicle,” while the Theravāda is the Hīnayāna, the “the inferior vehicle.”
The Theravāda spread in Sri Lanka and across South-East Asia, the Mahāyāna became the dominant canon in China, Korea, and Japan. Inevitably, the two interpretations of the Buddhist scriptures affected the Buddhist philosophies and practices in the countries where they spread. It is also quite remarkable that the Theravāda did not remain in its inception stage in the Sri Lankan culture but, instead, gained new attributes, thus incorporating the elements of the ancient culture and the components of the recipient culture, evolving into a new philosophy. Similarly, the influence that Mahāyāna gained in China, Korea, and Japan has been mutual, affecting the nature of the philosophy and transforming people’s culture. For instance, in China, Mahāyāna introduced new concepts that were alien to the Chinese culture yet were integrated into it with the spread of Buddhism across the state. In addition, the transition from the Indian philosophy to the Chinese one that Mahāyāna witnessed involved the active participation of Chinese monks in the translation of the scripture and the dissemination of its philosophy among citizens. Therefore, the process of Buddhist principles being transferred to the Chinese culture also involved significant social changes, with the increase in the role of monks as educators.
The development of the Mahāyāna
Trying to assign accurate dates to Mahāyāna sūtras rises further challenges to the already complicated field of attribution, dates, and publications. Besides the normal issues in dating, many sūtras constitute concepts directly taught by the Buddha but spread later when the right time had come, entangling further the situation (Gethin, p. 225). The first evidence of the existence of a corpus of Mahāyāna sūtras dates back to the second century CE when some sūtras were translated to Chinese. The most important Mahāyāna sūtras relate to the bodhisattva path, the “ideas only” concept, the “embryo of the Tathāgata,” the “one vehicle notion,” the “interpenetration of all phenomena,” the “pure land,” and the meditation sūtras. The core of the Mahāyāna tradition, the path of the bodhisattva consists of ten levels and goes beyond the development of spiritual practices, including good conduct, concentration, and wisdom. Firstly, the bodhisattva arouses the awakening mind through a series of meditation; then, they practice a series of perfections connected to the stages of the path of the bodhisattva, eventually reaching the Buddhahood, where there is no need for further training.
The perfections are divided into two groups. The first group includes generosity (dāna), good conduct (śīla), patient acceptance (ksānti), vigor (vīrya), meditation (dhyāna), and wisdom (prajñā). The last four perfections are skill in means (upāya-kauśalya), determination (pranidhāna), strength (bala), and knowledge (jñāna) (Gethin, p. 230). The awareness of the awakening corresponds to a sort of threshold, the reaching of the first stage of the path of the bodhisattva. Completing the first six levels allows practitioners to get arhatship. The last, advanced, steps are necessary to reach the full Buddhahood. However, there is still a difference between tenth-stage bodhisattvas and buddhas. Though they substantially behave in the same way, and both are liberated from the samsāra, buddhas remain linked to the world because of their compassion: the condition of Buddhahood, then, implies the capacity of creating a visible body, a nirmāna-kāya (Gethin, p. 233). The real buddhas are in the Pure Abodes, the highest level of the Indian cosmology. Hence, while the nirmāna-kāya, the visible buddha, is born, lives, and dies, the cosmic buddha, the sambhoga-kāya, teaches the Dharma in elevated pure lands.
While the concept of the nature of buddhas led to different interpretations, the ideas of wisdom, the perfection of wisdom, and emptiness raised a lively philosophical debate, giving birth to some of the most influential Mahāyāna schools, including the Madhyamaka and the Yogācāra schools. From a Chinese perspective, the Yogācāra is essential for several reasons. From a historical point of view, it contributed to shaping the development of the indigenous religion, philosophy, art, and literature. More recently, it informed the Chinese attitude towards the challenges of modernity; finally, the Yogācāra has provided the foundation for the rise of a modern Chinese philosophical current, namely the New Confucianism (Makeham, p. 3). However, in the passage of the Yogācāra Buddhism from India to China, the understanding of some critical concepts differed markedly (Ming-Wood, p. 352). The Yogācāra represents the peak of the tradition of northern Indian Buddhism, and it provides a solid psychological corpus for the path of liberation, offering a thorough perception of the Buddhahood as well. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that the ultimate scope of the Yogācāra remained the provision of a coherent path to liberation for beings.
By the time when the Tang Dynasty gained vast influence over the Chinese society and became the absolute power in the empire, the number of Buddhist translations was truly vast. As a result, opportunities for different interpretations of the text emerged, thus spawning multiple interpretations of the traditional Mahāyāna philosophy. However, the specified outcome resulted in several difficulties, the problem of translating the theoretical tenets of the Buddhist principles into practice being the most important and problematic ones.
It is also noteworthy that the multiple reiterations of the Buddhist principles and concepts have affected not only the Chinese religion but also other areas, including art and philosophy. The principles of Buddhism and its key principles permeated the realm of literature, architecture, and other types of artistic expression, creating a unique culture and shaping people’s perceptions of Buddhist values. In a certain sense, the Chinese interpretation of Buddhist principles has allowed merging religion and philosophy, creating a unique set of principles that could not only guide but also inspire people, providing both ethical and aesthetic development.
Yogācāra Buddhism
The Yogācāra school thrived within the Mahāyāna Buddhism during the third and to fifth century CE. As suggested by the name, which can be translated as Practitioners of Yoga, Yogācāra’s main concern revolved around the concept of consciousness and its transformation in the samsāra along the path to liberation (Waldron, “Indian Yogācāra Buddhism”, p. 283). The idea of consciousness, however, was lively debated among Yogācāra exponents. The doctrine was developed by Asańga and Vasubandhu in India and spread into China through the work of Paramārtha and Hsüan-Tzang almost immediately, around the fifth century CE. The Yogācāra was also known as Nothing but Consciousness (Vijñānavāda), The Way of Consciousness (Vijñapti-Mātra) in India, and Weishi (Nothing But Consciousness) and Faxiang (Dharma Characteristics) in China. Curiously, while Faxiang was often used as a denigratory term, it became the official name of the Yogācāra school in China and, later, in Japan (Makeham, p. 2). The opponent schools commented sardonically on the Yogācāra attitude of searching for the characteristics of dharmas rather than the nature of dharmas.
Mind-only or consciousness-only, the supremacy of the mind, is one of the central themes of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and it was deepened by the Yogācāra tradition. From this perspective, the basic concept of the Yogācāra is that the samsāra, the cycle of rebirths and lives, can be explained and understood in terms of mind and ideas (Gethin, p. 244). It was a topical subject in early Buddhism and is related to the ontology of the dharmas and the concept of emptiness. Substantially, dharmas are “merely beings of the mind (…). When the mind arises, dharmas [also] arise; and when the mind is annihilated, dharmas are annihilated” (Hui-Yüan qtd. in Ming-Wood, p. 352). Hence, the starting point of Yogācāra is that the known world is purely mental, and our experience of it is based on Vijñapti, namely information, and ideas. Vijñapti is the only real world and the question of whether there is an external world matching ideas and perceptions brings to further developments and concepts.
Main concepts in Yogācāra Buddhism
If consciousness and perceptions determine the reality, or non-reality, of the world, it is essential to define what mind and perceptions are. Gethin (pp. 248-249) highlights that Yogācāra is not entirely agnostic about the existence of the world: though objects do not exist, yet we share common experiences as the products of many past karma influences. By showing how we create ideas, experiences, and, ultimately, suffering, the Yogācāra aims at empowering us to reverse the process, triggering awakening and escaping from misery. There are no separate experiencing subjects and separate experienced objects: what matters, in Yogācāra philosophy, is “the way things are rather than what is” (Gethin, p. 249). For this reason, the idea of consciousness in Yogācāra revolves around the concepts of grāhaka and grāhya, namely graspers and what is grasped rather than around subjects and objects (Lusthaus, p. 2). It is, substantially, a change of perspective to change our understanding of the mind process, to get rid of what provokes suffering.
The Chinese monk Hui-Yüan explains the ontology that underpins the mind-only concept plainly: “(…) the grasping and the deluded mind erroneously regards dharmas outside the mind as possessing self-nature, and does not perceive that [all] nameable functions are without [self-] essence”, and “(…) the false consciousness deceives and hides the true essence, and wrongly considers dharmas arising from itself as real” (Hui-Yüan qtd. in Ming-Wood, p. 351). The ontological aspects of dharmas, they are arising from false thoughts, and the attainment of the truth of the mind-only is the subject of the practice of Yogācāra, especially rooted in yoga and meditation. From this perspective, some concepts, including the eight types of consciousness, the three natures (tri-svabhāva), the tathāgatagarbha, the store of consciousness (ālaya-vijñana), and the karmic seeds are among crucial central to understand Yogācāra.
The eight types of consciousness represent a more refined theoretical construction of the early Buddhism teaching which divided consciousness according to the five senses and the mind. The Yogācāra provides a more comprehensive explanation of the mind, including two further types of consciousness which play a massive role in how we experience the world. The defiled mental vijñana (klihia-manovijñana) is the mind defiled by the unsatisfactory condition of the samsāra (Waldron, “The Buddhist Unconscious”, p. 139). Beyond the defiled mind, there is the eighth type of contagiousness, the store of consciousness or alaya-vijñana, where the experiences and the knowledge collected traveling through the samsāra, the karmic seeds, are gathered. The store of consciousness has some unique features which make it suitable for infusing the karmic seeds simultaneously and constantly (Waldron, “The Buddhist Unconscious”, p. 138). Simultaneity ensures the karmic continuity which allows the gathering, the receiving, and, eventually, the blooming of the seeds.
Tathāgatagarbha, literally the womb or the embryo of the Tathāgata, refers to basic Buddhist teaching which states that the mind is originally pure and radiant but becomes impure and stained. In other words, everybody is potentially a Buddha, even if not everybody manages to reach the awakening and remains trapped in the defilement of the mind and the path of individuality, inevitably bounding themselves to delusion and suffering (Gethin, p. 246). Among the Buddhist scriptures, the concept of tathāgatagarbha, the potential Buddhahood, has been interpreted differently, representing an essential divergence of the Chinese tradition from the original Indian canons. While some writings suggest the hypothesis that the Buddhahood might exclude some beings, the East Asian school tends to apply the intrinsic nature of Buddha to all individuals (Gethin, p. 252). The notion of Buddhahood and the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha are explained in the Dasheng qi xin lu or Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening.
The treatise is traditionally attributed to the Indian poet Ashvaghosha while the translation into Chinese is accredited to Paramartha. However, several doubts have been raised about this attribution as Ashvaghosha was a poet who never adhered to the Yogācāra or even to the Mahayāna doctrine. Hence, the text is probably an original Chinese work (Miles and Lopez, p. 1186). Anyway, the document represents a peak of the Chinese Yogācāra tradition, and it revolves around the concept of the ultimate reality (zhenru) from a Tathāgatagarbha perspective: if everybody bears the nature of Buddha, why there is still ignorance? The answer is in the doctrine of one mind – two aspects: the “principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the absolute, and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena” (Aśvaghoṣa, p. 11). The two aspects of the one mind are mutually inclusive and embrace all states of existence.
Yogācāra Revival and New Confucianism in Twentieth Century China
During its journey to and through China, Indian Buddhism went in contact with a flourishing and vibrant culture, and with its autochthonous schools of thought influencing Confucianism, Taoism, and the whole of Chinese society. However, the original core of the Indian doctrine started to decline during the eighth and ninth centuries, becoming more and more tinted with Chinese culture (Tang, p. 51). The Yogācāra remained influential, but its multifaceted theoretical approach hindered its diffusion, and other traditions, including the Chan and the Pure Land, took over. Though Buddhism has had a considerable influence on Chinese society, other schools have contributed to shaping it to create modern China. Besides Buddhism, there are Nestorianism, argakun, and, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, the influence of Western culture (Tang, p. 47). Coming in contact with the Western philosophies urged Chine’s scholars to study the original Chines philosophies and to develop a modern and systematic framework to analyze beings, ontology, consciousness, and the universe.
The last two decades of the twentieth century witnessed a reappraisal of the Confucian doctrine and the rise of a school of thought known as the New Confucianism. The innovative approach to the traditional Chinese theories was influenced by Western culture. It consisted of a creative blending of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy, psychology, evolution theory, empirical science, logic, and original Confucian thoughts (Makeham, p. 3). However, Makeham notices that while the Western and traditional influences have been thoroughly analyzed, the heritage from Indian Buddhism, and specifically of the Yogācāra tradition, has been neglected (p. 3). The impact of the Yogācāra tradition on the New Confucianism should be sought in the revival of Yogācāra of the late decade of the nineteenth century. In a period dominated by scientific categories, the alignment of Yogācāra with modern scientific principles made the doctrine appealing to the cultural elite.
The cognitive approach of Yogācāra would have allowed scientists to overcome imperfect and biased observations. The Buddhist reformer Taixu went so far as to support the thesis that Yogācāra could lead to sensible improvements in scientific methods and observations (Makeham, p. 17). After Taixu, Yogācāra was seen as a robust theoretical framework to improve the condition of human life, making science accessible to all people. In the same period, Yogācāra provided the Chinese intellectuals with adequate tools to understand and interpret the rising science of psychology: the concepts of karmic seeds and store consciousness, for example, were largely utilized to explain the functioning of processes engaged by memory and instinct (Makeham, p. 19). While the core structure of Yogācāra could be supportive of science, it could also be used to criticize it. Some famous episodes related to the assertion that Einstein’s theory of relativity lacked the level of comprehensiveness of Yogācāra and that Bertrand Russel asserted that cameras could see things (Makeham, p. 19). The popularity of Yogācāra among Chinese intellectuals was due to the spread acceptance that it was a legitimate epistemological stance.
The focus on the work of mind rather than the experience, which the East Asian interpretation of Indian Buddhism, in general, and its Chinese rendering, in particular, implied could be seen as a significant change. The notions of path and goal were also expanded in the Yogācāra philosophy after being viewed through the lens of Chinese culture. Encompassing the notions of emptiness and brotherhood, the Yogācāra philosophical framework allowed expanding the Chinese philosophy, at the same time being enriched with the traditional Chinese philosophical and religious values.
The relationship between Yogācāra and New Confucianism is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, the New Confucianism has developed through a dialectical confrontation on Yogācāra’s theoretical framework; on the other hand, it critically opposed the Yogācāra teaching, adhering to a cultural trend which considered the Mahayāna’s doctrine of enlightenment as false Buddhism, as it was not part of the original Indian scriptures (Makeham, p. 30). However, the New Confucianism cannot be understood without a thorough understanding of theory and the role of Chinese Buddhism, and the Yogācāra tradition is still an argumentative component within the New Confucianism’s theoretical approach.
Conclusion
The spread of Buddhism into China presents a series of challenges that make the topic especially complex. Accurate historical chronology and dating of the sources are difficult if not impossible: the coeval chronicles indulge in mythical episodes, and the transmission of the fundamental Buddhist doctrine was not linear. However, it is established that Buddhism began to spread across China during the Han dynasty from 206 BCE to 220 CE. To further entangle the situation, there was limited knowledge of the Sanskrit language in China, and the first transcriptions were inaccurate and misleading. Moreover, the extensive and consistent use of Chinese expressions carrying already codified meanings contributed to the process of the signification of Buddhism.
Diverse interpretations of the original scriptures resulted in different schools, including the Theravāda, which spread across Southeastern Asia, and the Mahāyāna, which reached China, Japan, and Korea. Buddhism Mahayāna, in turn, originated several schools, including the Yogakāra, whose influence on the Chinese culture is still perceivable today. Adhering to the Mahayāna mainstream, Yogakāra privileged the Bodhisattva path to reach the Buddhahood through ten levels of perfection. Yogakāra focused on the transformation of consciousness through the practice of Yoga and created a sophisticated ontological framework to explain samsāra, consciousness, and phenomena. The main concepts of Yogakāra are the eight types of consciousness, the three natures (tri-svabhāva), the tathāgatagarbha, the store of consciousness (ālaya-vijñana), and the karmic seeds. The notion of Buddhahood and the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha, which establish that every being carries the nature of Buddha, are peculiar to Yogakāra and represent a significant feature of Chinese Buddhism.
In addition, the changes to the Indian concept of Buddhism have contributed to shaping the Buddhist religious tenets to make them the foundation for the Buddhist philosophy as it was viewed through the lens of the Chinese culture. The numerous reiterations f Buddhist concepts that found their way into the Chinese art, literature, and architecture, as well as a range of other domains, have affected people’s perception of religion, its role in society, and the effects that it produces on people. In addition, a shift in the hierarchy of Chinese society could be observed as the role of monks in Chinese culture increased. Overall, the alterations that Indian Buddhism underwent when being adjusted to the context of the Chinese society were quite expected yet nonetheless impressive.
Though Yogakāra lose its original popularity around the eighth and ninth centuries CE, the school witnessed a revival at the turn of the twentieth century, when its coherent epistemological stance proved effective in offering a robust framework to deal with the modern concepts of science and psychology. For this reason, Yogakāra became popular among the Chinese intellectual elite, and its heritage is still visible in the thriving of the New Confucianism of the last decades of the twentieth century, though with a dual and contrasting role.
Works Cited
Aśvaghoṣa. The Awakening of Faith / Attributed to Aśvaghosha; Translated from the Chinese of Paramārtha (Taishō Volume 32, Number 1666). Translated by Yoshito S. Hakeda. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2005.
Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press, 1988
Lusthaus, Dun. Buddhist Phenomenology. A Philosophical Investigation of Yogäcära Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei -shih lun. Routledge, 2002
Makeham, John. Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China. Edited by Jiang Tao. Ofxord University Press, 2015.
Miles, Jack, and Donald S. Lopez, editors. The Norton Anthology of World Religions: Buddhism. W. W. Norton, 2017.
Tang, Yijie. Anthology of Philosophical and Cultural Issues. Springer, 2016.
Waldron, William S. “Indian Yogācāra Buddhism: A historical Perspective.” History of Indian Philosophy, edited by Purushottama Bilimoria. Routledge, 2018
The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-Vijñana in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought. Routledge, 2003
Zurcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest to China. The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. 3rd ed., Brill, 2017
Although in his The World’s Religions, Huston Smith identifies speculation as one of the religious constants (Smith 93), Buddhism views humans’ endeavors to ascertain the truth as meaningless and fruitless pursuit:
It is not on the view that the world is eternal, that it is finite, that body and soul are distinct, or that the Buddha exists after death, that a religious life depends. Whether these views or their opposites are held, there is still rebirth, there is old age, there is death, and grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow, and despair…. I have not spoken to these views because they do not conduce to the absence of passion, or to tranquillity and Nirvana. (Smith 96)
In order to enhance a reader’s understanding of Buddha’s attitudes towards theorizing and speculating, Smith provides the “parable of the arrow smeared thickly with poison” (Smith 95). The parable was told by the Buddha to his disciples who deluded him with abstract queries. As the story tells, a man wounded by a poisoned arrow did not allow a surgeon to heal him until he would obtain detailed information about his attacker. Replying to his numerous questions required much time that was necessary for healing and relief from suffering. Therefore, emphasizing the uselessness of such questions, the Buddha states that “Before knowing all this, that man would die” (Smith 96). However, in Buddhism, in accordance with the First Noble Truth, the concept of suffering or dukkha is much broader in comparison with painful sensations; besides physical manifestations, suffering involves all spheres of life (Smith 99).
According to Buddhism, questions insistently asked by the wounded man fall into the category of non-judged or not considered queries because of their uselessness for achieving relief from suffering. Questions that are merely speculative in nature, as well as answers to them, only lead to greater confusion. It is possible to deal with such questions for years but never come to the conclusion. People can only answer them grounding on their own imagination instead of complete comprehension. Answers given by an ordinary person who has not become enlightened yet will be simplistic conjectures (Smith 98). Furthermore, it is apparent from Smith’s interpretation of Buddhism that humans’ incessant search for truth is also useless because it can divert a person from practice into fruitless speculation (Smith 95).
Accentuating the uniqueness of Buddhism, Smith defines it as empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and directed to individuals’ religion (98). Although Smith substantiates every characteristic feature, some of them evoke perplexity. For instance, I have never associated pragmatism with any religion before. However, having explored the parable of the poisoned arrow and the wounded man and the Four Nobel Truths of Buddhism, I realized that the Buddha’s refusal to answer his disciples’ questions was really rooted in pragmatism.
In terms of philosophy, pragmatism identifies practice and experience as the main methodological principle and considers the practical effectiveness of theories to be the main criterion for their truth and reasonability. Coinciding with pragmatism in the orientation towards reasonable practicality and expediency, Buddhism goes beyond science and assesses the utility of a particular method from the point of view of its practical implications. Unless the Buddha’s “teachings were useful tools, they had no value whatsoever” (Smith 98).
Summing up, Buddhism significantly differs from the doctrines of Christianity and Islam. These religions promulgate unquestioning leadership of the divine essence over the human will. On the contrary, the pragmatism of Buddhism allows abandoning its postulates if they are beneath criticism and do not entail reasonable practicality.
Work Cited
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions. HarperCollins, 1991.
The concept of Buddhism evolved around 563 BCE. It is a philosophy of life based on the teachings of Lord Gautama Buddha. On the other hand, Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity stems from Judaism, as it is a form of Abrahamic religion that is monotheistic and believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism and a form of Dharmic religion.
It is polytheistic and does not believe in the existence of a Supreme Creator. The expansion of the two forms of religions saw them gain membership in far of places from their origin. Buddhism expanded moving towards the Far East as Christianity headed towards the West (Tsai, Miao & Seppala, 2007).
Similarities
The Golden rule
Buddhism and Christian faithful believe in the golden rule. Lord Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism based his moral principles on the golden rule. His main apprehension was making sure that the welfare of people was taken care of as he encouraged his followers to practice the same virtues (Lomax, 1996).
Similarly, Jesus Christ’s life involved being approachable as He concentrated on attending to the needs of human beings that included healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and forgiving the sinners among many more actions. These ethics were based on the principle of the golden rule.
Simplicity
Lord Buddha emphasized on people acquiring knowledge to help them attain self-liberation. He rejected extreme asceticism throughout his teachings. These were the same ideologies taught by Jesus Christ. He is said to have advised his followers to share wealth with the poor.
On the other hand, Christianity and Buddhism religions have worshipping practices that are similar such as ringing of bells, use of incense, rosary, monasticism, meditation, erection of towers, and prayers.
The use of statues is common in Buddhism while the Catholics and Orthodox are the frequent users of statues in Christianity. However, they are not used by Protestants even though whenever they are used in Christianity, they guide prayers and meditation (Nelsen, Guth & Fraser, 2001).
Love and Empathy
Love is the most emphasized doctrine in Buddhism. Buddhism demands that all those who subscribe to it must love humanity irrespective of whether the followers are friends or enemies with others. Similarly, Christianity upholds love as Jesus Christ instructed his followers to love their neighbors in the same measure that they love themselves. In his definition of a neighbor, He included both friends and foes.
Differences
The Supreme Creator
Christianity teaches that there is only one God and Jesus is His Son. He is also the savior of humanity. They are both loving and approachable. On the contrary, initial Buddhist doctrines do not show any Godly records. It also pursues the concept that people have to work for their personal salvation (Lomax, 1996). This means that salvation is not dependent of any other person.
This is the opposite of Christianity as Jesus gives salvation freely to those who genuinely follow him. Though both religions believe in eternal life, Buddhism pegs it on karma of a person’s present life.
To Christians, a benefit comes with salvation. The concept of creation of the world is not in Buddhism whereas Christianity holds that God created the world by his word. Finally, Buddhists use canons from Buddha while Christians use the Bible.
Religion
Religion is an unexplained manifestation of supremacy and the existence of what is experienced as being ancient, transformative, and in the process inspires fear and engrossed awareness.
References
Lomax, E. (1996). The Railway Man. New York: Vintage publishers
Nelsen, B., Guth, J. & Fraser, C. (2001). Does Religion Matter? Christianity and Public Support for the European Union. European Union Politics, 2(2), 191-217.
Tsai, J., Miao, F. & Seppala, E. (2007). Good Feelings in Christianity and Buddhism: Religious Differences in Ideal Affect. Perspectives of Social Psychology bulletin, 33(1), 409-421.
America is a very religious country and a country of many religions. According to Butler, Wacker & Balmer (2009), 90 % of Americans believe in God or a supreme being. The fact of religious diversity finds its roots in the bright immigration history of this country and encouraged values of multiculturalism and diversity. Today, America diversity represents many religions from all over the world, such as Protestantism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and other. This paper aims to explore the impact of Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism on the diversity in America today and answer the question what role they are playing in the society.
According to the research by the Pew Research Center (2014), religions like Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and Judaism include only 6% of total American population. Thus, these religions cannot seriously influence the majority of Christians in the country. However, Islam has become a hot topic of debates in recent times. There are many reasons for that, such as the rise of ISIS, a European migration crisis, and series of brutal terrorists attacks by fundamental radical Islamists in recent twenty years. Despite the fact that there is a big gap between Islam as a religion and radical terrorism, many people today make an assumption of their equality. Likewise, the question of immigration and Muslim refugees today is a compulsory theme of US presidential rally. There are many views on that issue from Trump’s desire to ban Muslim immigrants to Obama’s wish of uniting against a common enemy. The same question is in all European news and among EU leaders who cannot find a consensus of how to manage this problem.
Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism take a small but growing share in the religious pattern of America. These religions have a serious impact on the development of American culture and society. For instance, Hinduism was one of the major inspirations of the New Age movement. Likewise, there are many followers of the Indian culture and Hindu practices who like yoga, meditation, and other mental practices. According to Ankerberg & Weldon (2011), Hinduism has a big influence on college campuses, schools of psychology, and transpersonal schools. Thus, Seager (2012) mentions that Buddhism “due to its size and complexity, is unlikely to have an immense impact over the long term” (p.158). However, both Hinduism and Buddhism have many followers, and the number of them continuously rises.
There are many misconceptions of recognizing these religions by Americans. First, many people believe that the majority of Islamic Muslims have Arab nationality. In many cases, it is not true. For instance, the biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. Thus, both Buddhism and Hinduism religions today are represented in popular books and delivered in a simple form without deep concepts. Likewise, there are books in bookstores namely “How to achieve enlightenment in one minute”. In most cases, it seems that all these exotic religions are interpreted through the prism of popular culture and presented as a trendy way of life, rather than serious religion.
Finally, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism cause a big impact on different sides of American life and further expand the American religious diversity. Despite the small size of the religious community in comparison to Christianity, the number of followers constantly rises. Thus, all these old religions today are mainly interpreted by mass media and presented in simplistic forms in relation to current global events or lifestyle trends.
References
Ankerberg, J., & Weldon, J. (2011). The Facts on Hinduism in America. Palm Springs, CA: ATRI Publishing.
Butler, J., Wacker, G., & Balmer, R. (2008). Religion in american life: A short history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seager R. H. (2012). Buddhism in America. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Interreligious dialogue is a conversation and exchange of valuable ideas between religions and faiths for the purpose of discussing the subject of love, non-violence, and solutions to problems and ills of the present world. Renown personalities who have advocated this noble work, such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Thomas Merton, the Pope, and other religious personalities, renounced violence, injustice, and human rights.
However, most of these religious personalities like Nhat Hanh and Merton are apolitical or they don’t indulge or involve themselves in political issues. Nhat Hanh for example, when he was advocating for the end of the war in Vietnam, did not want to take sides, that’s why he was constantly misunderstood by the communist government, making his life in danger.
He was merely advocating for the end of the war by suggesting peaceful means, i.e. talk or dialogue between opposing parties with contrasting ideologies. He suggested that interreligious dialogues could do this, and people in different religions could lead an open communication so that political leaders don’t need to propose war and instead advocate peace.
Moreover, Buddhist monks in Vietnam during the war proposed another alternative to the result of the war, other than what North and South Vietnam wanted, and that was to submit to what the majority of the people really wished for (Queen and King, 1996, p. ix). As we later came to know, no side would give in, and so the war continued.
Interreligious dialogues have been conducted by Buddhist and Christian monks purposely to talk about religion, peace, and love. A historic event on the subject of interreligious dialogue occurred in 1978 when the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue was convened, which started a series of meetings and fruitful discussions between Buddhist and Christian monks.
Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh were both active participants to this kind of dialogue. The duo’s first meeting was in 1966 in the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky. This was a memorable event for the two and for their supporters who saw in the meeting the start of further religious dialogues amongst the various religions which have fostered love and non-violence.
Further progress on the subject of interreligious dialogue was promoted by other well-known personalities on non-violence, for example the Dalai Lama, who suggested a convention for various religious orders to be conducted in Gethsemani.
This was participated in by monks and nuns from the Buddhist traditions and from the Benedictine orders of the Catholic religion. Thomas Merton was honored in this interreligious meeting as a memorial when he died in an accident years before.1
Interest in interreligious dialogue has been promoted in major religions throughout the world because of the positive results it has brought about for the cause of peace, considering that war is instigated by various groups or countries with different religious orientations.
In 1962, the Catholic religion through Pope John XXIII proposed more meetings with the different religions. This was enhanced with moves made by the World Council of Churches, a union of different Protestant denominations, in promoting dialogues and cooperation amongst different faiths.
Up to now, interreligious dialogues serve its purpose of promoting peace and non-violence in a world plagued with so many ideologies, different selfish interests, and competition to be master of the world.
The importance of interreligious dialogue to Thich Nhat Hanh
Interreligious dialogue means the sharing of religious beliefs, ideas, concepts and notions among religions. This is very important in Nhat Hanh’s life as a Buddhist because in doing so, it led to his personal transformation. It is through experience that religion becomes meaningful2.
Nhat Hanh learned to appreciate the teachings of Jesus that he now has an image of Jesus beside the images of Buddha in his personal altar. Nhat Hanh learned many lessons and teachings of Christianity but did not compromise his own faith in Buddhism with that of Christianity.
He learned to engage with other faiths and deepened his own faith. With his dialogues with other religions, Nhat Hanh experienced personal transformation instead of the widespread fear of losing one’s religious identity. (King, 2001, p. 7)
Nhat Hanh and Thomas Merton deepened their own faiths by studying other religions. They reached out to other faiths, religious communities, and exchanged ideas and religious beliefs with them. Thomas Merton had a one-on-one dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and with this experience he enriched and deepened his spirituality.
The same with Nhat Hanh; he welcomes personalities of diverse faiths to his own seminars or workshops and retreats and share religious ideas with them. If he finds something very important in their religious beliefs and teachings, he advises them to return and review their teachings and learn to rediscover or restudy them in order to have more enlightening experience in their own faiths.
Robert King (2001, p. 23) suggests that interreligious dialogue can lead us to better understand other religions and allow us to cooperate with them in addressing the social problems of the world today. The many social ills and problems of the world like famine, war, human rights issues, and natural calamities can be addressed through sharing and collaboration amongst the different religions.
Through sharing and exchange of religious ideas, we can also confront the iniquities and injustice that our fellow human beings experience, especially those living in developing and impoverished countries. We can also answer and stop the continuous environmental degradation that is going on through a collaborative effort among religions.
Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh continued their journey of spiritual transformation by practicing the so-called engaged spirituality, and it is just noble that we have to emulate their example. Nhat Hanh for one exemplifies the notion that experience is more important than words3; thus experience with fellow religious people and other human beings is of paramount importance.
From the time Nhat Hanh and Thomas Merton met at the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky up to the latter’s death, they continued their dialogue or exchange of correspondence, friendly notes, made comments in each others’ published books, and became close as brothers, understanding each others’ culture and religion. Promoting dialogue among religions of the world then became one of their objectives in life.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s Plum Village in France is open to all religions and faith. Here he conducts retreats and workshops, teaching and learning people from other faiths, and inspiring them in the life of contemplation and Buddhism. He asks his listeners to return to their faiths and examine first their own teachings and lessons before having an involved interest in Buddhism. (King, 2001, p. 23)
We can also see how Nhat Hanh values dialogue between different faiths. He welcomes everyone’s ideas and does not seem to oppose them, although he makes suggestions. His ideas and philosophies are all about openness to other’s religion and philosophies. His friendship with Thomas Merton became extraordinary in the sense that they agreed in the objective of Christianity and Buddhism which seem to point to one direction.
Nhat Hanh was a war activist and was leading the opposition to the Vietnam War. He and Merton had a dialogue, and along with the other monks, discussed the causes and reality of the war. They agreed that the war was a spiritual crisis and the religious and contemplative sectors should be concerned about it. Nhat Hanh became actively involved in protesting and ending the war; he wanted to prepare his country for peace.
Together with other religions, especially the Catholic, he organized the youth of Vietnam in bringing about peace. He was also instrumental in setting up the Buddhist Peace Delegation in Paris. (Kiblinger, 2005, p. 92)
Through the meeting and dialogue, Nhat Hanh and Merton developed a spiritual bond between them. They both defended their stand against the war and their love for peace.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s use of Christian topics such as ‘love’ and ‘non-violence’
Thich Nhat Hanh preaches happiness and true love: that both should exist and that happiness can only be attained with true love. This is to follow the teachings of Buddhism which has offered meditations on love. True love can heal and change adverse situations into something worthwhile and meaningful.
Thich Nhat Hanh quotes the teachings of Nagarjuana, a Buddhist philosopher, that if we practice the “Immeasurable Mind of Love”, we can erase anger in our hearts. If we practice the “Immeasurable Mind of Compassion”, we can blot out anxieties and sorrows in our hearts.
If we practice the “Immeasurable Mind of Joy”, we can get away from sadness and joylessness in our hearts. Finally, if we practice the “Immeasurable Mind of Equanimity” we can erase hatred, aversion, and attachment in our hearts.4
Engaged Buddhism promotes love for others by helping and by being aware of the ills of the world.5 During the Vietnam War, Nhat Hanh was active in ending it through the principle of non-violence. He, along with Thomas Merton, advocated non-violence and agreed that the Vietnam War was caused by a conflict in spirituality.
Thich Nhat Hanh, who is the originator and the first to coin the term ‘Engaged Buddhism’, preaches the teachings of Buddha, that these should be studied and followed in order to know the real meaning of love.
The Brahmaviharas refers to the four elements of true love, which are love, compassion, joy, and equanimity, and should be constantly practiced if we are to live with the Brahma, the Universal God, in heaven. (Nhat Hanh, 1998, p. 1)
The teachings of Buddha about love are explained wonderfully in the Metta Sutta which is the Discourse on Love. Thich Nanh Hanh explains that we can attain peace in our hearts through the things we do, like being upright or humble, and use words in our speech that express love. We have to live simple lives and learn to be happy by calming our senses, and not to be carried away by the emotions of others.
We should learn how to be peaceful and calm within because by doing so we can influence others how to be peaceful and calm too, instead of them to influence us6. The Buddha not only taught love and lived with love, he also wished others (us) to be happy and safe, and our hearts to be filled with joy.
Buddha wished peace and tranquility for everyone and everything. Peace for all human beings and all living things is Buddha’s blessing and prayer.7
Promotion of non-violence is one of the tenets of Buddhism, wrote Nhat Hanh. This is also taught in the Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism8. We should not do harm to our fellow human beings, even to animals, nor should we think ill towards them. Anger and ill will should not be felt, if possible, so that harm will not be done on others.
Our love of others should be expressed like a mother’s love and protection to her only child, even risking her life for her child. We should have no limit for our love to the world, and this includes the environment and all the living things in the world. Love should be boundless, that means with no boundaries, it should extend up to the remotest corners of the universe.
Love knows no barriers or obstacles, and our hearts can learn no hatred and enmity. Whatever we do, whatever is our activity, whether working, or just sitting down, we should express love in our hearts.9 In other words, if we have to express love, we should do and feel it with the noblest intention. It is pure love, and this can only be felt by someone who has attained the Buddhahood.
The Buddha also taught his disciples the ways and methods in practicing love. If we are filled with love, we have to send it to only one direction, this should be done several times, up to four times, and after one direction it can be sent in other directions, either above or below.
The mind of love has a wide scope, and can grow far and wide until it can embrace the entire universe. This can also be done with other positive traits such compassion, joy and equanimity.10
We can also do this by being alone, meditating, and looking deeply into our own inner beings. This should be practiced over and over so that our love increases and can spread out to other places and people. We should learn to practice seeing with love because by doing so we forget and blot out anger and hatred in our hearts. While there are these negative emotions in us, we cannot feel real love.
The Path of Purification11 tells us that we know our practice of meditation has achieved some form of success in our mind if we feel:
we are relaxed in our sleep,
we do not experience nightmares anymore,
we are at peace and at ease with the world when we are awake,
we don’t experience depression anymore, and
we feel we can love and be loved by everybody. (Nhat Hanh, 1998, p. 17)
Thich Nhat Hanh’s ideas and reflections on non-violence is widely accepted and admired throughout the world, and he has been acclaimed as one of the best sources on the topic of peace and reconciliation. We should be concerned and engaged to the suffering of the people, especially those who are caught in the middle of war.
We have to attend to the victims of war and violence because by doing so we follow and practice the teachings of Buddha. Suffering is a part of being a Buddhist. Suffering can be felt in heaven and on earth. We suffer when we know and feel compassion to the victims of suffering.
Thich Nhat Hanh says that we should not avoid suffering, instead we have to know and understand it. He describes suffering as being the Noble Truth. Nhat Hanh explains how violence should be met and solved by way of non-violence. Terrorism cannot be met and solved with anger.
You have to understand the causes of terrorism. You cannot solve violence with violence. Terrorists are angry at something, at some causes, and in order to calm them down, you have to understand what causes them to be angry.12
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is caused by anger met with anger. Nhat Hanh explains that the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, were angry at the American people. But then, the United States met anger with anger. They retaliated by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. You cannot solve terrorism with violence. This is just like solving terrorism with terrorism.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s ‘mindfulness’ and ‘interbeing’, and the Tzu Chi Foundation
‘Mindfulness’ and ‘interbeing’ seem to be obscure words in the vocabulary of a non-Buddhist but to a real Engaged Buddhist, these are words he/she has to encounter, understand and live with in order to reach the state of a fulfilled Buddhist.
That may not be far from what a Buddhist aspires for. An Engaged Buddhist can always aspire to being alone in meditation, but he has to care for the world, to be aware of the suffering and the injustice people are experiencing.
The Order of Interbeing is a religious order in Buddhist tradition composed of religious persons like priests and nuns, and also laymen and laywomen, whose vow or mission as religious people include studying, practicing, and observing the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings of the Order of Interbeing. This discipline or way of life promotes the tenets of Buddhist morality and the religion’s social awareness principles.
The Vietnam War, which according to Thich Nhat Hanh is a war of ideologies13, was only starting and the Vietnamese people were concerned of their safety and future in the midst of chaos. During the war, no one seemed to think about religion but the members of the Order of Interbeing experienced calm and serenity in the midst of war and violence. However, they were not lost from the happenings of the world.
They continued to help the victims of violence, organized rallies, wrote and published articles and books against the realities of war. They still observed their Day of Mindfulness at each weekend.14 We should care for the victims of war and violence by easing their pain and suffering. A Buddhist who does this becomes one with suffering.
According to Thich Nhat Hanh, the discipline for the Order of Interbeing is the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings which is itself the precepts in the Brahmajala Sutra. These are concerns of our lives and not mere ideas, i.e. we have to act and not just be concerned with words15. The trainings are interrelated or interconnected.
The mindfulness training leads us to the understanding of the interbeing, which means we cannot be selfish and look only for our own selves but we have to connect ourselves with others. We have to be aware of ourselves, of our minds, and of the world around us. Through this discipline and training, we can lead happy lives, aware of the world, seeking and providing solutions to the problems of everybody or of the world.
We are also able to work for peace in our own simple ways without engaging in war. Practicing the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings is a way of becoming a community leader and an organizer in the community. This is a way of involving one’s self, one’s energy and time, for the concerns of the community. This is real Engaged Buddhism (Nhat Hanh, 2008, p. 161).
The Tzu Chi Foundation is a great example of Engaged Buddhism, and the people who founded and served in the Tzu Chi Foundation must be observing and practicing the Order of Interbeing. The name that is synonymous with Tzu Chi is its founder Chen Yen.
Tzu Chi Foundation founder Cheng Yen is a venerable nun who was asked by about thirty women not to leave Taiwan. She consented to the request of the women only if they commit themselves to the cause of the mission she and her followers were advocating and have dedicated their lives. It was a mission of charity for the distress people of the community – Cheng Yen asked them to be involved in Engaged Buddhism.
The thirty women consented and committed themselves, and thus started the Tzu Chi Foundation which has now grown so large. It has now over five million members worldwide, owning hospitals, television station, a university with a medical school, with millions of followers all ready to help anyone in need. (Huang, 2009, p. 1)
Cheng Yen came from a poor family. She left home at a young age of 24 to become a nun. She personally shaved her head, started serious meditation and studied the Lotus Sutra. Solitary meditation without the formalities of ordination was her way of following the tenets of the Taiwanese Buddhism. (O’Neill, 2010, p. 9)
A certain monk, named the Venerable Yinshun, decided to be Cheng Yen’s tonsure master for her to be formally ordained in 1963. It was Yinshun who first advocated the Humanistic Buddhism, or what was formally named ‘Buddhism of the Human Realm’. Cheng Yen thought of an organization to help alleviate the plight of the poor by helping them in their medical needs, education, and guide them to rise from poverty.
Cheng Yen was challenged by some Catholic nuns, in one of their interreligious dialogues, that Buddhism was not concerned of the world around us and was only concerned of their own selves. Cheng Yen was not only challenged, she did far beyond the call of a Buddhist nun.
Cheng Yen thought of organizing the Buddhists who had remained in their homes or monasteries and were not in touch to the world. Tzu Chi therefore is a form of engaged Buddhism because it involves the Buddhists in social and charitable work, disaster relief, and environmental concerns. (Balfore et al. 2000)
From this experience, Cheng Yen felt a self-transformation, suggesting that Tzu Chi is a religious transformation by itself. Moreover, Tzu Chi is a part of Taiwan’s history, and has become a new religion combining many religious traditions of Taiwan that include Japanese and Chinese Buddhism and even Catholicism. (Huang, 2009, p. 215)
Tzu Chi Foundation has become a global organization helping humanity lift up from sickness, suffering, and poverty. It does not only help Taiwanese or Chinese but anyone who is in dire need of medical attention, and other needs such as food. It also helps people during natural calamities, like earthquakes such as the magnitude 9.0 in Indonesia, resulting in deaths of 80,000 men, women and children.16
Without the philosophy behind Humanistic Buddhism, which is related to Engaged Buddhism or Applied Buddhism, Tzu Chi Foundation would not have been formed.
References
Balfore F. et al. (2000). Cheng Yen. Businessweek, 07/24/2000, Issue 3691, p72-72, 1p, 1. ISSN: 0007-7135.
Huang, C. J. (2009). Charisma and compassion: Cheng Yen and the Buddhist Tzu Chi movement. United States of America: President and Fellows of Harvard College. pp.1-2, 215.
Kiblinger, K. B. (2005). Buddhist inclusivism: attitudes towards religious others. United States of America: Ashgate Publishing Company, p. 91.
King, R. H. (2001). Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh: engaged spirituality in an age of globalization. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
King, S. B. (n.d.). Socially engaged Buddhism: dimensions of Asian spirituality. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kotler, A. ed. (1991). Peace is every step: the path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books, p. 42.
Li, J. (2005). In the wake of tragedy: Tzu Chi Foundation brings the circle of giving to international relief efforts. Harvard Asia Pacific Review. Cambridge: Summer 2005. Vol. 8, Iss. 1; pg. 23, 1 pg.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1975). The miracle of mindfulness: a manual on meditation. Revised edition. Boston: Beacon Press, p. 42.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1995). Living Buddha, living Christ. New York: Riverhead Books. p. 140.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1997). Editor’s introduction. In F. Eppsteiner (Ed.), Interbeing: fourteen guidelines for engaged Buddhism (p. VIII). California: Parallax Press.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1998). Teachings on love. United States of America: Unified Buddhist Church Inc., pp. 11-12.
Nhat Hanh, T. (1999). Going home: Jesus and Buddha as brothers. New York: Riverhead Books. p. 64.
Nhat Hanh, T. and D. Berrigan (2000). The Raft is not the shore: conversations toward a Buddhist/Christian Awareness. Boston: Beacon Press. p. 112.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2002). The Fourteen precepts of Engaged Buddhism. California: Parallax Press. Social Policy, 2002.
Nhat Hanh, Thich (2003). Spiritual reflections on war and peace: A talk by Thich Nhat Hanh – Peace Forum, March 19, 2003, p. 8.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2008). Happiness: essential mindfulness practices. London: Accessible Publishing Systems PTY, Ltd. p. 161.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2008). A History of Engaged Buddhism, A Dharma talk. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociologyof Self Knowledge, VI, 3, Summer 2008, 29-36.
O’Neill, M. (2010). Tzu Chi: serving with compassion. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Pte. Ltd. p. 9.
Polinska, W. (2007). Christian-Buddhist dialogue on loving the enemy. Buddhist-Christian Studies 27. University of Hawaii Press.
Queen, C. S. and S. B. King (1996). Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist liberation movements in Asia. United States of America: State University of New York Press. p. ix.
Footnotes
1 See also Arnold Kotler, ed. (1991). Peace is every step: the path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books, p. 42.
2 Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, living Christ. New York: Riverhead Books, p. 34.
3 See The Raft is not the shore: Conversations toward a Buddhist/Christian Awareness, by Thich Nhat Hanh and Daniel Berrigan, 2000, p. 112.
4 These teachings were taken from Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra, which is a commentary on the Buddha’s teachings, written by a great master. Hanh, Thich Nhat (1998). Teachings on Love. United States of America: Unified Buddhist Church, Inc. 1998. p. 1.
5 See also Christian-Buddhist dialogue on Loving the enemy, by W. Polinska, 2007, p. 89.
6 Thich Nhat Hanh, (1975), The miracle of mindfulness: a manual on meditation. Revised edition. Boston: Beacon Press, p. 42.
7 Thich Nhat Hanh (1998). Teachings on love. United States of America: Unified Buddhist Church Inc. 11-12.
8 See also The Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism, by Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, 2002, p. 39.
9 Discourse on love (Metta Sutta). Thich Nhat Hanh, p. 11.
11 Bhikkhu Nanamoli, trans., The Path of Purification: Visuddhi Magga, The Classic Manual of Buddhist Doctrine & Meditation, as cited in Thich Nhat Hanh’s Teachings on love, p. 16.
12 Thich Nhat Hanh, Spiritual reflections on war and peace: A talk by Thich Nhat Hanh – Peace Forum, March 19, 2003, 8.
13 See History of Engaged Buddhism, A Dharma talk by Thich Nhat Hahn, Hanoi, Vietnam, May 6-7, 2008. p. 30.
14 Editor’s Introduction, F. Eppsteiner, in Thich Nhat, Hahn, Interbeing: fourteen guidelines for engaged Buddhism (p. VIII). California: Parallax Press.
15 See also Thich Nhat Hanh, Going home: Jesus and Buddha as brothers. New York: Riverhead Books, 1999, p. 64.
16 See the article, In the wake of tragedy: Tzu Chi Foundation brings the circle of giving to international relief efforts, by Judith Li, Harvard Asia Pacific Review.
Scarcely celebrated outside Asia before the turn of the twentieth century, nowadays Buddhism became one of the world religions. In fact, numerous people from the most different parts of the world are astonished to see Buddhism attracting more and more adherents in their lands. One of the reasons for such unexpected thriving of Buddhism is in the international refugee movement which established sizable Asian communities along with their religious traditions in North America, Australia, Western Europe, and many more other lands. However, religion quickly became popular among the native people in those lands as it is very appealing for the reason of its practical teachings.
In the following paper, the history of this religion along with its basics will be examined. In addition, the world’s view of Buddhism will be also considered. Evaluating the general information about this religion, it appears that Buddhism is seen as one of the most popular and widespread religions on the earth the reason of its pragmatic and attractive philosophies which are so appealing for people of the most diversified backgrounds and ways of thinking.
Main body
First of all, speaking about Buddhism, the history of its origin is to be discussed. The originator of this religion is Siddhattha Gotama, the son of King Suddhodana ruling in the territory which is now known as Nepal in the seventh century B.C. E. As a result of his search for the sense of life and deep meditations, this outstanding person who was later called Buddha managed to create a new way of thinking and popular philosophy which eventually became one of the most popular religions on the earth.
Further, the most important teachings of Buddhism including the concept of life beginning and the creation of humans are to be discussed. With regards to life origin, Buddhists believe that God appeared to be the source of life (Buddhism par.24). Concerning the origin of humanity, Buddhists state that, again, it was God who presented the first human with the precious gift of life.
Finally, the world’s view of Buddhism is going to be addressed. Generally, Buddhism is seen as a popular and “convenient” religion attracting the most diversified public form all around the world. Buddhism claims an international membership of around 500 million people, with around 500,000 each in North America and Western Europe and, 800,000 in Latin America, and 500,000 in the former republics of the Soviet Union. However, the majority of adherents of this religion are still from Asian territories including Thailand, Sri Lanka, Japan, Myanmar (Burma), South Korea, and China. According to Introduction to Buddhism (n. d., par. 1), its above-described popularity is explained in the following way:
Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity, or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are.
Conclusion
Concluding on all the information related above, it should be stated that Buddhism is considered to be one of the most popular and widespread religions on the earth. It is also one of the fastest-growing religions, and this is no wonder on the reason of pragmatic and appealing philosophies the religion is propagating which are so appealing for people of the most diversified backgrounds and ways of thinking.
There are hardly similarities between the Islam and Buddhist perceptions on ‘the soul’. The differences are more distinct. Nonetheless, close examination reveals a small glimpse of common ground.
The Soul according to Islam: Muslim philosophers have always considered the question of the ‘soul’ in relation to its existence, nature, rationality, objective, and eternity. Ibn Sina, in his piece, The Soul, asserts that the existence and manifestation of the souls can be found in the fact that there is a sense of will- an intangible entity- in human action, i.e. human bodies act in ways that are not natural to them. Sifa, therefore, attributes this aspect to an entity other than the physical body.
This principle then is known as the ‘soul’. And this soul resides in all creations of Allah, including animals and plants. Notably, Sifa presents the aspect of the rational soul, which he argues does not need an extrinsic justification for its existence. It is simply aware of its existence as independent of the body, i.e. it is not concerned with the material world.
But it is quite challenging to understand the Muslim understanding of the nature of the soul. As already implied, Islam views the soul in different ways: as the vegetative part of a plant, the sensitive part of an animal, the rationale part of it, and ultimately as a combination of the three parts. The first two make up the soul’s non-rationale parts. Even more confusing is the fact that Islam mostly uses the soul to mean the ultimate combination of all parts. Therefore, when a Muslim uses the term ‘soul’- if not for the context of use- it is hard to decide whether it refers to the broader aspect, i.e. plant or animal, or merely a part of the whole plant or animal.
But in the end, Islam asserts that the soul is perfect as, through its tools of manifestations (i.e. plants and animals), it is made of both matter and form. This ‘perfection’ is what then makes up the soul’s rationale, i.e. it can be grasped, both theoretically and practically, and relatively understood. It is from this that Islam concludes that the soul is a unity of all its parts in the pursuit of one common goal, i.e. happiness. And since this pursuit is ever continual, the soul is therefore eternal.
‘The Soul’ in Buddhism: One of the most distinct concepts of Buddhism is the assertion that there is no soul. And since the soul does not exist, it cannot manifest itself. This stance was a reaction to a prevailing Indian philosophy on ‘eternalism’, i.e. that all things have eternal and never-changing essences, that are also independent of any interference. The basis of this rebellion was the Buddhist argument it is the belief in the soul, an intangible entity that provides a basis for man’s imprisonment in his ignorance and suffering, i.e. samsara. To abandon this belief is to open the way for nirvana, i.e. enlightenment and liberation.
However, the Buddhist no-soul theory is somewhat contradictory in itself. For instance, with a kind-of turn round, Buddhists claim that the soul cannot be independent of context. In other words, the existence of the soul can only be defined in relation to other things, which are also interdependent. Indeed, this is a notable deviation from the rather explicit and conclusive statement the soul does not exist.
Bu many Buddhists would perhaps justify this stance saying that it is no deviation, i.e. that since the soul is not ‘independent of other things it, therefore, does not exist. However, this stance brings the rather thin line that unites Buddhist and Islam perception on the souls, i.e. Buddhists argue that the soul ‘is only’ expressed in other things (the physical world). Islam argues that the soul is both independently existent as much as it is manifested in other things. Ultimately, Buddhism and Islam seem to believe in the soul, except for whether it is a purely independent entity or not.
The concept of self is one of the foundational in almost any religious view of the world. People perceive faith through individual or collective experience in such a way that it always turns out to be associated with the human person. A person as a metaphysical unit is in different relationships with the unknowable and divine in different religions. It should be noted that any conceptions of oneself in relation to God can influence a variety of ethical decisions and the vision of oneself in society. Close attention is paid to the ascetic Mahayana Buddhism, which at first stood in opposition to other Buddhist branches but gained special fame. In the case of Hinduism, focusing on one of the two main directions, Shaivism and Vishnuism, is not so fundamental. The fact is that the basic parameters of belief are preserved, although the concentration is made on one specific God from the pantheon. It is interesting to consider this relationship between oneself and God in Eastern religions, where the concept of unity and plurality, in principle, is much more elastic than in the religions of the Western tradition.
Self-image and the vision of oneself in Hinduism and Buddhism differ significantly from the traditional Christian paradigm. While in the Christian religious tradition, a person is initially imperfect and stigmatized in the form of original sin, in Eastern religion, an individual has another innate trait. A representative of the Hindu or Buddhist religion has the aspiration and opportunities for self-improvement. In Indian religions, the ability to progress belongs to the human soul ontologically; that is, it is an integral part of people’s existence. This approach forces one to rethink the whole concept of life path in the light of such a religious view of oneself. The journey of a person thus combines spiritual aspirations with a craving for self-improvement. The striving of the flesh is not a prerequisite, but it is obvious that perfection should be primarily of a moral character.
The specificity of the Buddhist concept of the human self lies in the acceptance of the distinction between self and general in a spiritual aspect. The soul of a person does not seem to be something individual and insular for a practitioner of the Buddhist faith. On the contrary, the soul is connected with a metaphysical space, in which a single human personality is not just unimportant but actually non-existent. Improving oneself in this way is a search for unification with the common space of spiritual consciousness.
Speaking about Hinduism, one should constantly take into account the extreme set of separate religious branches that it compilatively represents. Hinduism gathers various religions under its wing, which has historically been necessary to emphasize the difference between Muslim religions. Their idea of the unity of the multitude and the possibility of Hinduism including all Apocrypha and allegories without having a clearly defined canon makes it possible to apply this concept to ideas about the human soul. In Indian beliefs, the I is divided for each person into an eternal self, atman, and a temporary material body. The path of the human soul begins with temptation and charm with illusions, which are born due to the fact that the spirit of a person, intoxicated by ignorance, prefers matter to spirituality (Shin, 2017). Moreover, a person does not become isolated in his only life but experiences many reincarnations, falling into the circle of samskara. A person’s actions during his multiple incarnations constitute his karma, and every true believer should strive to break out of the circle of rebirths at the expense of their actions.
Hindu sacred texts also generally concentrate on philosophical, and religious literature on the theme of getting out of the circle of rebirth and the interaction of the individual soul with the universe and reality. The reality in Hinduism is called Brahman, and the believer should count on establishing harmony with it. The Upanishads, one of the key texts of Hinduism, are precisely focused on describing how Brahman, metaphysical reality, the very essence of life, interacts with human beings. This book shows the reader a cosmogony, a mythical description of the surrounding world. The Upanishads teach the attainment of ethical perfection, a state called jiva (Howard, 2017). The last and fundamental condition for moxa, that is, exclusion from the circle of samskara, is meditation, the practice of spiritual search for balance with God incarnate in the universe. It is especially interesting to consider the practice of meditation in connection with earlier Rigvedic ideas about Hinduism, where the universe is perceived as a mysterious, mystical consciousness (Shin, 2017). Thus, the consciousness of the universe is a kind of thinking object or space with which a person can actually find interaction by applying a sufficient amount of spiritual aspirations. Consciousness in all this does not imply dry logic or precise intellect since this mystical nature of reality can only be experienced through religious revelation like an epiphany.
The main contradiction between Hindu and Buddhist religious philosophy lies precisely in the idea of what the human self is. The Buddhist concept of the soul implies anatman or its ontological absence (Bauer, 2019). It is important that this phenomenon of absence and emptiness in Buddhism is a condition for ethical purification. Through the absence of an idea about the personal, about one’s own, even about the materiality of the surrounding being in a Buddhist practitioner.
According to the legend existing in the ancient oral tradition, the very life path of Buddha was in the search for the original cause of human suffering. The karmic accumulation of suffering in the Buddhist tradition is also present, as well as the idea of atman-self and the existence of vices and attachments that interfere with human enlightenment (Davis & Sahni, 2018). The solution to this dilemma of human existence in Buddhist teachings is the realization of the wisdom of the Void. Infinite nothing shining in the light of Buddhist enlightenment is a way to overcome any suffering, denying it as material and illusional (Dabral, 2019). All forms in Buddhist teaching are unreal, and therefore suffering, always clothed in some form, also in its final form may simply not exist. The structure of reality in Buddhism appears to be relative, and liberation from it as a misconception is at the heart of the living ideas of a Buddhist practitioner.
Thus, Buddha’s teachings are opposed to the Hindu pantheon of religious beliefs, primarily in terms of the personality-God relationship. In the Hindu tradition, a person is perfected in order to break out of the circle of isolation in the material world of suffering, doubt, and temptation. In Buddhist philosophy, there is an existential overcoming of the problem of human suffering at the expense of the nihilistic nullification of the world as such. The world is declared to be non-existent and illusory, and the mind turns out to be not just closed in it but also in its own way generating it. Thus, the consciousness of a Buddhist must be completely open to emptiness and dissolve in it in order to truly unite with the divine.
Dabral, P. (2019). The practice of emptiness (anatman): A Buddhist approach to inner and world peace. In Buddhist studies: Contemporary approaches. Religion Publisher.
Davis, G. F., & Sahni, P. (2018). Variations on anātman: Buddhist themes in deep ecology and in future-directed environmental ethics. Ethics without Self, Dharma without Atman, 253-273. Web.
Howard, V. R. (2017). Dharma: The Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh traditions of India. I.B.Tauris.
Shin, K. (2017). The concept of self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and its implication for interfaith relations. Pickwick Publications.
With the changing trends in the way of life and the environment, establishing effective health system becomes imperative. Humans depend on the surroundings and are after good health. Buddhist lifestyle dictates for predetermined ways of living that respect human life and the environment.
The mind of an individual is attributed with the control every aspect and action of the body. Modern doctors are faced with the challenge of dealing with mind-related ailments. Recent developments suggest that the mind can be the cause of sickness, as well as, be an inevitable source of treatment.
Learning how to meditate can be very helpful in body development and health care. It is now apparent that treating diseases that are considered dangerous depend on the modern technology and science. Countries like Thailand have developed an unconventional way of treating diseases like cancer.
In this context, the holistic method of treatment is common practice in Thailand. The holistic method of treatment is based on nature’s relation with man. Therefore, the treatment promotes the use meditation skills and related benefits (Hathirat 1983).
The principal behind this type of treatment is the Buddhist teachings. Buddhists argue that just like iron and rust, the human mind can generate things that are harmful to the body (Paonil & Sringernyuang 2002). In this regard, having bad thoughts will eventually lead to the same negative results.
From this perspective, a cancer patient is required to relax and contemplate on positive thoughts (Paonil & Sringernyuang 2002). The patient should not think negatively since such may cause death.
Buddhist teachings are clear about how to live one’s life. In most cases, the Buddhism advises on what type of food to eat in order to remain healthy (Paonil & Sringernyuang 2002).
Over the years, so many environmental problems that have been associated with the same are caused by human activities. Religion led by Buddhism advocate for the protection of the environment. Buddhism has various concerns about the methods of environmental preservation.
Buddhism emphasizes on the interconnection concept among the believers. From the concept, people develop everlasting peace between self, divinity and nature. The doctrine stipulates that every human action must be based on the premise of interconnection.
The interconnection doctrine gives ground for the generation of modest, compassionate and balance among the believers. Consequently, this translates into a mitigation of against harm done to the environment. Buddhism teachings dictate that destroying the environment has negative implications on human life (Ratanakul 2004).
Human compassion is another factor that Buddhism uses to protect the environment. Through Buddhism, humans realize that the harm against life is an abomination to divinity. In any case, Buddhism is all about peace with humanity, God and nature.
Buddhism acknowledges that human suffering can be alleviated by living in moderation and peace with other forms of life. In essence, there must be a balance between self-sacrifice and pleasure (Ratanakul 2004). There are benefits of using Buddhism teachings in operating economies that heavily depend on the environment.
Buddhism is aware that environment sustainability solely depends on how humans benefit from the same (Ratanakul 2004). A classical example of how industrialization has destroyed the environment poses great danger for the future generations.
Today, developed economies are seeking help from developing countries that are yet to damage the environment. The magnitude of current environmental destruction explains why global warming is termed as danger to human existence.
References
Hathirat, S. 1983, ‘Buddhist monks as community health workers in Thailand’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 17, no. 19, pp. 1485-1487.
Paonil, W & Sringernyuang, L 2002, ‘Buddhist perspectives on health and healing’, The Chulalongkorn Journal of Buddhist Studies, vol 1, no. 2, pp. 93-105.
Ratanakul, P 2004, ‘Buddhism, health and disease’, Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, vol 15, pp. 162-164.