Category: Buddhism

Introduction

Different faiths have diverse ideas about incarnation. Even though Buddhism and Hinduism hold many of the same concepts, they appear to diverge significantly when it comes to “the self” or “the soul.” Religions like Islam and Christianity believe there is a hereafter where people’s souls will be reunited with their creators (Rösch, 2019). Thus, these faiths affirm the reality of the soul. But “the soul,” often identified as “the self,” is understood in a different way by Buddhists and Hindus. Hinduism’s primary philosophical foundation is the Trinity, and as a result, its teachings place a great value on the Braham or Atman. Besides, the Buddhist faith is based mainly on the Buddha’s education, and adherents do not believe in Atman.

In all religions, the awareness of the soul is generally described by Atman and Anatman. The atman notion is used to describe how individuals have a soul that is separate from their physiques and is not bodily. Contrarily, the idea of Anatman is employed to designate the conviction that there is no self within individual bodies (Fisher & Rinehart, 2016). Atman elucidates that people engage in behaviors not swayed by “the self,” whereas Anatman asserts that human behaviors are controlled by effect and cause in place of the self (Rösch, 2019). The essay is going to analyze metaphysical and practical distinctions between anatman and atman.

Explanation of the Metaphysical and Practical Distinctions between Atman and Anatman

Hinduism holds that each creature has an exclusive soul inside of them that determines how they respond to numerous circumstances. Atman is the name for the unseen soul that exists as a physical form in beings. However, Atman is separate from and unseen to the individual physique; it has supremacy over how individuals convey themselves. Rendering to the Atman notion, Atman is eventually in the custody of people’s reactions to what happens in the outside world (Rösch, 2019). Atman reveals how populaces claim ownership of particular bodily objects, which causes them to experience anguish when anything goes erroneous with them. For instance, when a car driver is hurt in an accident with another vehicle, they hurt car user often blame the driver of the other car. The owner may not have been wounded during the collision, but they are now in anguish since their automobile was damaged. There are repercussions for breaking the law; thus, the person behind the wheel must adhere to driving regulations such as speed limits and structural integrity. Similarly, to have a good rebirth, people must refrain from polluting “the self” with sins committed on this planet, as Atman dictates.

According to Atman, since “the soul” is separate from the physical flesh, it endures even after people pass away (Rösch, 2019). Hindus hold that Atman exists, and the Brahmin doctrines include this belief. Because of a lack of awareness about Brahmin, people have varying viewpoints about Atman. Therefore, to comprehend the notion of Atman correctly, people should first get familiar with Brahmin concepts. According to the Hindu faith, Atman is crucial to rebirth. To realize the true self, people must overcome their egos.

Anatman

In distinction, the impression of Anatman contends that there is no such thing as “the self,” making it the antithesis of Atman. The Buddhist viewpoint on the non-presence of “the self,” as the Hindus assert, is explained using the concept of Anatman. According to Anatman, neither the physical world nor the interiors of living things contain anything resembling a self (Shin & Ariarajah, 2017). Contrary to Atman, which maintains that “the self” dictates how people respond to various conditions, Anatman opposes that first choice and logic have a role in how individuals reply to various conditions. Additionally, Anatman challenges the idea of “the self” by asserting that creatures do not have a “self” and that human characteristics like emotions, personality, awareness, and reasoning govern their behavior.

By arguing that factors and consequences instead of “the self” determine all that occurs in the cosmos, Buddhists hire the Anatman notion to reject the existence of the self in mortals, after being interviewed about his views on Atman, the Buddha allegedly indicated that no aspect of life is everlasting since everything that exists is vicissitudes. This assertion shows that Buddha disagreed with the idea that creatures have a timeless “self” that endures long after their owners have passed away (Shin & Ariarajah, 2017). Therefore, the Buddhist religion does not support the presence of “the self” in the cosmos. Buddhists assert that people should be aware of a change to be ready for pain (dukkha) since they believe in Atman. Buddhism holds that the ego impacts the self and that people utilize it to accomplish meaningful goals in life, contrary to Hinduism, which holds that people should labor on lessening their ego to comprehend the genuine self.

According to Buddhism, the ego impacts one’s sense of self by encouraging people to have wants, which trigger attachments. Those connections drive individuals to correlate with the things they acquire out of personality (Shin & Ariarajah, 2017). However, because this conduct of trying to connect oneself with wants results in dukkha, Buddhism and Anatman hold that to escape dukkha, individuals should work toward nirvana (a state of no-self). A definite illustration of Anatman is when someone’s ego drives them to effort hard to save up for pricey stuff like a high-end sports auto. After buying the automobile, the person will start attaching to it and associating with it. Even if the individual grows attached to the expensive automobile, it may be stolen or damaged, sending the person into a condition of nirvana. Buddhism, therefore, promotes a life devoid of the ego since the self is transient and only serves to heighten suffering (Shin & Ariarajah, 2017). Buddhism, therefore, promotes a life devoid of the ego since the self is transient and only serves to heighten misery.

How Anatman and Atman Notions Draw into Each Faith’s Exclusive Perspective to the Holy (God/Gods) and the Path to Redemption

Both religions have distinct tactics for their revered God (s). Buddhism holds that there is no divine being, but Hinduism affirms the presence of sanctified divinities. Hinduism holds that a number of gods descend from Atman. Hinduism says that as reincarnation occurs according to the cosmic rule of causation, people must be good to avoid being persecuted by Atman (Ramstedt, 2018). The belief asserts that after death, a person’s self takes control and acts as he did while still on earth. If a person has a good life while on earth, they will be happy in their next life since Karma will accompany them.

Nonetheless, if a person committed sins during their time on earth, they will experience bad Karma after rebirth and will have to pay for their transgressions. Hinduism advises people to act in ways they value, living up to the idea of Atman. Hinduism similarly demands that followers of Brahmin doctrines to learn how to prevent negative Karma by doing righteously. Samsara, in Hinduism, refers to salvation (Ramstedt, 2018). Samsara is essentially the soul’s journey or reincarnation after death. In this instance, it is implied that via the migration of self, an individual’s repercussions in this life would accompany them into the next. Thus, the Hindu faith holds that people’s acts decide their way to redemption.

As an outcome, the religion exhorts followers to perform good things now to stop receiving bad Karma in their next reincarnation. On the other hand, Buddhism grosses a slightly dissimilar tack from Hinduism regarding the subject of redemption and consecrated gods. Buddhism does, however, concur with certain of Hinduism’s doctrines on restoration. Buddhism, for instance, accepts nirvana, the cosmic decree of interconnection and rebirth. The idea of the self in assembly to God is where Hinduism and Buddhism diverge. Contrasting Hinduism, Buddhism does not hold to the concept of holy deities.

Considering that Buddhism rejects the existence of the Atman, the idea of redemption is somewhat enigmatic. The philosophy of Gautama Buddha teaches that although transmigration is irregular and transient, it still happens. As a result, the religion holds that since death is not a permanent state, the soul cannot survive it. Buddhism emphasizes that redemption happens via Karma while we are still on earth. According to the faith, doing good deeds results in good Karma while a person is still on earth (Ramstedt, 2018).

However, people will generate bad Karma when they commit acts viewed as evil. As a result, Buddhism urges followers to uphold moral standards to prevent receiving bad Karma in the future (Ramstedt, 2018). Nirvana is a crucial idea that cannot be avoided when talking about the Atman and Anatman in association to redemption and impending sacred divinities. Even though both faiths incorporate the idea of nirvana in their spiritual beliefs, the connotation of the word differs depending on the religion. While Buddhism views nirvana as the state of devouring no soul or self, Hinduism understands it as lighting. Hence, the two faiths employ the idea to support how they view Atman and Anatman in connection to atonement and the self.

Conclusion

This essay’s findings demonstrate significant differences between Hinduism and Buddhism in how they see Atman and Anatman. Hinduism affirms Atman and, by extension, affirms the presence of “the self” in all living things. Anatman is the result of Buddhism’s rejection of the idea of “the soul.” The two religions’ approaches to the means to redemption and the presence of sacred creatures are likewise influenced by these two ideas. Buddhism disbelieves in the presence of a sanctified God, but Hinduism affirms the concept of numerous Gods descended from Atman. Both faiths have a somewhat differentiated perspective on salvation; Hinduism contends that salvation comes through Atman after reincarnation, while Buddhism asserts that salvation comes through Karma on earth. However, there is an agreement between the two religions regarding the rule of Karma regarding how salvation takes place, even though it follows each religion’s doctrines at a distinct period.

References

Fisher, M. P., & Rinehart, R. (2016). Living religions (10^th ed.). Pearson.

Ramstedt, M. (2018). Hinduism and buddhism. In Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Indonesia (pp. 267–283). Routledge.

Rösch, P. H. (2019). The birth of individual life concepts: The influences of Arthur Schopenhauer’s Buddhism on Eduard von der Heydt’s collection of Buddhist art. Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 1(1), 159–191.

Shin, K., & Ariarajah, S. W. (2017). The concept of self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and its implication for interfaith relations. Pickwick Publications.

In both Hinduism and Buddhism, the ultimate spiritual goal is liberation. In Hinduism, this ultimate goal is called moksha, and it means one’s shift from one’s finite to infinite self. There are four paths to moksha called yoga: jnana yoga means the path to God through knowledge; bhakti yoga – the path through love; karma yoga – through work; and raja yoga – through psychophysical exercises. In Buddhism, the ultimate goal is enlightenment, which is the liberation from the desire for private fulfillment (tanha).

The Buddhist teachings are based on the Four Noble Truths, according to which life is suffering (dukkha) because individuals are focused on fulfilling their egos, and this suffering can be alleviated if people overcome their egoistic desires. Buddhists believe that, in order to overcome tanha, individuals should follow the Eightfold Path. This paper will compare the paths to moksha with the Four Noble Truths and argue that raja yoga would best utilize the Buddhist method of the Eightfold Path.

The four Hindu pathways to moksha differ from the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism in what aspect of the religion they describe. The Hindu paths provide guidance for people to achieve moksha and “unite the human spirit with the God,” while the Four Noble Truths explain the Buddhist view of the world (Smith 27). However, these two concepts are similar because both of them point to the need for humans to reject self-interest and pursue more profound goals. In particular, the second of the Four Noble Truths posits that suffering results from the desire to fulfill one’s ego, and the third of the Truths suggests that one can end suffering by overcoming these selfish desires (Smith 103). The Hindu paths to God advocate a similar rejection of self-interest.

The Hindu paths use slightly different language, but the meaning remains the same: people should renounce their egoism and devote their lives to God to achieve moksha. For example, jnana yoga advises people to think of themselves in the third person to get a “sense of the infinite Self that underlies one’s transient, finite self (Smith 31). Bhakti yoga calls people to worship one god or goddess through their words and actions. Karma yoga suggests that individuals should perform their duties with God in mind and should not pursue personal benefits: “Desire for the fruits of work must never be your motive in working” (Novak 31). Finally, raja yoga is focused on meditation, through which one can reach the level of concentration that will help one become one with God.

The fourth of the Four Noble Truths says that people can achieve enlightenment through the Eightfold path. From the four Hindu paths, raja yoga seems to be best suited to utilize the Eightfold path. This is because both of them focus on meditation with the purpose of reaching the inner self and gaining deep insights from this experience. The Eightfold path involves eight steps: right views, intent, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. Many of these steps are essential in raja yoga; for example, in order to follow raja yoga, individuals should have moral preliminaries. They should abstain from “injury, lying, stealing, sensuality, and greed” (Smith 44).

These moral preliminaries can be achieved by following the Eightfold path, which requires people to adjust their beliefs, figure out what they really want, watch their speech, and shift their conduct toward “selflessness and charity” (Smith 107). Hence, by using the Eightfold Path, raja yoga will lead to the same goal – achieving high concentration through meditation, but with a more profound effect on the overall life of the individual.

In conclusion, the four Hindu paths are similar to the Four Noble Truths because both of them disapprove of self-interest and call for achieving a deeper self. From all Hindu paths, raja yoga would best utilize the Buddhist Eightfold Path because both of them are focused on meditation and concentration. The Eightfold Path could enrich raja yoga by paying attention to such aspects as the individual’s beliefs, conduct, speech, and occupation.

Works Cited

Novak, Philip. The World’s Wisdom: Sacred Texts of the World’s Religions. HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.

Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

Most Hindus believe in the existence of one God, who can be referred to by different names. Although they might defer on the exact number, they hold on to the significance of their religion and the final emancipation, also referred to as (Moksha) (Cook). The four pathways, jnana, bhakti, karma, and raja, are believed to lead one to Moksha, which is the ultimate goal of life. The pathways work towards achieving a happy life away from suffering, which is attained through a yoga practice that expels any mental impurities, returning to the truth or divine self. All Hindu pathways utilize the Buddhist method of the eightfold path. The Buddha relates life suffering in the Four Noble Truths to that of a physician who identifies the symptoms of the suffering, finds out the causes, identifies ways to stop, and finally administers treatment (Smith and Novak 39). The Hindu pathways and the four Noble truths of Buddhism have similarities and differences in same light.

Similarities

The four Hindu pathways and the four Noble truths of Buddhism share several aspects in common. Firstly, both philosophies aim to attain a happy life free of problems and suffering. The Hindu pathways argue that forgetfulness and disconnect from one’s true self as the primary cause of all suffering. These causes of suffering can be traced back to the truth through exercise and meditation. The Buddhists Noble of Truths consists of the four convictions about life with the acknowledgment that life is a dukka indicating that individuals go through ultimate suffering (Smith and Novak 33). Buddhism identifies eightfold steps individuals can follow to attain liberation to achieve Nirvana.

Secondly, both belief in reincarnation and karma plays a primary role in Hinduism, arguing that every action yields results. Therefore, all actions should consider oneness or a connection with the True Self (Cook). Another similarity between the Hindu pathways and the Buddhist’s Noble of Truths is their need to achieve enlightenment and Moksha. This is believed to stop the reincarnation cycles as well as human suffrage. The ultimate objective of Hindu pathways is to achieve Moksha through meditation and yoga, which removes mind impurities and reunite individuals with their divine self. On the other hand, the Buddhist goal is Nirvana, a state of happiness and peace with oneself.

Differences

One of the differences between the four Noble truths of Buddhism and Hindu pathways is their view of restoration and salvation. According to the Noble of truths, enlightenment can be achieved by following the eightfold paths. The eightfold is the source of suffrage treatment; Buddha argues that individuals can train for life through intentional living (Smith and Novak 40). The Hindu pathways believe that people can achieve enlightenment through different paths, including, devotion, meditation, knowledge, and good deeds; these are displayed through the different yoga.

Another difference is their philosophical goal, Buddhists’ Noble truths aim to eliminate human mental suffering. Buddha claims that a right-mindfulness requires an observation of both mental and physical actions; this includes monitoring body sensations, moods, emotions, and thoughts (Smith and Novak 49). This stems from the arguments that all physical and mental states are dynamic, hence clinging to them could lead to great suffering. Conversely, the Hindu’s four pathways aim to attain salvation and freedom of the soul from sin and other earthly consequences. Achieving Moska means that the individual no longer has greed or worldly desires.

Work Cited

Cook, Tracey. “The 4 Paths of Yoga.” Ekhart Yoga. 2021. Web.

Smith, H., and P. Novak. Buddhism: A concise introduction. 1st ed., HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

In contemporary studies, it is common to consider and study religious currents according to one principle: the connection with spiritual development. In this case, Buddhism differs considerably from the most common religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, and has more features in common with them than with Confucianism. Examples of such features are the quest for enlightenment, the superiority of the spirit over the body, and questions about existence after death. Confucianism is more a philosophical doctrine than a religion, and its connection with the East is strong due to the specifics of the Asian mentality.

The cultures of East Asia, namely China, Japan, Vietnam, and other countries, share several common characteristics that other cultures do not always share. From ancient times, respect for elders and the cult of the teacher have flourished in these countries (Vuong et al., 2018). Whereas many other cultures are accustomed to relying on learning primarily from their own mistakes, the more rhythmic East Asians prefer to take their time in the matter. Respect for elders is instilled in children from infancy, and people of age themselves, in turn, feel responsible for passing on knowledge and experience to the next generations.

Confucius was born into a wealthy family in China but later became impoverished and an itinerant philosopher. According to accepted dogma, his journey and the formation of Confucianism began in the fifth century B.C. (Giordano, 2019). Confucius was not a religious leader but was engaged in conducting ethical teachings on the importance of knowledge, goodness, and justice. The basic principles of his instructions could be described as teaching loyalty to the state, respect for one’s ancestors, and deep reverence and devotion to one’s parents.

Not surprisingly, this philosophical current has remained and spread in those countries where it is closest to the culture of the local population. According to Confucius, anyone with knowledge can become a teacher (Vuong et al., 2018). Furthermore, the philosophical current partly embraces universal religious virtues: compassion, good manners, decency, faithfulness, and discernment. It is worth noting that, unlike most religions, Confucianism does not practice following rules for good conditions after death or in the next life. Its main point is the preservation of harmony and the elimination of disharmony in the current life. Although there are now five different schools of Confucianism: Korean, Japanese, Singaporean, neo- and modern neo-Confucianism, the principles are virtually the same for their followers.

On the other hand, Buddhism can be described as a set of spiritual practices that aim at enlightenment and knowledge of self and the universe, which adds to the religiosity of the teaching. Despite the lack of worship as in the other major religions, this current, which emerged in the sixth century B.C., has the concept of the Buddha, or the person who has attained the highest level of enlightenment (Giordano, 2019). The result of working on oneself and teaching others after death is attaining nirvana, a state without earthly suffering. Pursuing such a goal makes Buddhism similar to other religions, increasing its popularity worldwide. Moreover, the absence of rigid boundaries and obligatory rituals makes it a relatively unburdening religion, which may likewise attract followers.

From the abovementioned, it can be concluded that such a narrow spread of Confucianism is due to the prevalent regional mentality. Buddhism’s more significant popularity in East Asia than in other domains of the world is due to its peaceful, relaxed presentation. The great emphasis placed on teaching oneself and others resonates perfectly with the mentality of eastern peoples. As a result, the final goal of nirvana and the promise of existence without suffering in the afterlife appeal to members of other cultures. To make the final conclusion, treating the philosophical current of Confucianism as a religion would be incorrect due to its concentration on lifelong learning and rules.

References

Giordano, P. J. (2019). Culture and theories of personality: Western, Confucian, and Buddhist perspectives. In Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 661–684). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Web.

Vuong, Q.-H., Bui, Q.-K., La, V.-P., Vuong, T.-T., Nguyen, V.-H. T., Ho, M.-T., Nguyen, H.-K. T., & Ho, M.-T. (2018). Cultural additivity: Behavioural insights from the interaction of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism in folktales. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1-15. Web.

Abstract

My interest in Buddhist meditation is deeply rooted in my desire to find a sense of mental, emotional, and spiritual balance in my life and understand meditation’s benefits. I believe that Buddhist meditation can provide me with the tools to respond to some of my questions on spirituality and cognition. The growing perception is that Buddhist meditation can help reduce stress and anxiety, increase focus and concentration, and improve overall well-being. In addition, Buddhist meditation can assist one in gaining insight into their thoughts and feelings, allowing them to understand themselves better. Some claim that it allows people to cultivate compassion and kindness towards themselves and others.

However, the topic of the study “The Role of Buddhist Meditations to an Individual’s Health” is problematic because it has attracted criticism, and several research has been done to show its ineffectiveness. For example, Cebolla et al. (2017) conducted a study and suggested that meditation could have unwanted effects. Additionally, while some of its positive effects are well-documented, such as improved concentration and focus, it is impossible to measure the subjective and intangible benefits that people may experience while meditating. This makes it difficult to accurately and objectively evaluate the benefits of meditation. Some opponents believe that meditation is a personal practice; therefore, no single answer can be given to its benefits.

Introduction

Meditation is among the most misunderstood part of the Buddhist faith. Based on this, it is crucial to determine if Buddhist meditation can help an individual find mental, emotional, and spiritual balance in their life (Anālayo 2175). The benefits of Buddhist meditation are an interesting topic due to the attention it has attracted from different people and groups. In addition, it enables one to get views from proponents and opponents. The views on the benefits of Buddhist meditation are contentious because it is difficult to quantify the subjective results of meditative practice. The issues it raises are the potential for misuse and becoming overly attached to the practice and the associated beliefs. Despite the negatives, there is evidence that Buddhist meditation can help an individual find a sense of mental, emotional, and spiritual balance in their life.

Discussion

I managed to observe an online service at Hsi Lai Temple in order to deepen my understanding of Buddhist teachings and practice. The online service provided various resources such as articles, videos, lectures, and meditations. I have found the online service to be a great opportunity to learn more about the Buddhist tradition and to engage in spiritual practice from the comfort of my own home. Hsi Lai Temple was founded in 1988 in Hacienda Heights, California (Gordon). It is the largest Buddhist temple in the US, and one of the most influential centers for Chinese Buddhism. The temple serves as a place of spiritual practice, meditation, and teaching and is open to people of all faiths. Hsi Lai is home to three major Buddhist schools, including Pure Land, Chan and Tiantai.

Buddhist meditation is a mental and spiritual practice to attain enlightenment, peace, and insight. Anālayo states that meditation is often used for self-reflection and spiritual growth (2178). The practice has been around for centuries, and its benefits are widely acknowledged. The most obvious benefit of Buddhist meditation is calming the mind and body. This is achieved by focusing on the breath and developing awareness. Practicing this type of meditation can teach one to regulate emotions, reactions, and thoughts (Anālayo 2175). This can lead to an overall sense of well-being and improved emotional health. As a result, by focusing on developing an awareness of that time, one can learn to manage stress better and improve overall mental health.

Buddhist meditation is a powerful tool that can help increase confidence and self-esteem. Through meditation, one can gain insight into their true nature, allowing them to become more aware of their strengths, weaknesses, and capabilities (Anālayo 2178). It helps to create a sense of inner peace, allowing the individual to become more in tune with themselves and their capabilities. This can lead to a more positive self-image, allowing individuals to feel more confident in their abilities. Thus, Buddhist meditation can be a powerful tool for increasing an individual’s confidence and self-esteem, allowing them to feel more secure in their identity and capabilities.

Buddhist meditation has opponents who believe it can damage mental health. Cebolla et al. argue that meditation can lead to increased levels of psychological distress and can cause people to become overly absorbed in their thoughts (7). This can lead to feelings of helplessness, fear, and confusion. These critics point to studies that have found that some people can experience anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to meditation. They argue that meditation can be used to suppress and ignore negative emotions, leading to long-term psychological problems. Furthermore, some opponents of Buddhist meditation claim that it can lead to a state of detachment from reality, whereby people become so focused on their inner world that they cannot make rational decisions.

Moreover, some opponents of Buddhist meditation argue that it can lead to a false sense of security, which has the potential to be damaging. They point to the fact that Buddhist meditation can be used as relaxation, in which individuals use it to avoid dealing with the real world and its problems (Cebolla et al. 8). In addition, critics of Buddhist meditation argue that it can be linked to spiritual bypassing, a term used to describe individuals who use spirituality as a way to avoid dealing with their problems. It is argued that it can lead to difficulties in relationships and a lack of empathy toward others. Thus, some opponents of Buddhist meditation claim that it can be used to suppress emotions, leading to a lack of emotional self-awareness.

One of the main reasons why some people may be against Buddhist meditation is that they find the teachings and philosophy of Buddhism to be too complex or difficult to understand. There are many layers of meaning and interpretation to Buddhism, which are not easy to comprehend (Salguero). This may lead some people to feel overwhelmed and unable to make sense of the teachings. In addition, some people may not want to commit to the lifestyle associated with Buddhist meditation. This includes following a set of rules and guidelines for how to live one’s life, which can be off-putting for those who are accustomed to living a lifestyle without many conditions.

My goal is to determine whether Buddhist meditation can help an individual find a sense of mental, emotional, and spiritual balance in their life. I believe that one of the areas that a person should be mindful of is their spiritual life. According to Anālayo, Buddhist meditation is an excellent way to enhance an individual’s spirituality (2179). Through this practice, one can gain insight into the true nature of the self and develop an understanding of the ultimate truth of reality. As one becomes more aware of the self and its relationship to the world around them, they may also become more compassionate, accepting, and forgiving of themselves and others. Thus, Buddhist meditation can be a powerful tool to help individuals cultivate a more meaningful, spiritual connection with the universe.

Mental health is an integral part that contributes to an individual’s overall health. If a person is not in the right mind, they are less likely to be productive. I would want to know how meditation helps one’s mental well-being. According to the proponents of Buddhist meditation, the practice is based on the philosophy of Buddhism, which emphasizes the importance of mindfulness and living a life of balance and peace (Anālayo 2175). Using this view, Buddhist meditation help to reduce stress, anxiety, and depression and promote overall well-being. When practicing Buddhist meditation, individuals focus on their breath and the present moment. As one gains more experience, one can learn to control their mental state and better manage their thoughts and feelings.

Moreover, it is important to understand the relationship between Buddhist meditation and emotional well-being. There is no single, definitive answer to the question of the relationship between Buddhist meditation and emotional well-being (Salguero). Some view meditation as a way to cultivate a healthy emotional life, while others point to potential pitfalls. Proponents of the view that Buddhist meditation can improve emotional well-being point to its ability to reduce stress, anxiety, and depression and its potential to cultivate positive emotions such as kindness and compassion (Anālayo 2175). On the other hand, Cebolla et al. advise against an overly simplified view of meditation and its ability to improve emotional well-being. Thus, the relationship between Buddhist meditation and emotional well-being is complex and must be evaluated individually.

The findings from resources reveal that Buddhist meditation is an important tool for self-awareness. When practicing meditation, they become aware of their physical body, breath, and thoughts without judgment (Anālayo 2175). Individuals learn to observe their thoughts without identifying with them or reacting to them. They can effectively observe their intrinsic self without judgment and attachment. In addition, individuals become aware of their feelings without attaching to them. They learn to allow the mind to rest and be free of the worries and anxieties of the past and future. As a result, meditation helps one to recognize and accept their innate capacity for contentment.

Conclusion

Buddhist meditation is a powerful practice that can help to cultivate physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. I have learned that meditation helps to cultivate mindfulness, reduce stress, and improve concentration. Regular meditation can reduce anxiety and help to improve one’s overall quality of life. It can help to strengthen one’s sense of purpose and cultivate a sense of peace and contentment. With this practice, I believe I can enhance my health and well-being. One new thing I have learned is that the benefits of meditation are unique to everyone, and each person is likely to have their testimony. This is what the opponents have been using to criticize the practice. For my growth knowledge which is helpful for the course and contribution, extensive research is integral to understanding concepts and making an informed decision.

Works Cited

Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The Insight Knowledge of Fear and Adverse Effects of Mindfulness Practices.” Mindfulness, vol. 10, no. 10, 2019, pp. 2172-2185. Web.

Cebolla, Ausiàs, et al. “Unwanted Effects: Is There a Negative Side of Meditation? A Multicentre Survey.” PloS one, vol. 12, no. 9, 2017, p. e0183137. Web.

Gordon, Robert Edward. Buddhist Architecture in America: Building for Enlightenment. Taylor & Francis, 2022.

Salguero, Pierce. There Is Much More to Mindfulness Than the Popular Media Hype. The Conversation, Web.

Introduction

The phrase “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) comes to mind whenever one brings up the question of existence and Descartes; however, this particular phrase does not appear in its current format in “Meditations.” In fact, “cogito ergo sum” could even be considered as being an overly simplified representation of the idea of the existence of the self that Descartes developed. Before simplifying his approach, Descartes expounded upon it in “Meditations” by considering the “self” as a “thinking thing” that happens to be based on its ability to interpret outside information and develop its observations and conclusions (Descartes 26).

On the other end of the spectrum, Buddha thinks that there is no such thing as “the self”, instead, there is an amalgam of form, sensation, perception, thought, and consciousness. Through Buddhist teachings, a person supposedly could overcome these “limitations” and attain nirvana where the concept of “the self” per se does not exist (Carter 4). It is the assumption of this paper that Descartes’ perspective and the teachings of Buddha on the self are inherently incompatible due to their different perspectives on what constitutes “the self”.

Understanding the Perspective of Descartes

Descartes’ understanding of the existence of the self has its origins in the capacity to doubt. Simply put, if a person is capable of doubting their existence, then they must exist since they can question whether they are real or not. This is based on the premise that something that does not exist cannot think, let alone doubt something. Building upon this assertion, Descartes then begins the process of asking himself what he is.

From his perspective, the mind can be considered as a substance, and he interprets the concept of this “substance” as something that can exist independently of all things aside from the power of God who sustains it (according to Descartes, God is a necessary aspect towards all existence) (Descartes 27). Since the mind can be considered as a substance, then what is its essence?

Descartes interprets this as “thought” where the faculties to think, consider, doubt, confirm, and evaluate are all manifestations of the mind’s ability to think. Therefore, Descartes determines that he is, in essence, a thing that thinks and this logic is thus applicable to other individuals. Further evidence to support this perspective is Descartes’ interpretation of the senses, which is made using the example of wax. Having examined his five senses, Descartes stated that he is capable of knowing the properties of the wax (smell, taste, touch), but without his mind to interpret the changes that occur to the wax as it is manipulated or processed, his comprehension of it would be vague.

This interpretation is similar to what many perceive as the difference in existence between humans and animals since animals fully rely on instinct to survive while humans utilize thought processes that originate from their mind (Descartes 28). This is not to say that animals do not have minds and thus do not exist; rather, it is more accurate to state that they do exist but cannot have an understanding of the concept of the “self”.

Counterargument: the Perspective of Buddha

The perspective of Buddha differs significantly from that of Descartes since, while Buddha acknowledges the concept of form, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness, these are considered independent factors that contribute to the formation of the self (Carter 2). From the perspective of Buddha, there is no such thing as “the self”; rather, it would be more precise to assume that “the self” manifests itself as a direct result of form, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness coming together. The self is thus not autonomous, it is merely a by-product of these factors of which development is comprised(Carter 3).

From this perspective, it can be interpreted that the concept of “self” for Buddha is not elucidated through intrinsic thoughts or development, but it is something that appears as a result of factors someone has no control over. And the reason is that form, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness are experienced whether a person wants them or not.

Comparing the Two Perspectives

When comparing the two perspectives, it becomes apparent that they are incompatible. While Buddha does acknowledge that sensation, perception, thought and consciousness are important when it comes to the concept of “the self”, he interprets them as separate factors that contribute to its creation. Descartes, on the other hand, perceives the “self” as something originating from thoughts and consciousness and is an innate trait of “thinking things” that are capable of rational thought. For Buddha, the concept of the self is considered as a limitation that a person should strive to remove to attain nirvana; Descartes, on the contrary, considers such an act horrifying.

Conclusion

Based on everything that has been discussed thus far, this paper can conclude that Descartes’ perspective and the teachings of Buddha on the self are inherently incompatible due to their different views on what constitutes “the self”. All in all, the view of Descartes makes more sense since achieving nirvana in compliance with Buddha’s teachings seems to be the same as being dead, since the inability to have any sense of self means to be an “unthinking thing”, which can be defined as a corpse.

Works Cited

Carter, John Ross., and Mahinda Palihawadana. The Dhammapada. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings Of Descartes. England: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print.

Along all its history, the humanity was trying to find out what self is, and how the part called myself can be defined and explained. Philosophers from both the East and the West provided their special explanations. At some points, these assumptions had similar points that give us the idea that the verity is near. The definitions of self unite philosophy theories of distant parts of the world. The similarity of ideas of David Hume, a British philosopher and Buddhist views on the concept of self are a representative issue at this point.

The philosophical ideas of David Hume, a prominent philosopher of the eighteenth century, are still widely referred to and discussed. Hume provided the explanation to many general and essential concepts of the world, God, the human mind, beliefs, etc. at his A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume’s philosophy is based on the ideas that all the knowledge of the world is gained from the interaction of human’s experiences (impressions) and the thoughts. The thoughts are formed on impressions. The previously gained experience is processed into new ideas, so the imagined things always have a defined background; imagination does not come from nowhere.

Applying this template to the idea of self, Hume claimed that the notion of constant personal me has no ground, as the impression of self has no initial core or experience to be derived from. If it would exist “that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives”, Hume says (Velasquez, 2013, p. 387). However, according to him, no such impression can be found. All the experiences and impressions follow each other changing all the time, combining and recombining every moment at different proportion, never the same. Thus, there is not a single possibility of existing something that could be called self at all.

Eastern philosophy of Buddhism originates from the region that is Nepal territory nowadays. The ideas of Buddhism practice following the “middle way”, the lifestyle that is between excessive pleasure and strict asceticism. According to the doctrines of Theravada group one of the major groups of Buddha followers, who claim their doctrines to be the true Buddhism teachings, everything in the universe is constantly changing following the Wheel of Life, and nothing stays constant all the time. Buddhists say, “All things are aggregates composed of elements that inevitably change and separate over time” (Velasquez, 2013, p. 104).

Therefore, nothing stays permanent and thus cannot be defined as an individual. Movement and constant change, dissolution and interfusion are the normal states of everything that exists. The self as a part of this universe also is in the state of constant flux and moving, combining and recombining every single moment of the time, consisting of perpetually shifting emotions, experiences, feelings, senses. Buddhist philosophy states that self, referred either to both body and mind, cannot possibly exist as something constant and always is a combination of mutually replacing elements and is not even capable of self-controlling. The body gets old, gets sick, gets disabled. The mind, thus it knows what is right, tends to turn the wrong way, do the things considered as evil and destructive.

Hume’s ideas on the concept of self at this point have a close ring of Buddhist understanding. Both philosophies deny the very existence of the self as it is generally claimed to be constant, some kind of a core that defines the inner word of an individual. According to both Hume and Buddhism understandings, the existence of core-self is impossible. Hume’s inner world is seen as a reflection of the impressions of the world around that succeed each other every time and the thoughts that appear due to processing of these impressions that constantly change too.

The above correlates with the Buddhist approach to the point that there is nothing constant in the world, and individual’s mind and body as considerable containers of the self are not an exclusion. Thus, self, not having the firm ground is not constant, altering and flowing all the time as its elements regroup. It is never possible to be considered as the same. Therefore, the self as we know it according to David Hume and Buddhism does not exist at all.

It is amazing how two entirely different cultures from distant places at different times could come up with the similar ideas on one of the fundamental concepts that defines an individual’s nature. The theories of the eighteenth-century philosopher from Scotland strongly relate to the key idea of the most spread doctrine of the East, originated fifth century BC. Despite the difference in the background, explanations and approach, both philosophic studies draw the analogous conclusion. The conclusion is that a human refers to as myself, pays much attention to it, forms his or her lifestyle grounds opinion and thoughts referring to it, is something that might not even be real. Moreover, the explanations directing to this “inexistence” are of the akin nature.

Reference

Velasquez, M. (2013). Philosophy: A text with readings. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Introduction

Logical positivism, which aims at legitimizing philosophical phenomena discourses based on empirical evidence, heralded the science of philosophy. Before the era of verificationism, philosophy had gray areas such as whether scientific proof could elucidate facts about invisible things or scientific schools of thoughts could be justified (Uebel, 2013). One realm of humankind’s social life that is always mysterious is religion.

Different religious denominations exist due to the religious schisms that occurred during religious reformations period, with every sect professing its religion as supreme and only true. Though religion is about living a life that pleases a supreme deity, there are religious practices that are contrary to religious teachings, and thus phenomenal. In this view, this research paper aims at understanding the Tibetan monks’ practice of feeding the remains of one of their own to vultures, upon their demise, based on the Durkheim and Wittgensteinian’s approaches to social philosophy.

Tibetan Buddhists are amongst the most pious people due to their dedicated praying and meditations, besides being wise and kind. However, the act of living monks discarding the remains of their dead colleagues to vultures negates kindness in the eyes of many people. Most religions believe in burying the dead and consecrating their graves as a sign of respect and a proper send off to the after-life.

In addition, burying the dead makes them not to haunt the living since some religions believe in reincarnations and resurrections. Though this practice appears strange and perverse, there is a plausible explanation behind it. Perhaps the Buddhists’ point of view legitimizes their actions in an attempt to erase any negative perceptions.

The Durkheim’s Approach

As the bottom-line of Emile Durkheim’s doctrine on sociology was to understand society, there must be avoidance of reductionism and consideration of social phenomena as general things. According to Durkheim, social problems should be devoid of biological or philosophical explanations since they are not inherent in any individual and are unique with distinct determinants. Moreover, social problems continue long after a person has passed on and have forceful power among the living.

On religion, Emile Durkheim avers that religion was communal rather than individual, and religious phenomena emerge when there is a separation between the realm of profane and realm of sacred (Mauss, Hubert, & Hertz, 2016). In this light, one can thus explain a social phenomenon from a holistic point of view as opposed to focusing on the individuals executing the act. Sociologists should thus interrogate the phenomenon of the Tibetan monks who feed vultures the carcass of their colleagues as the external pressure acting on the group against the individual predilections of the monks.

The physical environment of Tibet has compelled the Tibetan monks to embrace scavenging by vultures as a means of disposing dead monks’ bodies against their will. The Buddhist monks believe in jhator, a sky burial (Pedersen, 2013). When a monk dies, his colleagues sever him into pieces and ferry him to the mountaintops for vultures to devour the corpse. As Tibet is located high in the Himalayas Mountains, there are no trees for building coffins or cremations.

Furthermore, the place is so rocky that digging graves is almost impossible. The Tibetans believe that the body is just a vessel housing the spirit, which is more important and ascends to heaven.

The physical environment is thus the monks’ explanation as to why they prefer the sky burial. The environment is an external force acting on the monks and compelling them to adopt a ritual that undermines their virtue of kindness and the sanctity souls that once lived. According to Hollis (1994), the environmental influence falls under the ontology of naturalistic. The environment is part of nature that has hidden elements that determine actors’ consciousness and actions, and further constitutes the realities of the social world. The environment is the determinant of human actions, and thus, in line with Hollis’ (1994) proclamation of Mill’s theory on the lack of liberalism, which holds that humans are incapable of making decisions without coercion from factors beyond their conscience.

The Wittgensteinian’s Approach

Ludwig Wittgenstein holds on two philosophies in which the first one concerns the logical association of proposition and the world for the establishment of the logic behind this connection solves the philosophical problem. The second one refutes the most of the assumptions of the first philosophy for it holds that the meaning of words lies within the context of the language game used. The concepts of his second philosophy, exemplified in his book, Philosophical Investigations, can explain the monks’ action.

Wittgenstein once informs a friend, Soren Kierkegaard, that Christianity is not a hypothesis about the attributes of paranormal entities, but it is the existing communication, whose requirement is moral rather than intellectual (Burley, 2015). Wittgenstein tried to assert that religion, just as philosophy, consists of theories seeking to explain the relationship between language and the world, and that description should replace explanations.

The monks have their reasons for disposing of the corpse via sky burials, which does not augur well with a majority of the populace. However, from the Wittgensteinian point of view, questioning this disposal method that the monks have enshrined in their religion negates religion. This view applies because questioning is an intellectual process that ultimately leads to the generation of theories that aimed at understanding this phenomenon, which Wittgenstein shunned.

Chopping up a human body in the eyes of many people is barbaric but in their defense, the monks perceive the body to be just a vessel that houses the spirit. Hacking a corpse into pieces is thus a way of hastening the release of the spirit into the spirit world (Bauer, 2014). Prior to chopping the dead bodies, the monks chant prayers and meditate, as a way of communicating to ‘Buddha’ to accept the incoming spirit and legitimize the disposal.

The meaning of the monks’ actions is thus enshrined in the description of the entire funeral process rather than just looking at the disposal part alone. The Wittgensteinian approach justifies the monks’ burial practices through fideism, which states that faith is independent of reason.

The Wittgensteinian approach is in harmony with Hollis’ (1994) Marxist epistemology that states that social being determines man’s conscience as opposed to man’s being a determiner his consciousness. Fideism obviates reason and zombifies the monks’ actions in the name of acting within the confines of the Buddhist religious norms. Since hacking of dead bodies is entrenched in their burial rituals and practices, and their progenitors practiced it for generations, the monks’ consciences are clear. Sky burial can, therefore, act as a rule governing Buddhism burial ritual, and thus, according to the Wittgensteinian approach, it has a meaning in the ‘game’ that is the burial ritual.

Assessment

Both the Durkheimian and Wittgensteinian approaches hold that the act of sky burial is a group’s undertaking and do not focus on the individuals. The two approaches uphold ‘individualism’ of human actions. Moreover, both approaches are unanimous that external pressures, either natural or supernatural, govern human actions. These external pressures are beyond humanity’s conscience, and are the contributing factors to humankind’s inability to practice ‘liberalism’.

The two approaches also support Mill’s theory on ontology, ‘being’, which holds that social being determines human conscience, which ultimately results in actions determining the structure.

In contrast, the two approaches differ in epistemology and application. Durkheimian approach does not attempt to explain the monks’ actions, and therefore, similar to Marxist epistemology. Comparatively, the Durkheimian approach tries to account for the rationale behind their action in the same way as Mill’s epistemology. Essentially, the former attempts to establish a methodology that allows the determination of the results or actions.

The approach embraces scientific reasoning to justify the action by looking at the circumstances underlying the action. This approach is commensurate to Bacon’s first theory of establishing the truth, rationalism, which Hollis (1994) elucidates very well in his book (1994). Though many people consider rationalism obsolete for empiricism, rationalism is the best way of establishing the truth about the causal order, according to Hollis (1994).

Conclusion

Even though social philosophies have been continually evolving, social philosophers cannot explain social phenomena based on a single philosophical standpoint. Social phenomena are complex, and key in deciphering and understanding their underpinnings is adopting an approach that captures the phenomena holistically. This approach draws inspiration from the inherent nature of interacting individuals making up the society. As a result of social dynamism, both the Durkheimian and Wittgensteinian social philosophies hold water and are indispensable in explaining social behavior.

References

Bauer, K. (2014). Vultures of Tibet. American Anthropologist, 116(2), 425-428.

Burley, M. (2015). Thomas Caroll: Wittgenstein within the philosophy of religion. International Journal for Philosophy and Religion, 77(2), 179-182.

Hollis, M. (1994).The philosophy of social science. United Kingdom, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mauss, M., Hubert, H., & Hertz, R. (2016). Saints, heroes, myths and rites: Classical Durkheimian studies of religion and society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pedersen, D. (2013). Forensic medicine seen through the eyes of a social anthropologist. Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Medicine, 19(1), 13-15.

Uebel, T. (2013). ‘Logical positivism’- ‘logical empiricism’: What is in a name? Perspectives on Science, 21(1), 58-99.

In China, many philosophers and writers admit an evident connection between the ideas of Daoism and Buddhism. Daoism (also known as Taoism) is one of the oldest philosophical systems that began in China. It was introduced by the Han people at the end of the 5^th century A.D. and became an influential factor in Chinese culture, science, psychology, and customs.¹ Buddhism arrived in China later and had to encounter with the already offered Daoism traditions and rules. The necessity to live and respect two different philosophies, a new direction, was introduced.

It was called Chan Buddhism, the product of Daoism and Buddhism developed in China. It was important for the citizens to recognize and consider all core concepts of Daoism and investigate the Chinese environment to create one powerful idea. Though it was “a radical reaffirmation of the primacy of embodied practice”,² Chan Buddhism promoted harmony between a human body and mind. However, to comprehend the peculiarities of Chan Buddhism, it is necessary to discuss the multifarious influences of Daoism on Buddhism.

In this paper, the impact of Daoism on Chan Buddhism will be discussed in terms of these two philosophies’ arrivals and development in China and the understanding of such concepts as individualism, meditation, emptiness, and knowledge. Daoism’s influence on Buddhism cannot be neglected because it proves the power and importance of traditions Chinese people respected and respect for an extended period.

To comprehend the connection between Daoism and Buddhism and the possible influence of the former on the latter, it is expected to identify the main concepts of Taoism in Chinese philosophy and culture first. Tang defines religion as a social phenomenon with the help of which historical development and cultural preferences could be understood and investigated.³ China is the country known by its religious variety; however, Taoism remains its only indigenous religion. It promoted spiritual harmony and humanistic ideals.

According to Taoists, there was a need to have sage, who was able to bring social order to its people and its government.⁴ It was necessary to find a balance between what people wanted to do and what they had to do. It was not an easy task to be a devoted Chinese citizen. It was necessary to follow the rules but never forget about personal freedoms and interests. At the same time, people had to stay natural and free themselves from their selfish thoughts and behaviors that could embrace the desired simplicity of human life. The supporters of Taoism had to know how to embrace novelties and changes instead of fighting them.⁵ Therefore, Taoists prepared people for various actions and unpredictable outcomes. In addition to some clear thoughts and beliefs, Taoists developed a metaphysical study in terms of which the importance of learning the mystery, known as Hsuan-Hsueh, could not be diminished.⁶ In other words, Daoism in China has deep and influential roots. Therefore, its impact on every new philosophy and religion that came to China was evident.

The arrival of Buddhism in China during the Han Dynasty’s ruling was explained by the development of trans-Eurasian trade.⁷ Buddhism was originated from Indian beliefs and lifestyles. An Indian monk, Bodhidharma, came to southeast China by sea. His attempts to persuade the current Emperor Wu-Ti Liang and accept the esoteric ways of thinking failed.⁸ What he needed was the support of other Chinese schools. Taoists were the first philosophers, who welcomed Buddhism in China. Although Taoist concepts and terms were used to interpret Buddhism, the foreigners were lucky to have such support and recognition. It was necessary to connect their thoughts with the theory of mystery learning. The success of Buddhism practice in China was explained by the possibility of neither being in one specific place nor being dependent on certain textual studies but gain understanding through personal practices and attitudes.⁹

People, who believed that reading promoted weak vital energy and supported the idea of acting as the possibility to realize themselves, create the school known as Chan Buddhism. Gautama Buddha was the founder of Buddhism in India. It was a young prince who refused all his powers and richness to solve the suffering and the inevitability of death. After not eating and mortifying himself for a couple of years, he defined himself as Enlightened and began teaching other people. He became a sage for millions of people. Taoists found such attitudes to understanding the essence of human life clear and working enough to pay attention to it. Therefore, Buddhism had one idea in common with Daoism to be recognized and supported in China. However, the development of that school was not an easy process.

The Chinese transformation of Buddhism was complicated. Still, the results of those transformations proved the possibility of being changed from “an Indian religion of non-ego” to “a humanistic religion” in China.¹⁰ As well as in Indian, the Chinese Buddha was defined as a deity. However, the main difference was the presence of three aspects of understanding Buddha’s power in human life. The same “triple” attitude to the development of Chan Buddhism was offered by Wing-Tsit Chan in his discussions of Buddhism transformations in China. The development of religion occurred in three crucial stages, where the influence of Daoism was irreversible.

First, the growth of the Pure Land School was observed.¹¹ It was beginning when Chinese people met Buddhism for the first time. Before Buddha, in China, two emperors were defined as the worth of worshipping because of their awareness of the secrets of immortality. The Pure Land was introduced as an opportunity for people to save their souls and use retribution as a means of justice for everyone regardless of their statuses, income levels, and heritage. The hope of rebirth was presented to everyone. However, Chinese people could not accept Indian Buddhism without any respect for their leaders and deities. Therefore, Daoism’s impact was recognized in the presence of several Chinese leaders as experts in life after death or immortal life.

Another critical stage of the development of Buddhism in China was characterized by propagating the doctrine of universal salvation¹² Tao-Sheng introduced Buddhism in China from its first arrival. He paid attention to the role of nirvana in the understanding of life and death. He believed that certain people had all chances to become sages for other people. He believed in the power of certain people, but not all of them. Still, he could not develop his thoughts in a vacuum. Taoists were involved in numerous discussions about human nature and the importance of becoming a sage one day. Taoists wanted to prove that every person on earth had a chance of having an indestructible spirit. As a result, the doctrine developed by a Buddhist Tao-Sheng about the indestructibility of a spirit was improved by the goodness of all men’s nature. Daoism helped to promote the triumph of a man in Buddhism.

Finally, the time of Chan came. The doctrine of the Chinese Meditation School was even more revolutionary than the Tao-Sheng doctrine. Chan Buddhism was based on the necessity to look into the personal mind and see its own Buddha’s nature there.¹³ Chan supporters believed that people could achieve salvation only if they abandon all organizations and past beliefs and accept a sacred trust. Daoism was not perfect, but it was just. Therefore, such methods of shouting at followers or even cutting off their fingers were appropriate to make them forget about their habits and rules and open their minds to a new way of thinking.¹⁴

In addition to the already mentioned impact of Daoism on Chan Buddhism, it is also possible to admit that individualism in Buddhism could be explained by the presence of Daoism in religion. Buddhism was based on radical agnosticism and the necessity to analyze the human mind regarding the teachings and thoughts of sages. At the same time, Buddhists believed that the recognition of individualism and personal needs is the core of their belief. It was compared to the mysticism of Daoism and the importance of spiritual guidance.¹⁵ Buddhism was one of the possible forms of a free and happy life. However, it was not enough for Chinese people to concentrate on suffering and immortality. Taoists wanted to teach people how to achieve spiritual harmony with no harm because in case that state could be achieved, immortality could be attained. Chan Buddhism was based on individual needs that made people think about different outcomes and further interpretation of the events that could teach other generations.

With the development of Buddhism in China, it was necessary to think about the methods with the help of which people could gain knowledge and comprehend the basics of the chosen religion. Many Indian religions were based on meditation. In Chan Buddhism, meditation was used as a practical experience with the help of which people could sacrifice and pray. It was the only true activity available to people and approved by its philosophy.¹⁶ Buddhism schools had several yoga manuals. When Buddhism was introduced in China, it was expected that all those scriptures and manuals were translated. However, in many cases, the translations were done under the control of Daoism representatives. Therefore, many concepts and meanings were still taken from Daoism just to be clear for its people. Meditation and yoga remained to be the activities that arrived from India. Still, Taoists’ impact could not be neglected because Daoism made Buddhism available and comprehensive for the Chinese people in the second century.

In a short period, Chan Buddhism was available and supported by many Chinese people. It was hard to comprehend how it could co-exist with such strong religions as Daoism and Confucianism. Still, it was based on knowledge, and that knowledge helped to comprehend what true salvation really meant. Many people could not define reality from illusions.¹⁷ They did not understand what they had to strive for and why they had to do all those things. Buddhism helped to provide Daoism with meaning. “It is knowledge not of an object but of the mind, and no knowledge of its nature but penetrating knowledge that mind is not an object, has no nature, indeed, that it is empty, nothing at all.”¹⁸ Emptiness and knowledge became the two main characteristics of Chan Buddhism in China. It was not too complicated to accept a new truth. It was a challenge to make people believe that everything discussed above could happen with each of them.

In general, the analysis of the peculiarities of Daoism and Buddhism and their development in China shows that these two religions have many things in common. Both of them support the idea of individuality in a certain sense. Though Daoism is an indigenous philosophy, and Buddhism is a foreign philosophy, they had many supporters and opponents during different centuries. Without any doubt, Daoism had a certain impact on the development of Chan Buddhism in China. It could be explained by the fact that before Buddhism, Chinese people were evident supporters of Daoism. They believed that immortality could be achieved. However, they did not have appropriate directions and examples. The example that came from India in Buddhism was an effective means to show how individualism, mind control, spirituality, and sagehood could be achieved. Daoism and Buddhism were two religions that depicted the development of the whole nation. They helped to teach generations and support even the weakest believers.

Bibliography

Allen, Barry. “The Virtual and the Vacant-Emptiness and Knowledge in Chan and Daoism.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 3 (2010): 457-471.

“Chan Buddhism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Chan, Wing-Tsit. “Transformation of Buddhism in China.” Philosophy East &West 7, no. 3/4 (1958): 107-116. Web.

Knaul, Livia. “Chuang-Tzu and the Chinese Ancestry of Chan Buddhism.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13 (1986): 411-428.

Shan, Chun. Major Aspects of Chinese Religion and Philosophy: Dao of Inner Saint and Outer King. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Shih, Hu. English Writings of Hu Shih: Chinese Philosophy and Intellectual History, Volume 2. Edited by Chih-Ping Chou. Princeton: Springer, 2013.

Tang, Yijie. Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture. New York: Springer, 2015.

Yi, Wu. “On Chinese Chan in Relation to Taoism.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 12 (1985): 131-154. Web.

Footnotes

1. Yijie Tang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture (New York: Springer, 2015), 173.
2. “Chan Buddhism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
3. Tang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture, 159.
4. Wing-Tsit Chan, “Transformation of Buddhism in China,” Philosophy East &West 7, no. 3/4 (1958): 110. Web.
5. Chun Shan, Major Aspects of Chinese Religion and Philosophy: Dao of Inner Saint and Outer King (New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012), 78.
6. Wu Yi, “On Chinese Chan in Relation to Taoism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 12 (1985): 139. Web.
7. “Chan Buddhism”. Web.
8. Hu Shih, English Writings of Hu Shih: Chinese Philosophy and Intellectual History, Volume 2, ed. Chih-Ping Chou (Princeton: Springer, 2013): 103.
9. “Chan Buddhism,” Web.
10. Chan, “Transformation of Buddhism in China,” 107.
11. Ibid., 109.
12. Chan, “Transformation of Buddhism in China,” 110.
13. Ibid., 112.
14. Ibid., 113.
15. Livia Knaul, “Chuang-Tzu and the Chinese Ancestry of Chan Buddhism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13 (1986): 413.
16. Hu Shih, English Writings of Hu Shih, 104.
17. Barry Allen, “The Virtual and the Vacant-Emptiness and Knowledge in Chan and Daoism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 3 (2010): 457.
18. Ibid., 458.

Introduction/Thesis

There can be only a few doubts that the Confucian concept of Xiao (filial piety) did play an essential role within the context of defining the main postulates of Zen Buddhism. Nevertheless, there appears to have been a phenomenological quality to the development in question, because during the initial phase of Buddhism’s expansion into China this concept used to be commonly regarded contradictory to the religion’s glorification of one’s willingness to indulge in social withdrawal, as well as to the Zen Buddhist outlook on the theological significance and practical implications of monasticism. In this paper, I will expound on how it was possible to the virtue of filial piety to end up being considered an essential part of the Zen Buddhist discursive paradigm. I will also outline the scope of the most powerful effects that the mentioned concept has had on the development of Zen Buddhism as we know it.

Analytical part

It is now assumed that Buddhism began expanding into China through the 3^rd century BC. By this time, Confucianism has already been enjoying the status of an established religion throughout the country. Just as it has commonly been the case with humanity’s other ‘early’ religions (the ones that derived out of people’s animistic/primeval beliefs), Confucianism had a strongly defined utilitarian value to the sounding of most of its provisions, concerned with encouraging people to adopt a socially integrated mode of existence – the central precondition of socio-cultural progress. In this respect, the Xiao principle stands out particularly illustrative.

The reason for this is apparent – according to Confucius, one’s life can only be considered virtuous for as long as the person never ceases to apply a continual effort into maintaining strong ties with his close relatives. As the Master pointed out, “The noble person concerns himself with the root; when the root is established, the Way is born… A young man is to be filial within his family and respectful outside it. He is to be earnest and faithful, overflowing in his love for living beings and intimate with those who are humane”.¹ It is understood, of course, that to be able to live up to the mentioned Confucian ‘commandment,’ an individual must be willing to lead a relatively secular (worldly) lifestyle while keeping in close touch with his/her close relatives and prioritizing his/her social duties above everything else.

Therefore, there is nothing too odd about the fact that the introduction of Buddhism to China has been initially met with much resistance on the Confucian practitioners’ part. The reason for this is quite apparent – most Buddhist cannons can be the least referred to as ‘worldly,’ especially the ones concerned with interpreting the significance of meditation.² This could not be otherwise – the Buddhist four main postulates presuppose that one’s intention to adopt the posture of a socially withdrawn individual is a pathway towards enlightenment, “(1) All life is inevitably sorrowful, (2) sorrow is due to craving, (3) sorrow can only be slopped by the slopping of craving, and (4) this can be done by (leading)… the life of concentration and meditation”.³

And, while experiencing the sensation of emotional alienation from the surrounding physical reality, people are simply in no position to consider caring about the family matters too much, if at all – something that naturally prompts these individuals to consider becoming monks. Given the fact that Buddhist monks were expected to take a vow of celibacy, this complicated the issue even further. After all, celibacy leads to childlessness, and the latter has traditionally been deemed one of the greatest vices in China. In this regard, Zürcher came up with the valuable observation, “Community the members of which profess to ‘withdraw from the household into the houseless state,’ to sever all social ties, to observe strict celibacy throughout life, to shave their heads… ran counter to the most fundamental principles of Chinese ethics”.⁴

Nevertheless, as time went on, the Xiao was being perceived increasingly compatible with the Buddhist paradigm, in general, and with the religion’s Chan (Zen) branch, in particular. The main reason for this was that throughout the 5^th-12^th centuries AD, many of the most famous Chinese-born advocates of Buddhism continued to apply a great effort in promoting the idea that the principle of filial piety does not only correlate perfectly well with one’s commitment to attaining Bodhi (enlightenment) but that it should be referred to as yet another instrument for lessening the severity of his or her egoistic anxieties. As Xing pointed out, “Chinese Buddhists responded (to the accusation that Buddhism contradicts the Xiao principle) by (i) translations of and references to Buddhist sutras that taught filial behavior; (ii) writing scholarly refutations of the charges of unfilial practices”.⁵ The foremost motivation for them to assume such an argumentative stance had to do with these individuals’ realization of the fact that both the Confucian virtue of Xiao and the Buddhist veneration of social withdrawal were resulting in virtually the same – helping the concerned person to objectify himself/herself within the surrounding environment. Of course, it is understood that this specific objective is entirely consistent with the Buddhist outlook on life; as such, that implies the ephemeral essence of one’s sense of personal self-identity.⁶

Master Mou is commonly listed among the Chinese intellectuals who contributed the most towards making it possible for the concept of filial piety to be incorporated as an integral element of Zen Buddhism. For example, while addressing the suggestion that the Buddhist outlook on the importance of meditation leaves very little room for filial piety, Mou used to point out at the sheer inappropriateness of assessing the issue from the cause-effect perspective, “If one has great virtue, one should not cling to minor matters⁷ Mou’s argument in this respect resulted in undermining the methodological soundness of the Confucian criticism of Buddhism. Mou was also the first Buddhist intellectual who refuted the Confucian claim about the unfilial nature of the Buddhist monastic customs. According to him, the metaphysical considerations of ‘virtue’ (extrapolated by the lifestyle of a monk) should be held in much higher regard than those concerned with ensuring the physical well-being of one’s body.

Sun Chuo was another famous contributor to proving the possibility of syncretism between Confucianism and Buddhism, within the context of how both religions go about defining the significance of filial piety. Specifically, Chuo used to argue the one’s decision to become a Buddhist monk can be considered the highest expression of the Xiao principle at work. The reason for this is that, according to the Buddhist scholar in question, such a decision does not only represent a high moral value as a thing-in-self but also provides much esteem to the parents of a person who comes up with it, “Filial piety is important because it is to establish [their] character by the practice of the [filial] course to forever glorify their parents”.⁸ Chuo was able to formulate yet another important argument in favor of the idea that there is nothing incompatible between the principle of filial piety and Buddhism, by referring to Buddha’s conversion of his own father. This, of course, helped to legitimize the Xiao principle within Buddhism even further.

The emergence and sub-sequential development of the Chan branch of Buddhism established even more preconditions for the Confucian principle in question to be recognized as one of the most fundamental cornerstones of the Buddhist religion, as a whole. In this regard, we will need to mention the intellectual legacy of the Sixth Patriarch Huineng – the founder of the ‘Southern’ school in Chan Buddhism, known for its affiliation with the ‘instantaneous enlightenment’ postulate.⁹ The reason for this is that this postulate implied that even those strongly committed to acting on behalf of their parents and close relatives while leading a thoroughly secularized existence, were still in the position (although purely theoretical) to aspire for the eventual attainment of Buddhahood. As a result, there emerged even more reasons for the Chan practitioners in China to consider their outlook on life perfectly consistent with the Confucian insights into the meaning of one’s existence.

What has been said earlier implies that Xiao’s concept was objectively predetermined to have a strong effect on the very formation of most Zen Buddhist conventions. The validity of this statement can be illustrated with ease, regarding the unmistakably ‘Confucian’ sounding many Zen Buddhist principles and affiliated practices. The most notable of them are as follows:

• There has always been a ‘familial’ quality to the functioning of Zen Buddhist monasteries. That is, Zen Buddhist monks never ceased being expected to treat each other as brothers, in the quite literal sense of this word. And, there can be only a few doubts as to the fact that the Xiao virtue did play an active role in bringing about such a state of affairs. As Schlutter noted, “Chinese monastic Buddhism adopted organizational models and interrelational terms borrowed from the Chinese family kinship system, establishing a kind of ‘fictive’ or ‘putative’ kinship, as anthropologists have called it”.¹⁰ This shows that there is indeed much rationale to the suggestions that Zen Buddhism is reflective of the workings of what now is commonly referred to as one’s ‘Oriental’ (or ‘Asian’) psyche.
• Zen Buddhism contains several implicit provisions that aim to ‘commodity’ women, in the sense of presupposing that there is a positive correlation between the notions of virtue and virginity/chastity, “The Buddhist priest sleeps alone because women (have to) guard their chastity”.¹¹ In its turn, this is best discussed as one of the consequences of embedding the principle of filial piety into the Buddhist paradigm’s very core. After all, the concerned principle never ceased to reflect the strongly patriarchal (male-chauvinist) essence of the relationship between men and women in Chinese society.
• Even though Zen Buddhism presumes that the weaker a person’s willingness to engage in worldly affairs, the better are his chances to succeed in reaching the state of Buddhahood. The concerned religion nevertheless praises the virtue of one’s loyalty to a secular authority, as something that has the value of its own. As it was mentioned in Schlutter’s book, “The (Buddhist) clergy displays a touching loyalty to the throne, for at every religious ceremony they pray for the well-being of the State”.¹² This again can be deemed as yet another consequence of Buddhism’s willingness to appropriate Xiao. The reason for this that the religion’s veneration of loyalty (as an abstract category) has an easily notable ‘familial’ (utilitarian) quality to it, concerned encouraging people to think tribal.

Conclusion

I believe that what has been said earlier correlates well with the paper’s initial thesis. There is indeed a certain rationale to think of the integration of the Xiao principle within Zen Buddhism as being phenomenological to an extent. Nevertheless, as one can infer from the provided discursive clues, there were many objective prerequisites for the concerned development to occur early in the history of this religion-philosophy. The main of them has to do with the fact that, just as it is the case with the principle of filial piety, Zen Buddhism calls for the suppression of one’s ego – the main reason why it did not prove particularly challenging for the early Buddhist practitioners to appropriate Xiao. Thus, it will be appropriate to regard the discussed development as such that provides us with a better understanding of what has made possible the upsurge of religious syncretism between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism in China.

Bibliography

De Bar, William; Bloom, Irene and Joseph Adler. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Schlutter, Morten. How Zen became Zen: The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008.

Sosa, Ernest. “Confucius on Knowledge.” Dao : A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 14, no. 3 (2015): 325-330.

Xing, Guang. “A Buddhist-Confucian Controversy on Filial Piety.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 2 (2010): 248-260.

Yampolsky, Phillip. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.

Zurcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: Brill Press, 2007.

Footnotes

1. William De Bar, Irene Bloom and Joseph Adler. Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 45.
2. Phillip Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 135.
3. De Bar, Bloom and Adler, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 146.
4. Erik Zurcher. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden: Brill Press, 2007), 281.
5. Ibid., 249.
6. Ernest Sosa, “Confucius on Knowledge.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 14, no. 3 (2015): 327.
7. Guang Xing, “A Buddhist-Confucian Controversy on Filial Piety.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 2 (2010): 250.
8. Ibid., 251.
9. Morten Schlutter. How Zen became Zen: The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008), 19.
10. Ibid., 55.
11. Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China, 306.
12. Schlutter, How Zen became Zen, 108.