david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec19.010154.7728@nas.nasa.gov> pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: In article <1990Dec18.004932.9293@nas.nasa.gov> david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes: >The notion that Buddhism teaches that suffering, or other aspects of >observable reality, are "illusions" is a very serious (but very >common) misreading of Buddhist teaching. It seems to arise in part >from a confusion of Buddhism with certain forms of Brahminism. For ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Making it look at though there wasn't a natural progression from one to another ;-). There is certainly an historical connection between Buddhism and Brahminism. However, to say that there is a "natural progression" from Brahminism to Buddhism seems to fly in the face of the many fundamental differences between the two and of the many rather pointed criticisms of Brahmanical teachings that are found even in the earliest Buddhist sutras. Just to lay out some of the simplest and most well-known points of disagreement: 1. Buddhism is not Vedantism, that is, Buddhists do not accept the authority of the Vedas. Anyone who understands the importance of the canonical literature in both Brahminism and Buddhism will realize the importance of the fact that the two traditions share *no* canonical literature at all. 2. The Buddha decisively rejected the caste system. He was particularly vehement in opposing the notion that the Brahmins were fundamentally superior to members of other castes. He also rejected the notion of a caste-based morality in favor of a morality that was universal both in the sense that it put the same basic moral obligations on all human beings and in the sense that one's obligations to respect other people's property, to behave toward them with compassion, etc. were not reduced if they happened to be from a "lower" caste. 3. The Buddha rejected the Brahmanical concepts of purity by rejecting both separation from "impure" individuals (or groups) and ceremonies of ritual purification. He redefined purity, as did both Jesus and the Rabinical tradition, in essentially moral terms. 4. The Buddha rejected all sorts of extreme ascetical practices that were pretty much the stock in trade of the Brahmanical ascetics. This is, of course, the famous doctrine of the middle way. All these simple and easily verified points amount to a clear rejection of Brahminism as an intellectual tradition, as a social morality, and as a religious practice in both its priestly and ascetical forms. The points that I present below involve somewhat more subtle points of doctrine and meditative practice but they amount to departures that are just as important as the simple and obvious ones presented above. 5. Connected to the rejection of the caste system is the Buddhist subversion of the Brahmanical "great chain of being". The Buddhists did more than just add buddhas, arhats, and (in Mahayana) bodhisattvas to the top of the traditional Brahmanical hierarchy consisting of (roughly) demons, animals, human beings, and gods. They also fundamentally subverted the whole hierarchical concept by insisting that it was impossible to go from being a god (deva) to any of the "higher" forms. Awakening could be attained (according to the original Buddhists) only with a human body. 6. The most distinctive doctrinal feature of Buddhism is almost certainly its rejection of any notion of the existence of a "self" or "soul". This contrasts sharply with the Brahmanical doctrine of the Atman or "world soul". 7. Brahminism and Buddhism also have very different approaches to meditation. Brahminism tends to stress the attainment of very deep states of *tranquillity*. In most Brahmanical traditions, such states are believed to lead to (re)union with the Atman. Often this is believed to involve the destruction of the "ego", the phenomenal/individual self. In order to achieve these deep states, Brahmanical practices usually stress exercises in *concentration* which is usually defined (in both Brahminism and Buddhism) as "one-pointedness" of mind. Buddhism is very different. Here, the point is not the attainment of tranquillity (samatha) but the development of *insight* (vipassana) into the nature of the mental/physical "person". The essential meditative technique for the development of insight is the cultivation of *mindfulness* (smrti), not of concentration (samadhi). (The central Buddhist sutra on meditation is entitled "The Setting Up of Mindfulness".) Rather than developing an ever narrower concentration on a particular object, material or mental, Buddhist meditation involves an open ended attention to mental and physical processes as they arise and pass away. The attainment of the ultimate in insight ("awakening") is believed to involve a thorough seeing into the "emptiness" of the person. In other words, rather than seeking to destroy or subdue the "ego", one sees directly that there is no such thing. I hope that I don't appear to be caricaturing or blasting Brahminism here. There are certainly sects that reject some of the positions that I have attributed to Brahminism. In terms of rejecting a caste based morality in particular, Gandhi has certainly been an exemplary figure in modern times. Nevertheless, I think that what I have presented represents a kind of "core" of Hindu beliefs, especially as they were held at the time of the Buddha. Although I suppose it is apparent that I think more highly of Buddhism, it is clear to me that Hinduism has its virtues, especially in someone like Gandhi, and that Buddhism has its faults. I just want to point out that the two are really quite different and were so from the beginning of Buddhism. > [Summarizing the post] >This is worth repeating: WE ARE NOT WHAT WE THINK WE ARE [*]. Great. A fundamental flaw in this whole thread: If buddhism teaches the method (i.e., some way of thinking) of realizing this [*] then when we reach that stage we will realize that the method of that attainment was flawed. QED. A minor point: I hope that it is clear from my original post that I would be very reluctant to say that my article can be summed up in a single phrase. That said, Ranjan has made a very perceptive observation here. I have responded to it in another post. The "Subject:" header of that post reads "Re: Buddhism and the reality of the phenomenal world (was Re: bloody Buddhists!)". -- David Sigeti david@star2.cm.utexas.edu cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu