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
david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) (12/31/90)
In article <5656@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> rks@cs.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes: While I do agree with David that there are some differences between Buddhism and certain forms of "Hinduism", I must correct many errors which consistently keep propping up due to a gross western misunderstanding of Indian history. Many of these blunders have to do with completely mixing up Indian societal practices (castes, marriage rites etc) with Indian religion. Some of this is due to the fact that India has had NO CONCEPT OF ORGANISED RELIGION. So it has been habitual to clump all practices social and religous of Indians as "Hinduism" (the word itself is foreign), unless it has better names (like Buddhism). I am sure that Ramesh is better informed than I am about the doctrine and practice of Brahmanical religion and about Indian social practices so I look forward to learning from him on these topics. I ask several specific questions in my comments below. I *do* know a fair bit about Buddhism and especially about the practice of Buddhist meditation, so I think that I will have something to contribute to the discussion. Before I get started with Ramesh's points, however, I have a couple of gripes. The first concerns Ramesh's repeated use of the word "Hindu" in quotation marks. In fact, I used the term only twice in my posting. I did not use it until I felt that I had established pretty clearly what I was talking about and that was in the paragraph where I acknowledged (but did not enumerate) the good points in the "Hindu" tradition. I really don't think that I am a terribly hostile or ignorant critic of Indian religion or society. As I said above, I am sure that Ramesh knows more about Brahmanical religion and Indian social practices than I do but, as educated Westerners go, I really think that I am pretty well informed. After all, I do practice an Indian form of meditation and espouse (at least in part) an Indian philosophy/religion. I have also had a lot of contact with Indian students since coming to graduate school ten years ago and have made several good friends. In particular, one of my closest friends, a real intellectual soul-mate, is a (non-believing) Brahmin who returned to Bombay to teach a few years ago. I really don't think that Ramesh has any right to presume that I am ignorant (or hostile) without some more evidence than was found in my posting. My second gripe is that Ramesh, in his criticism of my posting, has rather carefully avoided most of my "meatiest" points. In particular, he has avoided most of the points where I wrote about how Buddhism is different from Brahminism *in practice*. Thus, Ramesh responds to my description of the Buddha's theoretical rejection of the superiority of the Brahmins but not to my point that the Buddha rejected the *practices* of caste purity and the Brahminical rituals of purification, and that he sought to replace caste based morality with a "universalist" morality. A theoretical rejection of caste superiority wouldn't have meant much if it hadn't come down to some important differences in practice. Similarly, Ramesh responds to my point on the Buddha's rejection of the Brahminical doctrine of the Atman, but not to my point about the differences in meditative practices that followed from this. I discuss both these points at greater length below. That's about as hostile as this posting is going to get so y'all can relax now. On to Ramesh's comments. In article <1990Dec20.032046.8221@nas.nasa.gov> david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes: >1. Buddhism is not Vedantism, that is, Buddhists do not accept > the authority of the Vedas. ... ... Sankya the popular atheistic orthodox school is very very different from Vedic philosophy and disagrees with it on every major point. However they do accept in principle Vedic revelations purely due to tradition. On the other hand, Buddhism (along with Vedanta an orthodox school) is very very close to Upanishadic (the final philosphical portion of the Vedas) philosophy and is most certainly a logical extension of these ideas. Since I don't know much in detail about the "orthodox" schools, I just have a couple of questions here. Can you give a brief outline of the Sankya school and how it differs from Vedic philosophy? Can you explain in some detail how Buddhism is "very very close" to the Upanishadic philosophy? I often hear this latter notion bandied about quite loosely, usually by people who are pretty ignorant of Buddhism (and probably of the Upanishads too, for all I know). Since I get the impression that you actually *do* know a fair bit about the "orthodox" schools, we might have an interesting and educational exchange here. >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. Let me note first that the caste system is basically a social Indian tradition and does not play any key role in a purely religous sense in either "Hinduism" or Buddhism. The caste system in India did not spare people of *any* religous beliefs. Buddhists in India had the caste system too which existed in India for social, feudal and other reasons. How else will you explain the term Brahmin-buddhist (famous philosphers like Nagarjuna and Buddhagosha were Brahmins and the conversion of Brahmins to buddhism is historically significant as it led to the use of the Brahminic langauge of Sanskrit in Sutras at the later period and also made the metaphysics more complex.) Of course there are many religous apologists for existing social traditions. And Hinduism is no exception. But then there are apolgist for caste in heterodox schools in India as well eg, in Jainism. One may also be interested in knowing that christians in India today have caste too !! Here, I think that Ramesh has some good points (and one bad one). As for the bad one -- observance of the rules of caste purity and rituals of purification related to the rules play a major role in almost all the forms of Brahminical religion of which I am aware. The major exceptions are (tradionally) many of the "orthodox" ascetical schools and (recently) Gandhism. Please correct me if I am wrong. Ramesh's good points are connected with the fact that the Indian caste system is (at least) two different things. On one level, it is the basic form of organization of Indian society. Here, the fundamental units are not "castes" but "sub-castes" or even "sub-sub-castes". The sub-castes are the basic endogamous units of Indian society -- usually based at least partially on occupation but really much more than occupational groupings. Sub-castes are often partially or even largely self-governing. Their members share a common language, religious rituals, marriage customs, etc. And, of course, people traditionally married within the sub-caste. In this sense, the sub-castes are basically *tribes* and it might be sensible to say that Indian society is a unique example of the maintainence of a tribal form of organization in a great civilization. To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha never rejected this basic form of social organization. On this level, his criticism of the caste system took the form of a rejection of the practice of caste purity (especially the practice of separation from "unclean" individuals and groups) and of the espousing of a morality that was "universal" both in the sense that it was taken to be incumbent on all human beings, independent of caste, and in the sense that one's basic moral obligations to other people were not fundamentally dependent on the others' caste. The other aspect of the "caste system" is the organization and hierarchical ranking of the sub-castes into the classical "castes" -- Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, etc. Here, the Buddha was much more critical, especially of the hierarchical ranking. All this explains how there could be "Buddhist Brahmins". These individuals remained members of their sub-castes -- which happened to be included in the Brahmin "caste" -- to the same degree that they remained members of their families. I don't know how many of the characteristic practices of their sub-castes that people like Nagarjuna and Buddhagosa retained. I doubt that they changed their bathroom habits, for example. In any case, an acceptance of the sub-castes on this level has little to do with an acceptance of the "caste system". In practice, Buddists made all sorts of compromises with the caste system although its force tended to be substantially moderated in many areas that were mostly Buddhist. For example, the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have a caste system but it is moderated by the fact that the highest caste includes the majority of the population. >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. Well, again so does the Bhagavad Gita which you would consider a "Hindu" text !!! In fact, this is among the most important messages of the Gita. It is fallacious to think of the Buddha as revolting against "Hinduism" (whatever that means). This is essentially a western bias, perhaps with analogies to Middle east traditions. The accurate picture is that Buddha reformed some Indian practices of the time. And was in fact in great agreement with many others. Not very different in this respect from other "Hindu" reformers of India like Sankara and Ramakrishna. I would be interested in seeing the relevant quotes from the Gita or some references if the former is too much trouble. I don't know anything about Sankara or Ramakrishna (or any other "orthodox" reformers before Gandhi) and would be interested in any information that you have the time to impart. As to the question of the "reformism" of the Buddha, it is certainly true that the Buddha's approach was strategically, tactically, and tempermentally "reformist" rather than "revolutionary". On the other hand -- as I wrote in my original posting and as Ramesh has not really contradicted -- the Buddha rejected the the hierarchical ranking of the sub-castes, the notion of a caste-based morality, the practice of caste purity, the Brahmanical rituals of purification, critical philosophical elements of the "orthodox" tradition, and many of the common practices of the "orthodox" ascetics (see below for more on this last point). All this amounts to a pretty thoroughgoing rejection of the Brahmanical tradition -- not of Indian society or customs generally but of those elements that are most specifically associated with Brahmanical authority, doctrine, and practice. This is not to say that "orthodox" reformers may not have shared many of the Buddha's criticisms. I really don't know anything about them and am honestly interested in learning more. >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". The world soul is the "Brahman". Yes this is certainly a difference between Vedanta and Buddhism and there are some others. ... But is also important to remember that two "Hindus" following two different "Hindu" schools are bound to differ much more than a Vedantic Hindu and a Buddhist. I really think that the most important section in my "doctrinal" points was the one on the differences in goals and methods between "Hindu" and Buddhist meditation. This is probably the most concrete embodiment of the philosophical difference over the existence of a "soul" (really a "self"). I have had several long discussions with two aquaintainces who were seriously practicing meditation in a couple of different "Hindu" traditions. These discussions definitely reinforced the impression that I had gotten from reading and my own practice that the two are very different. Moreover, the longer I practice, the more I find that it is precisely those aspects where the two traditions diverge that seem to come to the fore. This is certainly the traditional Buddhist position and it is also more or less in accord with what I have heard from Buddhist teachers. Not that they make any specific mention of other traditions. It is just that they emphasize, in discussing what practice means in the long term, those elements where the two traditions diverge. Ramesh didn't quote this part of my original post and sites with a short turn-over time for news may already have deleted it -- mine has -- so I am going to put a little strain on bandwidth and include it here. I would appreciate hearing any thoughts that Ramesh has on this point. 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. -- David Sigeti david@star2.cm.utexas.edu cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (01/01/91)
Rames Sitaraman writes: >Suppose I were to give you the 9 or so philsophical schools of India, >including Vedanta and Buddhism, WITHOUT the surrounding cultural >baggage and the assumptions that people, especially westerners, seem >to make. A classification based only on the philosphical standpoint >would be very very different from classifications such as "Hindu", >"Buddhist", "Brahminical" etc etc, which in fact have no historical >precedence in India itself ! >A broad classification by doctrine would see a continous stream of >thought starting at the upanishads (the metaphysical portions of the >Vedas) flowing through Buddhist teachers like Buddha and Nagarjuna >and to Vedantic ("Hindu") teachers like Sankara and Ramanuja. Your statement is quite general and vague yet your claim seems to be strong. According to this view of Buddhist teachings, buddha did not attained enlightenment by himself, rather studied upanishads, vedas etc. and taught a new version of upanishads. Where did the four noble truths, eightfold path, various analytical teachings of mind, three signs (impermanence etc. ) come from? According to buddhist practice they really cannot be understood by learning books only, but to be realised by oneself ("Foundations of mindfullness", experiences of other buddshits recorded etc.) >Many scholars would agree that the teachings of the Buddha can be >thought of as logical extensions of the Upanishads. To give a couple I am sure no buddhist 'scholar' who is a practicing buddhist (this does not mean a particular culture, but principally) will agree with this. If you were to arrive at a strong conclusion as you mentioned earlier, you have to understand very well the version of practicing buddhists and mere statements are not enough. >Many scholars would agree that the teachings of the Buddha can be >thought of as logical extensions of the Upanishads. To give a couple >of quick examples, consider Mayavada (the world as illusory) of the >Buddha. Or the "not this, not this" (neti neti) argument of Nagarjuna. >Or the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena (Milindapanha). >All of these analyses and concepts can be seen in the upanishads (1300 BC) >and could infact have been written by later day Vedantic teachers !! I've read in a book an explanation, where someone was saying the Jesus's life story has a gap of several years becasue he was in India, and he was practicing "Hindu" meditation methods etc. Some even say the word Christ is a derivation from the word Krishna. Ramesh, I do not know how you feel being born to a country which could boast about thousands of years or may be millions of years of history and civilisations. So for Ramesh (I think an Indian) it is a great thing to see Buddha also as a Hindu or part of that indian civilization, or buddhism as an extension of the indian civilization. I do not mean to hurt your pride in anyway. Before getting into the big picture, I have a doubt about a specific as you wrote in the following: >Or the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena (Milindapanha). >All of these analyses and concepts can be seen in the upanishads (1300 BC) >and could infact have been written by later day Vedantic teachers !! Which conversation between Milinda and Nagasena are you refering to here? Milindapanha contains more than one conversation on buddhist teachings. Milindapanha I am refering to records conversations between an Indian king (Milinda of Greek origin?) and a buddhist bhikkhu - an arahant or enlightened monk who was born to a brahmin family before he became a buddhist and an enlightened person. Which was studied and preserved by buddhist teachers and later written in black and white. Going back to the overall idea, the attempts to prove that Buddhism is part of other religions or the attempts to show Buddhism is something revealed by a God is nothing new. Therefore, Ramesh's writing was not a suprise. For example, as I remember, earlier someone had to describe why there is no concept of Maya taught in buddhist teachings (which Ramesh was trying to show again as an example of Buddhism being a logical extension of Upanishads). Upanishads, Vedas were written long time ago and they contain great philosophical concepts. But I seriously doubt that there is any need to say buddhism as a logical extension of these. As I know ancient Vedas were written by Irshis. But a person who had learnt vedas, who later heard,or learnt and practiced buddhism realised enlightenment by practice, by development of concentration and insight. Therefore, isn't it better to look at them as they are rather than trying to make vedas as everything as Jainism, Buddhism and modern sciences etc. I think that way we could do better justice to the Vedas. It is true Vedas contain a wealth of information including advices, medicine - in ayurveda etc. I am sure specially to the ancient Indians it was something very valuable which dealt with every aspect of their lives. In a way like modern science is effecting every aspect of our today's lives. If a person wants to show greatness of Vedas or Upanishads, why not show it directly without trying to associate with other things. While trying to blur the buddhist thinking why try to insult the Vedas which stood alone for several thousands of years or more. If one were to say B is logical extension of A then, A and B cannot have contradictory things. On the other hand, if we were to say A is a universal set and B is a subset of A then all the things inside B has to be in A too. As I remember, David, in his earlier postings, showed the differences between Buddhism and Brahminism etc.(which is sufficient to show that buddhist teachings are not logical extension of the other but rather contain contradictory things ), which I do not need to elaborate again. A final note, Buddhist teachings are not a way of faith (bhakthi marga) it is a way of wisdom, to be followed by developing wisdom (which comes through development of virtues, concentration and insight). It is not a mere philosophy (some people use the word philosophy to set it apart from religions which believe in a God, I am sure these were not meant to say it is a philosophy only). Therefore, to arrive at conclusions about buddhist teachings one has to think about them, understand them and practice them to gain wisdom (mere reading buddhist teachings while holding other beliefs or trying to believe in something is not sufficient). Buddhism has this freedom to come and investigate (ehi passika - or come and see). Actually, faith is not part of buddhist practice. (faith is defined as - unquestioning belief , while for a practicing buddhist questioning, reasoning, and investigation plays a major part in understanding. There is a mental quality called "shraddha" which is often translated as faith in english buddhist writings, which is not the same as faith or unquestioning belief as defined in dictionary and other religions. Actually this term faith could be a topic of another discussion; therefore, I will not go into further details here) From this sense also buddhism, not being a bhakti marga, stands apart from the Hindu practices. Going back to one of Ramesh's earlier postings he wrote: > I have seen it in a purely non-buddhist setting. Enlightenment >through insight and discrimination (viveka) is also a common >theme in Vedanta. Meditating on a koan or profound statement What is this Enlightenment, insight and discrimination (viveka) you have mentioned? Regarding the enlightenment, the term nirvana was used generally at the time of the Buddha, because that was saught by several other teachers as the goal. For example, before attaining enlightenment while seeking solution to the problem of unsatisfactoriness, bodhistva Siddharta went to several teachers who were practicing methods of concentration which led to different states of mind ,which those teachers thought as Nirvana or their ultimate goal, which Siddharata did not accept as his goal. Therefore, trying to equate things because the words used for them are the same is quite *misleading and dangerous*. Could you please elaborate on or define these terms (enlightenment, insight, discrimination(viveka) and middle path - as I remember you earlier refered to middle path as mentioned in Gita)? Greater understanding, harmony and peace can be achieved between different religious systems if they are understood properly, by their distinct characteristic and not by mere beliefs. Because mere comparisons, beleifs, biases etc. gives way to more misunderstandings and conflicts if not guided by the basic principles of non-greed, non-hate and non-delusion. Buddhist teachings are not even something to be grasped as "mine" or "belonging to me" or "belonging to a person or authority" how could you attach it to Upanishads to make it an extension of Vedanta? Bandula "Sacred knowledge in the hands of fools destroys" - The Upanishads. In buddhist teachings "sacred knowledge" is the realisation, which has to be gained by developing wisdom. Therefore a fool cannot do it. "By looking at the past lives, in previous births I was born in different forms of births, experienced every pleasures and pains to be experienced" - buddha "The builder of this house,ignorance, is discovered. The main rafter, desire or thanha, is broken. Build this house no more" - buddha