Buddhism: Light of Asia: Chapter 3 - The Teachings of the Buddha, cont'd

The rest of this chapter deals mainly with three issues: the question of the existence of a soul (atta/anatta); a discussion of a stage to nirvana called arhatship; and an attempt to describe nirvana.

There appears to be disagreement about the concept of the soul. Anatta is the doctrine that there is no soul. The Upanishads teach that individuals have a soul, but it is an illusion to distinguish the individual soul from a universal soul (we are all one, or some such thing). In contrast, the Buddha taught that belief in a permanent soul is itself a delusion. Ch'en: "all that we are is but a continuous living entity which does not remain the same for any two consecutive moments..." How then could one suffer the consequences of one's actions through karma if there is essentially no "one" at all? It's not so clear to me, but the explanation goes that the force of karma recreates a new being that fulfills the karma. The new being is not the same as the old, but also not different, like a flame passed from one candle to the next. This is rather confusing and strange - sort of a mechanical picture of existence, if you ask me.

According to Ch'en there is some disagreement among scholars about anatta - to what degree that it means there is truly "no self." After all if there is no "self/soul," what is it that goes on to achieve nirvana? Further, "When directly asked, the Buddha refused to answer... the question of atta [self/soul]."

On the points of arhatship and nirvana, there is more disagreement. Theoretically there are certain fixed stages that one passes through to become an arhat (one who will no longer be reborn). But apparently it is possible to skip these stages.

Is nirvana total annihilation? "Probably not really" seems to be the best summary of the answer to this question. What it is, certainly, is impossible to describe in words. Better not to talk about it, but rather just meditate in order to get there.

I realize that I got a bit ahead of myself in saying that sexist attitudes become evident in this chapter. More evidence of that comes in a later chapter, I'll come back to it then.

Buddhism: Light of Asia - Chapter 3 - The Teachings of the Buddha

In general, I was disappointed with this chapter. Perhaps it is Ch'en's writing, or perhaps it is the substance. It is certainly disappointing to find that the Buddha was sexist, according to several reports. This does not lend him a lot of credibility, in my eyes.

This chapter starts with a discussion of karma, the idea that one's actions affect one's future reincarnations. This idea predated the Buddha. According to Ch'en, the Buddha added to this idea that both the act and the intention behind the act were what counted. Ch'en: "The Buddhist definition of karma is intention or volition plus bodily action." This begs the question of whether simple intention alone contributes to one's future reincarnations. My understanding was that it mainly mattered what you intended, not so much what you actually did. So if you hate someone ferociously, but do not act on it, you are just as guilty as if you had done something about it. But reading Ch'en's explanation, I get the impression that is not the case: intent must be accompanied by action for karma to come into play.

Next we get the five states of existence according to Buddhism: deity, man, animal, hungry ghost (not to be confused with friendly ghost), and denizen of hell. The "deity" category is confusing. Deities are subject to karma, and can lose their status. And further we find that only man can escape rebirth and achieve nirvana. So what is special about being a deity, which one would consider to be a being superior to man?

Further, animals, hungry ghosts, and denizens of hell are "evil" states. But I find it hard to take the position that animals are "evil." Perhaps I am misinterpreting Ch'en. If an animal is an "evil" state, then why is it wrong to kill one? It's all very confusing.

Predetermination is apparently not discussed directly in Buddhism, but Ch'en says that karma allows for free will, in some sense. That's nice! Ch'en: "... the Buddhist would do away with all distinctions of peoples based on birth or caste or wealth [but not on gender, apparently, as we will later see]. No matter what one may be, he is just as privileged as any other to join the monastic community and strive for the highest goal of religious life." Emphasis on the he, apparently.

Now for some more content to which I object. The Buddha said that life is suffering. This part of Buddhist philosophy seems excessively negative to me. Maybe it is just the way that it translates into Western language. But saying "life is suffering" makes just as much sense as saying "life is a bowl of cherries." Sometimes you suffer, and sometimes things are great. It is not true that life is suffering, and all the arguments that I've heard about it seem transparently false.

Proceeding from the idea that life is suffering, the Buddha prescribed the eight-fold way to "suppress" suffering: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. (If nothing else, this sure made for some good jargon in modern physics).

Now what exactly are these "right" things, in close detail?

• Right speech - do not lie, gossip, or have a sharp tongue. But, you ask, is it ok to tell polite lies? This is not clear.
  
• Right action - do not kill or steal, and abstain from "unchastity"... does Ch'en mean fornication? What exactly is wrong with fornication is not made clear at all. Some mention is made of "lust" being exclusive, and being exclusive is wrong, but certainly not everyone has lusts that are exclusive.
  
• Right livelihood - don't kill for a living (don't be a hitman? or a butcher?), don't perform magic. It's not clear to me why magic is bad, even if you could actually do it. Maybe it is really meant that you shouldn't con or scam people. Which is bad news for e-mail spammers.
  
• Right mindfulness, right effort, right concentration - the distinction between these three is not made clear by Ch'en. Rather, he rambles on for pages about certain Buddhist teachings on how to meditate, the various stages of meditation (including one that's supposed to teach you how much life sucks, involving the contemplation of a decomposing corpse, in case you didn't realize that life sucks already) and levels of trance states.
  
• Right view, right intention - again the difference between these two is not clear. But "right view" means holding the opinion that "life is suffering, impermanent, and there is no permanent self or soul." As to my failure on this point, I guess I'm going to be reborn as a roach, or something.

In the middle of all this discursive text Ch'en relays a disturbing story, reminiscent of several biblical stories. The story is supposed to demonstrate lack of attachment and perfect charity. A prince named Vessantara is repeatedly asked to give away various things, and he does so freely. First, a white elephant that magically produces rain; then his horses, carriage, and furniture; next his children (given away as servants); and finally his wife. What a fine guy! Fortunately, it turns out that all the people requesting these items were just the deity Indra in disguise, and Vessantara's family are returned to him... though why they would want to go back is beyond me. I find these sorts of stories very disturbing.

Thus ends the report on the first half of Chapter 3, there's more to come...

Chapter 3

I have nothing to say about Chapter 3 yet, except that it is too long.

Light of Asia - Chapter 2, cont'd

Leaving home, Siddhartha became an ascetic, fasting and generally torturing his body. Six years of that did not yield the results that he wanted - the book says that his goal was to be released from the cycle of rebirth. At that point, he decided that he had not taken the correct path. Why go for six years and then stop? Why not stop sooner, or later? Sounds like grad school.

He began eating and drinking normally again. He sat under a tree, and recalled an incident from his youth in which he "fell into a trance" under a tree. He decided that extreme concentration (under a tree?) may be the way, and began to meditate ("to practice concentration"). What exactly he did is not described, but it worked (maybe the six years of preparation helped). The Pali documents say he first recalled his previous lives, then saw the rebirths of many other beings and how their karma affected their being reborn, and then achieved "the knowledge of the four noble truths" and of the four causes that keep one from achieving release from samsara: sensual desires, desire for existence, ignorance, and false views. He then became enlightened.

On the four latter causes I do not see the distinction between "ignorance" and "false views". Maybe "ignorance" is just having no clue, whereas with "false views" you actively take a position that is wrong? Anyway, these things don't seem to parallel Christian beliefs at all, except for the first one, sensual desires.

The later Sanskrit documents report the enlightenment story with more flowery events: miracles occur, and the tempter Mara enters the scene. Again, some colorful pictures of these events can be found at the Rubin Museum of Art.

In any case, apparently the Buddha could have taken off for nirvana at this point, but decided to stay and teach. He took on many followers, but Ch'en doesn't mention women at this point.

In fact, we have a story at Buddha's death that puts women in a negative light. It is not said whether this comes from the earlier documents or the later. The story goes that Ananda, the Buddha's "personal attendant," asked for instructions regarding women. Ch'en gives the exchange as follows:

Ananda: "How are we to conduct ourselves with regard to womankind?"
Buddha: "As not seeing them."
Ananda: "But if we should see them, what are we to do?"
Buddha: "Keep wide awake."

I don't understand this exchange, but there's more than a hint of sexism there.

Prior to this discussion he had been ill, and that had been aggravated by a bad case of food poisoning from a serving of "pig's soft food" (Ch'en says it is not known whether this was food for pigs, or possibly mushrooms.) He had already told Ananda that he did not want to announce a "successor" to his position (which would have been quite odd, indeed), asserting that the answer lies within the individual, not in a hierarchical system (the book says "Be ye lamps unto yourselves"). Soon thereafter, the Buddha died. His final words were "Subject to decay are all compound things. Strive with diligence."

That last sentence, "Strive with diligence", sounds very un-Zen-Buddhist. It would be interesting to see what the Zen Buddhists make of it.

Chapter 2 of "Light of Asia" - The Life of the Buddha

This chapter starts with a rousing discussion of historical evidence for the dates of the birth and death of the Buddha. Suffice it to say that the best evidence shows he lived some time between 600 B.C. and 400 B.C.

Apparently there is some argument about whether or not the Buddha even existed; the main thesis - that the story of the Buddha's life sounds too much like a myth to be a true historical account - was developed by Emile Senart in the late 19th century. Senart's theory ignores the earliest documents concerning the Buddha, and hence is currently out of favor. At the other end of this argument, there exist relics (bits of bone) purported to be from the Buddha's body. Why exactly anyone cares about relics is beyond me.

Apparently no biographies of the Buddha were written while he lived. The earliest documents (those ignored by Senart) were written in the Pali language in the first century B.C. These documents cover certain parts of the Buddha's history: from his renunciation of home life to his enlightenment; from enlightenment until his recruitment of two disciples; and the period of the last three months of his life.

A later document was written in Sanskrit, around the start of the Christian era. Ch'en asserts that the Pali documents must be more reliable because they came earlier, but this seems a bit dubious. He then goes on to note that the Pali documents are more matter-of-fact, while the Sanskrit documents are filled with miraculous occurrences. At least, then, the Pali documents are easier to believe.

Ch'en goes on to say "in the case of the pious Buddhist reading the biographies of his teacher and master, he would make no distinction between ... the prosaic and the miraculous. To him, all biographies are trustworthy... for he believes the master was such a powerful and extraordinary individual that all things were possible for him." So says Ch'en, anyway.

The rest of the chapter gives the usual stories, which in some ways parallel Christian stories about Jesus. Some of these stories are illustrated very beautifully in ancient paintings that are on view at the Rubin Museum of Art in NYC.

There's the conception. Somehow an elephant enters Maya (Buddha's mother) via her side; this represents the immaculate conception of the Buddha. Why it was necessary for the Buddha to change himself into an elephant in order to be conceived is not explained. Of course, this parallels the Christian immaculate conception.

At the Buddha's birth, a far-away sage becomes aware of the event, and flies through the air to the Buddha's house. The sage weeps at the idea that he will not live to hear the Buddha's teachings. Ch'en parallels this event with the Christian story of St Simeon and says it has been used as evidence for the interchange of ideas between Christian and Buddhist traditions.

Maya dies seven days after the birth of the Buddha, as is the "absolute rule" for the mother of the Buddha. Three potential supernatural reasons are given: 1) The Buddha supernaturally knew the date when the mother would die, and thus chose this woman as his mother. 2) The mother of the Buddha must never bear another child (not explained why) hence she must die soon after giving birth. 3) Since the Buddha would leave his home soon after marriage, the mother must die to spare her the heartbreak. All three of these "reasons" are bizarre, with the first being the only one that's not offensively condescending.

The Buddha was raised by an aunt and by his father, who was a king. He lived in the lap of luxury and had a high level of education, which included, among other things, the art of mounting an elephant.

The Pali documents simply say that he became troubled and disgusted when he found that he would be subject to old age, disease, sorrow, and death, but do not expand. Other documents explain in detail. At the birth of the Buddha, priests foretold that the youth would leave home when he saw four signs: the old man, the sick man, the dead corpse, and the beggar. So the Buddha's father conspired to make sure that such sights were forever kept from his son's eyes (an early Giuliani, if you will). It took until he was 29, married, and soon to be a father himself, before the Buddha eventually did see these people, one after another, on succeeding days (as it was to be, since it was prophecied). Ch'en: "When he saw the ascetic [beggar] with his calm and serene mien, he decided that such a life would provide the escape from the disgusting and sorrowful and meaningless luxury he was enjoying." This makes the Buddha sound like a bit of a masochist, or maybe a nutball, or potentially like a really spoiled brat who didn't know how good he had it. In any case, after seeing these men, he returned home, resolving to leave. He found a son had been born to him, but kept to his resolve in any case (also a very suspicious move, deserting his wife with a new-born son).

Then there's the story about how, on the night of his renunciation, he saw his female minstrels sleeping in a "disgusting" way, which makes you think the Buddha had been raised in such a refined way as to be a little bit too out of touch with reality for his own good. I mean, did he really think the ascetic beggar didn't ever sleep with his mouth hanging open?

Off-Topic: social software

I found an interesting article, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy by Clay Shirky, discussing social software. I especially love the discussion of Bion's work with the neurotics, the description is painfully familiar!

Chapter 1: The Background

Similar to Trainor's book, the first chapter of my book (Buddhism: Light of Asia) goes into some historical context around the time of the Buddha. The Aryans invaded India between 3000 and 2000 B.C. It is not clear where they came from, and the book doesn't say whether the invasion was violent or not. During this period the Aryans produced a body of poetic and religious literature called the Vedas. These verses do not much discuss life after death, but talk about the gods and religious rituals.

To start, the Aryans had rituals to supplicate their gods; every person performed the rites, which were simple. As time went on, the rituals became more developed, so complicated that only certain persons could perform them correctly. During this later period it was also thought that the rituals could be used to actually control the gods - induce certain desired effects in nature, for example. It was also during this period that the concept of samsara appeared. This is the belief that there is a repeated cycle of rebirth, and it is desirable to escape from this cycle. It was thought that the precise and correct practice of rituals could help free one from samsara.

In reaction to this, another body of literature arose, the Upanishads ("secret knowdledge"). According to these documents, one would be released from samsara not by the performance of rituals, but rather through intellectual sweat ("my brain hurts!"). The concept of a god who encompasses the universe, and then some, was developed. The physical manifestation of this "Brahma" is the physical universe, but Brahma also has a spiritual nature that is not manifest physically. In symmetry with this, humans have both a physical and spiritual element. This spirit, the atman, is something like the concept of a soul, and it was believed that the Brahma and atman were actually one. Once this would be realized by a person, release from samsara would occur. At least that's what it sounds like.

Into this historical context was born Gautama Siddhartha. Ch'en mentions six known teachers during this period, aside from the Buddha. Their teachings were as follows:

1. One's actions, good or evil, have no affect on oneself
   
2. No action is evil or good; there are only effects which manipulate the four elements (fire, water, air, earth)
   
3. There is no rebirth; when you die, your body decomposes into its original elements and hence actions, good or evil, are irrelevant
   
4. Fate controls everything so it doesn't matter what you do
   
5. The effects of previous actions can be altered by ascetism (Jainism)

A sixth teacher existed (Sanjaya Belatthiputta) who apparently didn't really teach anything, but who just liked to argue that no conclusions were possible, so far as I can tell.

It strikes me that these teachings are all fairly sophisticated approaches to take. It seems we haven't come much further than this, even to this day.

During Buddha's time, the brahmans (priestly caste) dominated. Buddha took the position that the Vedas were not the sole source of truth, that performance of rituals was not a means to salvation, nor was intellectual effort as described in the Upanishads. He protested against the caste system, and had contact with members from all castes including untouchables. He believed salvation was obtained through scrupulous ethical behavior and actions.

Buddhism: The Light of Asia

I have just started reading Buddhism: The Light of Asia, by Kenneth K. S. Ch'en. This book was published originally in 1968, and is fairly thin at 301 pages.

The first chapter, "The Background", gives a brief history of events and culture in India prior to the time of the Gautama Siddhartha (a.k.a the Buddha), who lived around 500 B.C.