In Part One of this book, it is my intention to cover what I would like to call
the fundamentals of Buddhism, that is, the basic teaching of Buddhism. This
survey will include the Life of the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble
Eightfold Path, karma, rebirth, interdependent origination, the three universal
characteristics, and the teaching of the five aggregates. Before the actual
treatment of these basic topics, I would like to deal first with the notion
of Buddhism in perspective, and that a modern perspective. There are many ways
in which people of different times and different cultures have approached Buddhism,
but I believe it may be especially useful to contrast the modern attitude toward
Buddhism with the traditional attitude toward it. This kind of comparative consideration
may prove useful because understanding how people of different times and cultures
view a particular phenomenon can begin to show us the limitations of our own
particular perspective.
Buddhism has awakened considerable interest in the West, and there are many
persons who enjoy positions of some note in western society who are either Buddhist
or sympathetic to Buddhism. This is perhaps most clearly exemplified by the
remark said to have been made by the great twentieth-century scientist Albert
Einstein, that although he was not a religious man, if he had been one, he would
have been a Buddhist. At first glance it may seem surprising that such a remark
should be made by one regarded as the father of modern western science. However,
if we look more closely at contemporary western society, we find a Buddhist
astrophysicist in France, a psychologist who is a Buddhist in Italy, and a leading
English judge who is one, too. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that
Buddhism is fast becoming the favorite choice of westerners who belong to the
elite in the areas of science and art. I will look at the reasons for this in
a moment, but before doing so, I would like to compare this situation with that
found in traditionally Buddhist communities and countries. Take, for example,
the situation among the traditionally Buddhist communities of Southeast and
East Asia.
In Europe and America, Buddhism is generally believed to be more than usually
advanced in its thought, rigorously rational, and sophisticated. I will not
attempt to conceal the fact that it came as quite a shock to me when I first
went to Southeast Asia and found that many people there view Buddhism as old-fashioned,
irrational, and bound up with outdated superstitions. This is one of two prevalent
attitudes that obstruct the appreciation of Buddhism in such traditionally Buddhist
communities. The other popular misconception that afflicts Buddhism in such
communities is the notion that it is so deep and so abstract that no one can
ever possibly understand it. Perhaps it is the intellectual arrogance of the
West that has saved Europeans and Americans from this aberration. In short,
when I look at the common attitudes prevailing in the West and in the East toward
Buddhism, I find a radical contrast. This is why I want to begin our examination
of Buddhism with a consideration of alternative perspectives.
In the West, Buddhism has a certain image in the popular mind, while in traditionally
Buddhist communities, Buddhism has an altogether different image. The dismissive
attitude that prevails in such communities has to be overcome before people
there can really begin to appreciate the teaching of the Buddha. In this way
people everywhere can acquire the balanced perspective needed to approach Buddhism
without prejudice and preconceived ideas. Consequently, this introduction to
Buddhism is intended not only for people in the West but also for people in
traditionally Buddhist communities who may have become estranged from the religion
for a variety of social and cultural reasons. It should also be said, of course,
that the image of Buddhism common in the West may be limited in its own way,
but I hope that, in the chapters that follow, a clear and objective presentation
of the traditions of Buddhism will, finally, emerge.
For the moment, to turn again to the western attitude toward Buddhism, one of
the first features we can appreciate about it is the fact that it is not culture-bound,
that is to say, it is not restricted to any particular society, race, or ethnic
group. There are some religions that are culture-bound: Judaism is one example;
Hinduism is another. However, Buddhism is not similarly constrained. That is
why, historically, we have had the development of Indian Buddhism, Sri Lankan
Buddhism, Thai Buddhism, Burmese Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism,
Tibetan Buddhism, and so on. In the near future, I have no doubt that we will
see the emergence of English Buddhism, French Buddhism, Italian Buddhism, American
Buddhism, and the like. All this is possible because Buddhism is not culture-bound.
It moves very easily from one cultural context to another because its emphasis
is on internal practice rather than external forms of religious behavior. Its
emphasis is on the way each practitioner develops his or her own mind, not on
how he dresses, the kind of food he eats, the way he wears his hair, and so
forth. The second point to which I would like to draw your attention is the
pragmatism of Buddhism, that is to say, its practical orientation. Buddhism
addresses a practical problem. It is not interested in academic questions and
metaphysical theories. The Buddhist approach is to identify a real problem and
deal with it in a practical way. Again, this attitude is very much in keeping
with western conceptions of utilitarianism and scientific problem-solving. Very
briefly, we might say the Buddhist approach is encapsulated in the maxim, "If
it works, use it." This attitude is an integral part of modern western
political, economic, and scientific practice.
The pragmatic approach of Buddhism is expressed very clearly in the Chulamalunkya
Sutta, a discourse in which the Buddha himself made use of the parable of a
wounded man. In the story, a man wounded by an arrow wishes to know who shot
the arrow, the direction from which it came, whether the arrowhead is bone or
iron, and whether the shaft is one kind of wood or another before he will let
the arrow be removed. His attitude is likened to that of people who want to
know about the origin of the universe--whether it is eternal or not, finite
in space or not, and so on--before they will undertake to practice a religion.
Such people will die before they ever have the answers to all their irrelevant
questions, just as the man in the parable will die before he has all the answers
he seeks about the origin and nature of the arrow.
This story illustrates the practical orientation of the Buddha and Buddhism.
It has a great deal to tell us about the whole question of priorities and scientific
problem-solving. We will not make much progress in the development of wisdom
if we ask the wrong questions. It is essentially a matter of priorities. The
first priority for all of us is the reduction and eventual elimination of suffering.
The Buddha recognized this and consequently pointed out the futility of speculating
about the origin and nature of the universe--precisely because, like the man
in the parable, we have all been struck down by an arrow, the arrow of suffering.
Thus we must ask questions that are directly related to the removal of the arrow
of suffering and not waste our precious time on irrelevant inquiries. This idea
can be expressed in a very simple way. We can all see that, in our daily lives,
we constantly make choices based on priorities. For instance, suppose you are
cooking and decide that, while the pot of beans is boiling, you will dust the
furniture or sweep the floor. But as you are occupied with this task, you suddenly
smell something burning: you then have to choose whether to carry on with your
dusting or sweeping or go immediately to the stove to turn down the flame and
thereby save your dinner. In the same way, if we want to make progress toward
wisdom, we must clearly recognize our priorities. This point is made very nicely
in the parable of the wounded man.
The third point I would like to discuss is the teaching on the importance of
verifying the truth by means of recourse to personal experience. This point
is made very clearly by the Buddha in his advice to the Kalamas contained in
the Kesaputtiya Sutta.. The Kalamas were a community of town-dwellers in some
ways very much like people in the contemporary world, who are exposed to so
many different and often conflicting versions of the truth. They went to the
Buddha and asked him how they were to judge the truth of the conflicting claims
made by various religious teachers. The Buddha told them not to accept anything
merely on the basis of purported authority, nor to accept anything simply because
it is contained in sacred text, nor to accept anything on the basis of common
opinion, nor because it seems reasonable, nor yet again because of reverence
for a teacher. He even went so far as to advise them not to accept his own teaching
without verification of its truth through personal experience.
The Buddha asked the Kalamas to test whatever they might hear in the light of
their own experience. Only when they came to know for themselves that such and
such things were harmful should they seek to abandon them. Alternatively, when
they came to know for themselves that certain things were beneficial--that they
were conducive to peace and tranquillity--then they should seek to cultivate
them. We, too, must judge the truth of whatever we are taught in the light of
our own personal experience.
In his advice to the Kalamas, I think we can see clearly the Buddha's doctrine
of self-reliance in the acquisition of knowledge. We ought to use our own minds
as a kind of private test tube. We can all see for ourselves that when greed
and anger are present in our minds, they lead to disquiet and suffering. By
the same token, we can all see for ourselves that when greed and anger are absent
from our minds, it results in tranquillity and happiness. This is a very simple
personal experiment that we can all do. The verification of the validity of
teachings in the light of one's own personal experience is very important, because
what the Buddha taught will only be effective, will only really succeed in changing
our lives, if we can carry out this kind of personal experiment and make the
teaching our very own. Only when we can verify the truth of the Buddha's teachings
by recourse to our own experience can we be sure that we are making progress
on the path to the elimination of suffering.
Again we can see a striking similarity between the approach of the Buddha and
the scientific approach to the quest for knowledge. The Buddha stressed the
importance of objective observation, which is in a sense the key to the Buddhist
method for acquiring knowledge. It is objective observation that yields the
first of the Four Noble Truths, the truth of suffering; it is observation that
verifies one's progress along the steps of the path; and it is observation that
confirms the realization of the complete cessation of suffering. Therefore,
at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the Buddhist path to liberation,
the role of observation is essential.
This is not very different from the role played by objective observation in
the scientific tradition of the West. The scientific tradition teaches that
when we observe a problem, we must first formulate a general theory and then
a specific hypothesis. The same procedure obtains in the case of the Four Noble
Truths. Here the general theory is that all things must have a cause, while
the specific hypothesis is that the cause of suffering is craving and ignorance
(the second noble truth). This hypothesis can be verified by the experimental
method embodied in the steps of the Eightfold Path. By means of the steps of
this path, the soundness of the second noble truth can be established. In addition,
the reality of the third noble truth, the cessation of suffering, can be verified,
because through cultivating the path craving and ignorance are eliminated and
the supreme happiness of nirvana is attained. This experimental process is repeatable,
in keeping with sound scientific practice: not only did the Buddha attain the
end of suffering but so, too, we can see historically, did all those who followed
his path to the end.
Therefore, when we look closely at the teaching of the Buddha, we find that
his approach has a great deal in common with the approach of science. This has
naturally aroused a tremendous amount of interest in Buddhism among modern-minded
people. We can begin to see why Einstein was able to make a remark like the
one credited to him. The general agreement between the Buddhist approach and
that of modern science will become even clearer when we examine the Buddhist
attitude toward the facts of experience, which, like that of science, is analytical.
According to the teaching of the Buddha, the data of experience are divided
into two components, the objective component and the subjective component; in
other words, the things we perceive around us, and we ourselves, the subjective
perceivers. Buddhism has long been noted for its analytical approach in the
fields of philosophy and psychology. What is meant by this is that the Buddha
analyzed the facts of experience into various components or factors. The most
basic of these components are the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception,
volition, and consciousness. These five aggregates can be viewed in terms of
the eighteen elements, and there is also an even more elaborate analysis in
terms of the seventy-two factors.
The procedure adopted here is analytical inasmuch as it breaks up the data of
experience into their various components. The Buddha was not satisfied with
a vague conception of experience in general; rather, he analyzed experience,
probed its essence, and broke it down into its components, just as we might
break down the phenomenon of a chariot into the wheels, the axle, the body,
and so forth. The object of this exercise is to gain a better idea of how these
phenomena function. When, for instance, we see a flower, hear a piece of music,
or meet with a friend, all these experiences arise as the direct result of a
combination of component elements.
This has been called the analytical approach of Buddhism, and again, it is not
at all strange to modern science and philosophy. We find the analytical approach
very widely applied in science, while in philosophy the analytical approach
has characterized the thought of many European philosophers, perhaps most clearly
and recently that of Bertrand Russell. Studies have been done comparing his
analytical philosophy quite successfully with that of early Buddhism. Consequently,
in western science and philosophy, we find a very close parallel to the analytical
method as it is taught within the Buddhist tradition. This is one of the familiar
and recognizable features that has attracted modern western intellectuals and
academics to Buddhist philosophy. Modern psychologists, too, are now deeply
interested in the Buddhist analysis of the various factors of consciousness:
feeling, perception, and volition. They are turning in increasing numbers to
the ancient teaching of the Buddha to gain greater insight into their own discipline.
This growing interest in the teaching of the Buddha--provoked by these many
areas of affinity between Buddhist thought and the major currents of modern
science, philosophy, and psychology--has reached its apex in the twentieth century
with the startling suggestions advanced by relativity theory and quantum physics,
which represent the very latest developments in experimental and theoretical
science. Here, again, it is evident not only that the Buddha anticipated the
primary methods of science (namely, observation, experimentation, and analysis),
but also that, in some of their most specific conclusions about the nature of
man and the universe, Buddhism and science actually coincide.For example, the
importance of consciousness in the formation of experience, so long ignored
in the West, has now been recognized. Not long ago, a noted physicist remarked
that the universe may really be just something like a great thought. This very
clearly follows in the footsteps of the teaching of the Buddha expressed in
the Dhammapada, where it is said that the mind is the maker of all things. Likewise,
the relativity of matter and energy--the recognition that there is no radical
division between mind and matter--has now been confirmed by the most recent
developments in modern experimental science.
The consequence of all this is that, in the context of contemporary western
culture, scientists, psychologists, and philosophers have found in Buddhism
a tradition in harmony with some of the most basic principles of western thought.
In addition, they find Buddhism particularly interesting because, although the
principal methods and conclusions of the western scientific tradition often
closely resemble those of Buddhism, western science has thus far suggested no
practical way of achieving an inner transformation, whereas in Buddhism such
a way is clearly indicated. While science has taught us to build better cities,
expressways, factories, and farms, it has not taught us to build better people.
Therefore people in the contemporary world are turning to Buddhism, an ancient
philosophy that has many features in common with the western scientific tradition
but that goes beyond the materialism of the West, beyond the limits of practical
science as we have known it thus far.