Soon was not as soon as I though, but all the same here is the first part of the first chapter:
-=Chapter One=-
Following two bible verses, the chapter makes a claim that is, to be frank, flatly wrong.
That claim is “Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (p 10).”
While others have written more extensively on the subject, a good introduction is Helmuth von Glasenapp’s “Vedanta and Buddhism.
Following that, we have an examination of goals and methods of Christianity vis a vis Budhism. Then, after a passable narrative of the Four Sights, we get a statement that continues to confuse me. “…the Buddhist theology that developed after him had Buddha as the universe.4”
The footnote leads to a citation for a book I cannot locate a digital copy of, nor can I find any relevant passage in google books. If the author ever reads this, I would appreciate a picture of the passage in question as it sounds nothing like any teaching or practice I’ve ever encountered.
The next incorrect statement that is worth examining is this, “Buddha’s Buddhism is not overtly atheistic. It does not officially reject a person god. It is mute about theism.”
This, again, is flatly untrue. The Buddha was not a disinterested agnostic.
The Buddha identifies how beings come to think of themselves as god (DN 11, 24, etc) and where the immoral urge to worship such a being comes from (MN 49).
Not only that, but the idea of a sovereign god is considered immoral (AN 3.61) since it removes the need for and efficacy of volitional action in one’s self-liberation.
What is sometimes seen as the classic argument from suffering is presented in Jataka 543.
In response to my own readings of reformed apologetics I developed my own counter-apologetics based on the facts of consciousness as presented in the Pali Canon.
Continuing “…the Buddhist aim…[is] the liberation of the Buddhist from the weight of the self.” (P11)
The sumum bonum of Buddhist practice is the cessation of suffering this isn’t just abandoning “i-making,” but all clinging.
A reminder that buddhadhamma does not teach that there is no self (nor that the self is an illusion).
He continues on this path for a while, clinging, ironically enough, to the wrong view that Buddhism teaches a philosophy of illusion.
Next, he attempts to explain the four noble truths and gets a number of things wrong.
This will be a lengthy examination.
To begin, “Buddha systematized spiritual ennoblement in his teaching, which included The Four Noble Truths (FNT or NT hereafter). The First NT is that life is basically suffering (dukkha). This means that the soul is out of harmony and seeks after the wrong things, and thus perpetuates the suffering.” (P12)
This is a common misunderstanding, but one which drastically misrepresents the essential message of the the first noble truth, and thus the four as a whole.
At no point did the Buddha teach that life is suffering.
The words we have recorded in Pali Canon are, “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, union with what is unpleasant is suffering, separation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.” (SN 56.11, see also, DN 22 for an expansion of this)
In fact, the Blessed One even addressed this very claim in SN 22.60.
The purpose of the first noble truth is to acknowledge the experience of suffering. Let’s remember that the noble truths cannot be separated from one another but must be regarded as a whole (in addition to being one expression of what is arguably the most important principle in Buddhadhamma: this-that causality).
We continue on to his explication of the second truth:
“The Second NT is a result of desire. All men suffer because we lack that which we want and receive the trouble, which we do not desire. This desire to have and to possess things is the cause of our suffering. An important part of enlightenment is the understanding that suffering is just an illusion, like desire, and one escapes this desire through following the Dharma (the law of life, one’s duty within cultural norms or the basic philosophical principals of one’s life in the world). (P13)”
The word translated as “desire” is “tanha” and is far broader than mere possession of material goods, it is meant to encompass a range of psychological phenomenon (eg, craving for existence, craving for non-existence, etc).
Once again, he moves from the assumption that the dhamma teaches suffering is an illusion.
This is, again, a Vedantic doctrine.
The purpose of the second noble truth is that suffering comes into being with cause, not without cause (more on this as we unpack the next two noble truths), and that this cause can be abandoned.
I don’t feel a great need to quote his short section on the third noble truth as it amounts to little more than the old “isn’t the desire to end desire a contradiction?” Which was addressed definitively in SN 51.15.
The purpose of the third noble truth is the recognition of the cessation of suffering.
Lastly, “The Fourth NT instructs one how to extinguish desire which, as asserted above, is self-impaling.” (P13)
Indeed it was only asserted. In practice desire can easily be used to end desire. When one is hungry, one feels the desire to eat. This is a necessity (cf Khp 4), and this desire can be seen for what it is, and hunger satisfied in a way that doesn’t involve clinging to the sensual experiences flavor, texture, etc.
"Where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.” (SN 12.64)
“Reflecting appropriately, he uses almsfood, not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'” (MN 2)
And, as mentioned, SN 51.15.
“On this crucial issue—the diagnosis of the human problem—Christianity and Buddhism are infinitely different. Buddha teaches that our desires need to be subdued and annihilated, but Jesus presses men to cultivate passionate desires to please God and follow after love. Buddha attempts to rid men of suffering by denying one’s aspirations and in promulgating the notion that desires are part of the vast illusion of life.” (P13)
While the first statement is somewhat true, the approach and goals of Buddhist practice and Christian worship are mutually incompatible, once again, he makes the false claim that the Blessed One taught a doctrine of illusion.
“This reveals that the real need that Buddhists have is for the forgiveness of sins and acceptance by God. Only Jesus can provide this solution. The Buddhist is taught to resolve to follow Dharma with precision so one can find Nirvana.” (P13)
This is a non-sequitur, a conclusion based on a false assumption.
The purpose of the fourth noble is the development of the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.
The four noble truths are not abstract doctrines to be memorized and never considered again except during recitations, but an active roadmap for Buddhist practice, as the Patisambhidamagga puts it:
Suffering to be understood
The Cause to be abandoned
Cessation to be realized
The Path to be developed
Here is where I’d like to end this for now. I’m nearly done going over my notes for the next portion.
May all beings be happy and free from suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment