What are the ills from which Buddhism offers a cure, and how is the cure to be achieved?

All the world’s great and historic religions have chiefly two realms in which they consistently operate. They are the realms of metaphysics (reality as it is in itself) and morality (the good as it pertains to-and is exemplified by-rational agents). As one of the world’s great religions of the East (and lately of the West), Buddhism has much to say on both of these two realms.

Interestingly though, it seems the case can be made that Buddhism, perhaps unlike the three great theistic religions of the West, concerns itself primarily with comments regarding the moral sphere, rather than comments on the nature of reality per se. Although, as we shall see, no major religion which has much to say in the area of morality ever exempts itself from its fair share of ontological comments on the nature of things. Indeed, there seems to be a fair amount of necessity holding between a religion presenting moral positions and also providing the metaphysical underpinnings for those positions.

Three Branches of Buddhism Briefly Considered

The oldest division of Buddhism is known as the Theravada. Naturally, this branch traces its roots to Buddha himself. The first country to wholly embrace Theravada was Sri Lanka in the third century B.C. From there it spread to other spheres of Asia. It is defined by having a strong monastic background, and sees as important both doctrinal study and meditation. Mahayana can be traced back to first century A.D. Its arising so late is attributed to, so the Mahayanans have said, the frozen nature of the Theravada by this time. The Buddha had always planed for the origination of Mahayana as a means of revitalizing the Buddhism of Theravadans, which had become far too doctrinal. Around the same time, Mahayana was introduced into China, which already had Taoism and Confucianism as major contributors to the Chinese worldview. The interaction of Buddhism with these two indigenous systems seems to have been very complex. From China, Mahayana was spread to Korea and eventually (6th century) made its way into Japan. From there it sprang into many various lineages. Ostensibly, practicality was always a big concern to the Japanese, as regards Buddhism. Any form of it which sprang up, which later was found to be ingermane to the common, everyday concerns of the common man eventually fell out of favor altogether. From this discussion of the spread of many various forms of Buddhism throughout Asia, a natural question arises as to what maintains the unity of Buddhistic belief and practice.

Buddhism and (Un)Orthodoxy

Among contemporary authors it seems easy enough to find those who would agree with the assertion that Buddhism is much more concerned about helping individuals to be cured of their ills (e.g., break free from the cycle of suffering) than it is with defining orthodoxy. The reasons for this do not seem hard to come by. It may be helpful in this regard to contrast Buddhism with another major world religion, which has historically been very much concerned with defining orthodoxy: namely, Catholicism. Although both of these major religions share a number of important aspects in common, it must also be emphasized that there are some key differences, and these differences are the very things which make it almost inevitable that Buddhism would not be so wrapped up in delineating orthodoxy from heterodoxy.

First, and most fundamental of all, what is Buddhism exactly? Is it one monolithic entity like Catholicism? Further, who gets to say what it is and what it is not? Does the Dalai Lama speak for all Buddhists everywhere? Or perhaps the famous Vietnamese writer Thich Nhat Hanh is a universal voice for Buddhism? What about D. T. Suzuki? In his writings, does he only speak for the Zen Buddhists or for others also? Could it even be truly said that he speaks for the group of which he is a part at all? In other words, where does the authority lie for defining orthodoxy in Buddhism?

Regarding authority in Catholicism, the claim is that there is a succession of authority passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken line of succession of contemporary bishops stretching all the way back to Jesus Christ’s apostles who were given their authority by Christ himself in order to speak in his name. This doctrine is known as apostolic succession. So, who gets to have the final say as to what the truth (or “orthodoxy”) is on any given issue? The Magisterium of the Church, which is comprised of all the bishops and headed by the bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope), gets to finalize matters of faith and morality. There is a means of laying down final authority in Catholicism.

After the issue of authority is a closely related question of the canonicity of sacred writings. The fact is that neither the Buddha nor any of his immediate followers have passed down any writings that might have served as eyewitness accounts of the events of the Buddha’s life and/or of his teachings. So, no one is able to make recourse to any such sacred writings as a means of settling the question of orthodoxy. In Catholicism however, even though just as in Buddhism the founding leader did not leave behind any writings of his own so far as anyone knows, the eyewitnesses (or companions close to the eyewitnesses to the events and sayings of the life of Jesus Christ) have left authoritative sacred writings and the bishops have come together to define just which are those sacred writings, which have authority for the Catholic. Not so for Buddhism. What we know with certainty as to the original life and teachings of the Buddha is so little, whether it is the simple question of the language he spoke or the vastly more important question of precisely what he even taught himself.

So if a question arises as to whether a given belief or practice going on anywhere in the world is authentically Buddhist, who gets to say what is and is not authentic Buddhism? Both Theravada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism lay claim to being that type of Buddhism which stretches back all the way to the oral teachings of the Buddha himself. There is nothing implausible about this being true. It may very well be. The problem that arises is that it is impractical, not implausible. While there are Buddhist claims for the succession of certain teachings and practices, we are more concerned here with the fact that the question regarding the truth or authenticity of any such claim in Buddhism is not tangibly resolvable. It is all very well for a group to claim that its teachings are the true and authentic ones, but when it comes to verifying such claims, there seems to be no one who can readily and universally do such in the case of Buddhism. Hence, on these two issues alone one can see the makings of a religion that will almost necessarily be much more concerned with moral matters and curing ills than with keeping all its adherents in line with orthodoxy.

A Diagnosis and Proposed Cure for an Old Disease

There is universality among Buddhists as to the deepest of our problems and the means of arriving at a solution to this problem. It does not matter which contemporary book one looks at, or what ancient Buddhistic writing has been translated for the modern reader, or even whether the author is Theravadan or Mahayanan, the core teachings of this particular issue are ubiquitous. This core teaching may conveniently be referred to here as the dharma, which is the “true nature of reality and the Buddha’s teaching about it.” From this basic dharma comes the “Four Noble Truths” and the “Noble Eightfold Path.”

The First Truth and Its Metaphysics

The first of the four truths is the fact of suffering (Duhkha). All humans undergo some measure of suffering whether at birth, death, sickness, aging, experiencing a loss, etc. Theravadins use the Wheel Sutra as preserved in the Pali when teaching on this first truth of duhkha. Basically, what it amounts to is that the common events of everyone’s life is duhkha. Tibetan Mahayanans find three levels on which to describe duhkha: the suffering of pain; the suffering of change; and the suffering of samsara.

At this point, it seems equally helpful, if not necessary, to lay a little metaphysical groundwork, so that one might better make sense of the first of the four truths. The unfortunate reality of all beings (save the Buddhas) is one of being locked into an endless cycle of rebirth, which is called samsara. This motif of the cyclical nature of existence is common to nearly all ancient thought on the Indian subcontinent. But the questions still remains as to what is the nature of samsara? The analogy that philosopher of religion Roger Corless uses is that of an illusion or dream. Although samsara is real, it is not real in an ultimate sense. That which is ultimately real is nirvana. Samsara is a product of certain causes and is an experience of suffering which is a “real delusion.”

In this cyclical existence of samsara, a doctrine that was held over from the Hinduism which preceded the arrival of Shakyamuni is the notion of karma and rebirth. Rebirth, however, must be distinguished from reincarnation in that when rebirth occurs, what is happening is not so simple as the same substantial soul being reborn over and over. As was said above, karma produces fruit. When a being dies, if it still has karma that must fruit, then a group of clusters (skandha) will form and the next being to continue in samsara will “inherit” the fruit of the karma from a previous existence.

The Second Truth

The second of the four truths has to do with the causation of this suffering. The immediate cause is the fruiting of one’s own karma, the seeds of which were sown some time in the past by various good and/or bad deeds. The root cause of suffering, it may be said, is ignorance of the true nature of reality. This denial of a substantial self is linked in with the arising of duhkha. The whole notion of a ‘self’ is associated with continuing suffering. In fact, it is often a direct result of our ideas of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ that much of our suffering results because once an ‘I’ (or self) is thought to exist then the potential for that self to grasp onto the world comes along with it. But in fact no such ‘I’ or self exists in a fundamental sense. This does not imply that reality is really such that no-self is somehow ‘more real’ than self, for that would simply be duality, and it is this very thinking in dual terms that is part and parcel to samsara. But, the reverse is also true. If I come to think that self-existence is really the case, and its negation (i.e., no-self) is false, then I am still thinking in dual terms. Duality is inherently samsaric. If one persists in dual ways of believing, thinking and acting, he will never break free from the cycle of karma and rebirth.

The Third and Fourth Truths

The third truth indicates that this suffering can cease and come to a complete end. It is only by the attainment of Enlightenment (i.e., by becoming one who is of Buddha-nature) that one breaks free from samsara and passes on to nirvana. The fourth and final of these fundamental truths elaborates the path to achieving such cessation. This path is none other than the noble eightfold path, all the members of which are interrelated – right view, right thinking, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right diligence, right mindfulness, and right concentration. As we explore this common set of principles in all Buddhism, it will be helpful to venture into the various traditions of Buddhism. One important distinction between how the Theravadin and Mahayanin approach aspects of the eightfold path. For example, the Theravadin general approach is said to be one of negative ascesis (i.e., seeking to refrain from harming another being) and self-improvement through the personal working out of one’s own problems. Mahayana, on the other hand, is understood as the vehicle of positive ascesis, which would amount to the active seeking out and participation in giving good things to other beings.

Conclusion

Even though the variety of practices and various higher level beliefs within the world of Buddhism is somewhat staggering, there is, as we have seen, a basic core of beliefs and practices to which nearly all branches of Buddhism give assent. These are found within the “first sermon” given by Gautama the Buddha himself. They concern the four truths and the eightfold path to enlightenment, which eventually breaks one free from the cycle of samsara and suffering, and which, further, eventuates into nirvana for the being which can attain such. We have explored how the curing of these and associated ills within samsara is the chief focus of all branches of Buddhism. And although there does not seem to be any strong means of maintaining orthodoxy among all Buddhists everywhere, there does remain a least common denominator, as it were, of belief and practice amongst the various branches of this particular worldview.

Bibliography

Armstrong, Karen. Buddha. New York: Viking Penguin, 2001. Corless, Roger J. The Vision of Buddhism: The Space Under the Tree. New York: Paragon House, 1989.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation: The Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and Other Basic Buddhist Teaching. New York: Broadway Books, 1999.

Lama, Dalai. Live in a Better Way: Reflections on Truth, Love and Happiness. Compiled and edited by Renuka Singh. New York: Viking Penguin, 2001.

Lopez, Donald S. The Story of Buddhism: A Concise Guide to Its History and Teachings. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.

Scheck, Frank Rainer, and Manfred Gorgens. Buddhism: An Illustrated Historical Overview. Translated by Marion Kleinschmidt. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 1999.

Smith, Jean, ed. Radiant Mind: Essential Buddhist Teachings and Texts. New York: Riverhead Books, 1999.

Zaehner, R. C., ed. Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions. New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 1997.