Author Archives: vinaire

I am originally from India. I am settled in United States since 1969. I love mathematics, philosophy and clarity in thinking.

Confucianism

Reference: The World’s Religions

  1. The First Teacher
  2. The Problem Confucius Faced
  3. Rival Answers
  4. Confucius’ Answer
  5. The Content of Deliberate Tradition
  6. The Confucian Project
  7. Ethics or Religion?
  8. Impact on China
  9. Suggestions for Further Reading 

.

BUDDHISM: The Confluence of Buddhism and Hinduism in India

Reference: Buddhism

[NOTE: In color are Vinaire’s comments.]

It is a paradox that Buddhism triumphs in the world at large, only (it would seem) to forfeit the land of its birth. This surface appearance is deceptive. The deeper fact is that in India Buddhism was not so much defeated by Hinduism as accommodated within it.

Among the surface paradoxes of Buddhism—this religion that began by rejecting ritual, speculation, grace, mystery, and a personal God and ended by bringing them all back into the picture—there is a final one. Today Buddhists abound in every Asian land except India; only recently, after a thousand-year absence, are they beginning in small numbers to reappear. Buddhism triumphs in the world at large, only (it would seem) to forfeit the land of its birth. 

It is a paradox that Buddhism triumphs in the world at large, only (it would seem) to forfeit the land of its birth. 

This surface appearance is deceptive. The deeper fact is that in India Buddhism was not so much defeated by Hinduism as accommodated within it. Up to around the year 1000, Buddhism persisted in India as a distinct religion. To say that the Muslim invaders then wiped it out will not do, for Hinduism survived. The fact is that in the course of its 1,500 years in India, Buddhism’s differences with Hinduism softened. Hindus admitted the legitimacy of many of the Buddha’s reforms, and in imitation of the Buddhist sangha orders of Hindu sadhus (wandering ascetics) came into existence. From the other side, Buddhist teachings came to sound increasingly like Hindu ones as Buddhism opened into the Mahayana, until in the end Buddhism sank back into the source from which it had sprung. 

This surface appearance is deceptive. The deeper fact is that in India Buddhism was not so much defeated by Hinduism as accommodated within it.

Only if one assumes that Buddhist principles left no mark on subsequent Hinduism can the merger be considered a Buddhist defeat. Actually, almost all of Buddhism’s affirmative doctrines found their place or parallel. Its contributions, accepted by Hindus in principle if not always practice, included its renewed emphasis on kindness to all living things, on non-killing of animals, on the elimination of caste barriers in matters religious and their reduction in matters social, and its strong ethical emphasis generally. The bodhisattva ideal seems to have left its mark in prayers like the following by Santi Deva in the great Hindu devotional classic, the Bhagavatam:

The bodhisattva ideal seems to have left its mark in prayers like the following by Santi Deva in the great Hindu devotional classic, the Bhagavatam:

I desire not of the Lord the greatness which comes by the attainment of the eightfold powers, nor do I pray him that I may not be born again; my one prayer to him is that I may feel the pain of others, as if I were residing within their bodies, and that I may have the power of relieving their pain and making them happy.

Buddhism brings sensitivity to the pain of others and the measures to relieve it and bring happiness.

All in all, the Buddha was reclaimed as “a rebel child of Hinduism”; he was even raised to the status of a divine incarnation. The goal of Theravada Buddhism was acknowledged to be substantially that of non-dual Hinduism, and even the Prajnaparamita’s contention that eternity is not other than the present moment found its Hindu counterpart:

This very world is a mansion of mirth;
Here I can eat, here drink and make merry.

(Ramakrishna)

The goal of Theravada Buddhism was acknowledged to be substantially that of non-dual Hinduism.

Especially in Hindu Tantric schools, disciples were brought to the point where they could see meat, wine, and sex—things that had formerly appeared as the most formidable barriers to the divine—as but varying forms of God. “The Mother is present in every house. Need I break the news as one breaks an earthen pot on the floor.”

Things that had formerly appeared as most formidable barriers to the divine were now seen as but varying forms of God.

.

Happiness: Precept 7-2

Reference: The Happiness Rundown

7-2. Do not bear false witness

There are considerable penalties connected with swearing or testifying to untrue “facts.” It is called “perjury”: it has heavy penalties.

.

Exercise

0. Make sure you have completed the exercise section at Happiness: Precept 7-1. Study the precept above.

1. Check the responses to the following questions for false data (see false data steps at Happiness: Prologue).

(a) “Have you been told or taught that it was OK to bear false witness?”
(b) “Do you have any rules or ideas contrary to not bearing false witness?”
(c) “Have you been led to believe that you should bear false witness?”
(d) “Do you know of anything that conflicts with not bearing false witness?”
(e) “Do you have any false data about bearing false witness?”

.

2. Go over each of the following questions repetitively, until there are no more answers: 

(a) “How have others transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not bear false witness’?”
(b) “How have you transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not bear false witness’?”

Do a quick review to see if you did not miss any answers on this step. You should be feeling good about this step.

.

3. See if the following question definitely brings up some name you know of:

“Is there any specific person in your past who really transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not bear false witness’?”

If no name comes up then go to step 4. if a name has come up, then continue with step 3 as follows:

“Can you recall an exact moment when you observed ___(name)___ transgressing this precept?”

If there is a realization, go to step 4. Otherwise, continue contemplating as follows, until there is some realization.

“Is there any time when you wanted to be like ___(name)___ ?” 
“Is there any time when you decided that bearing false witness was a good thing?”
“Did you ever do anything bad to ___(name)___ ? 
(Get all possible answers)
“Are there any differences between ___(name)___ and yourself?”
“Are there any similarities between ___(name)___  and yourself?”

.

4. Handle any anomalies that come up on the following question by looking at the anomaly more closely. 

”Do you have any reservations about not bearing false witness?” 

If the anomaly does not resolve then review the precept as well as all the exercise steps above to see if anything was missed. Then do step 4 again. When there is no anomaly go to step 5.

.

5. Contemplate on the following question.

“Do you have any reservations about getting someone else not to bear false witness?” 

If any reservation comes up, then consider the following: 

“How would that be a problem?” 

Get answers to this question until there are no reservations.

.

Wrap up Precept 7

0. Review Precept 7.

1. Contemplate over the following question.

“Is there any conflict between seeking to live with the truth and any other ideas you have encountered?”

Handle any conflict with false data steps.

.

2. Go over each of the following questions repetitively, until there are no more answers: 

“Have you thought of any other transgressions of others against the precept: ‘Seek to live with the truth’?”
“Have you thought of any other transgressions of your own against the precept: ‘Seek to live with the truth’?”
“During these sessions have you thought of any withhold?”

.

3. Consider this question:

“Do you have any feeling that you wouldn’t be yourself if you followed the precept: ‘Seek to live with the truth’?”

If this is not the case, go to the Step 4. Otherwise, ask yourself,

“Can you recall any person who felt the way you do about the precept: ‘Seek to live with the truth’?”

If no name comes up then go to step 4. if a name has come up, then continue with step 3 as follows:

“Can you recall an exact moment when you observed ___(name)___ transgressing this precept?”

If there is a realization, go to step 4. Otherwise, continue contemplating as follows, until there is some realization.

“Is there any time when you wanted to be like ___(name)___ ?” 
“Is there any time when you decided that not seeking to live with the truth was a good thing?”
“Did you ever do anything bad to ___(name)___ ? 
(Get all possible answers)
“Are there any differences between ___(name)___ and yourself?”
“Are there any similarities between ___(name)___  and yourself?”

.

4. Check over the following questions. and handle any anomalies that come up.

“Do you have any other considerations about seeking to live with the truth?”
“Do you have any other considerations about others seeking to live with the truth?”

.

Happiness: Precept 7-1

Reference: The Happiness Rundown

7-1. Do not tell harmful lies

Harmful lies are the product of fear, malice and envy. They can drive people to acts of desperation. They can ruin lives. They create a kind of trap into which the teller and the target can both fall. Interpersonal and social chaos can result. Many wars began because of harmful lies.

One should learn to detect them and reject them.

.

Exercise

0. Make sure you have completed the exercise section at Happiness: Precept 7. Study the precept above.

1. Check the responses to the following questions for false data (see false data steps at Happiness: Prologue).

(a) “Have you been told or taught to tell harmful lies?”
(b) “Do you have any rules or ideas contrary to not telling harmful lies?”
(c) “Have you been led to believe that you should tell harmful lies?”
(d) “Do you know of anything that conflicts with not telling harmful lies?”
(e) “Do you have any false data about harmful lies?”

.

2. Go over each of the following questions repetitively, until there are no more answers: 

(a) “How have others transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not tell harmful lies’?”
(b) “How have you transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not tell harmful lies’?”

Do a quick review to see if you did not miss any answers on this step. You should be feeling good about this step.

.

3. See if the following question definitely brings up some name you know of:

“Is there any specific person in your past who really transgressed against the precept: ‘Do not tell harmful lies’?”

If no name comes up then go to step 4. if a name has come up, then continue with step 3 as follows:

“Can you recall an exact moment when you observed ___(name)___ transgressing this precept?”

If there is a realization, go to step 4. Otherwise, continue contemplating as follows, until there is some realization.

“Is there any time when you wanted to be like ___(name)___ ?” 
“Is there any time when you decided that telling harmful lies was a good thing?”
“Did you ever do anything bad to ___(name)___ ? 
(Get all possible answers)
“Are there any differences between ___(name)___ and yourself?”
“Are there any similarities between ___(name)___  and yourself?”

.

4. Handle any anomalies that come up on the following question by looking at the anomaly more closely. 

”Do you have any reservations about not telling harmful lies?” 

If the anomaly does not resolve then review the precept as well as all the exercise steps above to see if anything was missed. Then do step 4 again. When there is no anomaly go to step 5.

.

5. Contemplate on the following question.

“Do you have any reservations about getting someone else not to tell harmful lies?” 

If any reservation comes up, then consider the following: 

“How would that be a problem?” 

Get answers to this question until there are no reservations.

.

BUDDHISM: The Image of the Crossing

Reference: Buddhism

[NOTE: In color are Vinaire’s comments.]

Once the other shore of Enlightenment is attained there is no further need for the raft that carried them across the stream. The doctrine of Buddhism is simply a tool to be cast away and forsaken once it has served the purpose for which it was made.

We have looked at three modes of transport in Buddhism: the Little Raft; the Big Raft, with special attention to Zen; and, though it sounds odd in the context of a flotilla, the Diamond Raft. These vehicles are so different that we must ask in closing whether, on any grounds other than historical lineage, they deserve to be considered aspects of a single religion. 

There are two respects in which they should be so regarded. They all revere a single founder from whom they claim their teachings derive. And all three can be subsumed under a single metaphor. This is the image of the crossing, the simple everyday experience of crossing a river on a ferryboat. 

All three aspects of Buddhism can be subsumed under a single metaphor of crossing a river on a ferryboat. 

To appreciate the force of this image we must remember the role the ferry played in traditional Asian life. In lands laced by rivers and canals, almost every considerable journey required a ferry. This routine fact underlies and inspires every school of Buddhism, as the use of the word yana by all of them attests. Buddhism is a voyage across life’s river, a transport from the common-sense shore of ignorance, grasping, and death, to the further bank of wisdom and enlightenment. Compared with this settled fact, the differences within Buddhism are no more than variations in the kind of vehicle one boards, or the stage one has reached on the journey. 

Buddhism is a voyage across life’s river, a transport from the common-sense shore of ignorance, grasping, and death, to the further bank of wisdom and enlightenment.

What are these stages?

While we are on the first bank it is in effect the world for us. Its earth underfoot is solid and reassuring. The rewards and disappointments of its social life are vivid and compelling. The opposite shore is barely visible and has no impact on our dealings. 

If, however, something prompts us to see what the other side is like, we may decide to attempt a crossing. If we are of independent bent, we may decide to make it on our own. In this case we are Theravadins; we follow the Buddha’s design for a sturdy craft, but we build ours ourself. Most of us, however, have neither the time nor the talent for a project of such proportions. We are Mahayanists and move down the bank to where a readymade ferryboat is expected. As the group of explorers clamber aboard at the landing there is an air of excitement. Attention is focused on the distant bank, still indistinct, but the voyagers are still very much like citizens of this side of the river. 

The ferry pushes off and moves across the water. The bank we are leaving behind is losing its substance. The shops and streets and ant-like figures are blending together and releasing their hold on us. Meanwhile, the shore toward which we are headed is not in focus either; it seems almost as far away as it ever was. There is an interval in the crossing when the only tangible realities are the water, with its treacherous currents, and the boat, which is stoutly but precariously contending with them. This is the moment for Buddhism’s Three Vows: I take refuge in the Buddha, the fact that there was an explorer who made this trip and proved to us that it can succeed. I take refuge in the dharma, the vehicle of transport, this boat to which we have committed our lives in the conviction that it is seaworthy. I take refuge in the sangha, the order, the crew that is navigating this ship, in whom we have confidence. The shoreline of the world has been left behind. Until we set foot on the further bank, these are the only things in which we can trust. 

During the voyage we do not have the firmness of the ground underneath our feet. Only firmness comes from Buddhism’s Three Vows: I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the dharma,  I take refuge in the sangha.

The further shore draws near, becomes real. The craft jolts onto the sand and we step onto solid ground. The land, which had been misty and unsubstantial as a dream, is now fact. And the shore that we left behind, which was so palpable and real, is now only a slender horizontal line, a visual patch, a memory without substance. 

Impatient to explore our new surroundings, we nevertheless remember our gratitude for the splendid ship and crew who have brought us safely to what promises to be a rewarding land. It will not be gratitude, however, to insist on packing the boat with us as we plunge into the woods. “Would he be a clever man,” the Buddha asked, “if out of gratitude for the raft that has carried him across the stream to safety he, having reached the other shore, should cling to it, take it on his back, and walk about with the weight of it? Would not the clever man be the one who left the raft, no longer of use to him, to the current of the stream and walked ahead without turning back to look at it? Is it not simply a tool to be cast away and forsaken once it has served the purpose for which it was made? In the same way the vehicle of the doctrine is to be cast away and forsaken once the other shore of Enlightenment has been attained.”

Once the other shore of Enlightenment is attained there is no further need for the raft that carried them across the stream. The doctrine of Buddhism is simply a tool to be cast away and forsaken once it has served the purpose for which it was made.

Here we come to the Prajnaparamita or Perfection of Wisdom sutras, which are widely considered to be the culminating texts of Buddhism. The Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path; the technical terminology of dukkha, karma, nirvana, and their like; the committed order and the person of the Buddha himself—all these are vitally important to the individual in the act of making the crossing. They lose their relevance for those who have arrived. Indeed, to the traveler who has not only reached the promised shore but who keeps moving into its interior, there comes a time when not only the raft but the river itself drops from view. When such a one turns around to look for the land that has been left behind, what appears? What of that land can appear to one who has crossed a horizon beyond which the river dividing this shore from that shore has vanished? One looks, and there is no other shore. There is no separating river. There is no raft, no ferryman. These things are not a part of the new world. 

After reaching the promised shore ones keep moving into its interior. No more is there a separating river. There is no raft, no ferryman. These things are not a part of the new world. 

Before the river was crossed the two shores, human and divine, had to appear distinct from each other, different as life and death, as day and night. But once the crossing has been made, no dichotomy remains. The realm of the gods is not a distinct place. It is where the traveler stands; and if that stance happens to be in this world, the world itself is transmuted. It is in this sense that we are to read the avowals in The Perfection of Wisdom that “this our worldly life is an activity of Nirvana itself; not the slightest distinction exists between them.” Introspection having led to a condition described positively as nirvana and negatively as Emptiness because it transcends all forms, the “stream-winner” now finds in the world itself this same Emptiness that he discovered within. “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not different from form, form is not different from emptiness.” The noisy disjunction between acceptance and rejection having been stilled, every moment is affirmed for what it actually is. It is Indra’s cosmic net, laced with jewels at every juncture. Each jewel reflects the others, together with all the reflections in the others. In such a vision the categories of good and evil disappear. “That which is sin is also Wisdom” we read; and once again, “the realm of Becoming is Nirvana.”

This earth on which we stand
is the promised Lotus Land,
And this very body
is the body of the Buddha.

The realm of the gods is not a distinct place. It is where the traveler stands; and if that stance happens to be in this world, the world itself is transmuted. The noisy disjunction between acceptance and rejection having been stilled, every moment is affirmed for what it actually is. 

This new-found shore throws light on the bodhisattva’s vow not to enter nirvana “until the grass itself be enlightened.” As grass keeps coming, does this mean that the bodhisattva will never be enlightened? Not exactly. It means, rather, that he (or she) has risen to the point where the distinction between time and eternity has lost its force. That distinction, drawn by the rational mind, is dissolved in the lightning-and-thunder insight that annihilates opposites. Time and eternity are now two aspects of the same experiential whole, two sides of the same coin. “The jewel of eternity is in the lotus of birth and death.”

The bodhisattva has risen to the point where the distinction between time and eternity has lost its force. 

From the standpoint of normal, worldly consciousness there must always remain an inconsistency between this climactic insight and worldly prudence. This, though, should not surprise us, for it would be flatly contradictory if the world looked exactly the same to those who have crossed the river of ignorance. Only they can dissolve the world’s distinctions—or, perhaps we should say, take them in their stride, for the distinctions persist, but now without difference. Where to eagle vision the river can still be seen, it is seen as connecting the two banks rather than dividing them.

Only those who have crossed the river of ignorance can dissolve the world’s distinctions—or, perhaps we should say, take them in their stride.

.