Buhhdism Paper

Buddhism

Buddhism, in my understanding, is more a direction for living an ethical life than a religion. Most religions have, at their heart, a metaphysical (and mostly amber) understanding of the relationship between petitioner and a higher being; Buddhism, in contrast, in its purest essence (or more accurately today this is a Theravadin outlook), does not espouse a belief in an all-powerful being that watches over us and judges our behaviors, thoughts, and deeds. It is a mode of living that at its most essential essence places responsibility squarely upon individuals, or at least before the split between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism this appeared to be the case.

Before the Buddha’s death, he refused to be deified. The Buddha is thought of as a man who awoke from the unconscious, automatic way of being in the world. Because of his being completely awake and attuned to the energies that inform the world, he became the ultimate teacher of his time. It was only in this capacity that the Buddha functioned, by his own insistence, in his lifetime. It was upon his death and with the later interpretations of his teaching that Buddhism split into different sects with their own way of viewing the Buddha and his intent. I find this very interesting in that the personage known as Jesus has a rather similar history. Later interpretations will always be colored by the stage of development of the practitioners, it seems.

Despite the later divisions of Buddhism: Theravada, and two schools of Mahayana Buddhism, with their individual proscriptions and rules of living, there are six aspects they hold in common, according to Smith and Novak (2003). These are: “(1) They all revere a single founder from whom they claim their teachings derive. (2) They all regard self-centeredness as that which prevents our optimal relating to life. (3) They all regard freedom (from self-centeredness) as a primary theme of the Path. (4) They all emphasize interdependence and our concomitant responsibility to love and care for others […] (5) They all adhere to the Buddha’s emphasis on impermance: ‘People forget that their lives will end soon. For those who remember, quarrels come to an end.’ And (6) The image of the crossing.” (pp. 112-113). While this shortened version does not detail the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-fold Path, it does capture the essence of the Buddha’s intent, I believe. How individual practioners relate to these essential teachers will depend upon which school of thought they adhere to.

If one is a Theravadin Buddhist, following the teachings of the Pali Canon and vipassana meditation are how one understands The Way or The Path. This is a highly individualized, scholarly interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings, and Theravadin Buddhists do not consider the Buddha a supreme being but rather a supreme teacher and inspirer. Wisdom is the main virtue. They believe that it is human effort that emancipates humans and there is no supernatural being helping us. Also, this is hard work best done in a monastic setting. There is not a sense of needing to be part of the larger community or in doing “good works” as the Mahayana schools of Buddhism emphasize. The possible problem around fundamentalism in this school of Buddhist thought is the assumption that one must be monk or nun to properly practice Buddhism; it could be thought of as an exclusive and non-accessible form of Buddhism. Its insistence of rigorous purity could create a sense of superiority in those people operating from a more ethnocentric world view—essentially—those people who misunderstand the underlying intent of the Buddha’s teaching and use it for more self-serving purposes.

For the Mahayana Buddhists, of which there are many smaller divisions, Buddhism is a “religion” of the people. Mahayana Buddhists view the Buddha as a supreme being and savior rather than an enlightened teacher. They also believe that human effort is supported by divine guidance and intercession. Rather than achieving insight through one’s own rigorous efforts and vipassana meditation as espoused by Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana schools of thought believe that divine grace will support insight and enlightenment and that such states are open to all—not only monks and nun in closed communities. The ideas of Grace and compassion are integral to Mahayana Buddhism. The problem of fundamentalism would seem to be less likely in Mahayana Buddhism because of the multi-divisional nature of it. While the various sects have many things in common, there are enough practical differences that it would seem rather difficult to form any kind of fundamentalist dogma at all. There appears to be a sense of divine messiness in Mahayana Buddhism when looked at as an encompassing whole. However, it is certainly possible to make judgments about those who do not appear to have compassion for others nor care to be part of the world. Of course, it would also be easy for the two main divisions to view their own stance as the only correct one; humanity and its need for “rightness” will usually seep into even the most rigorously well-intentioned sects and religions. This human need will ever be with us, I suspect.

I find that I cannot entirely embrace one or the other way of practicing Buddhism. I certainly see the beauty and value of both schools of thought and practice. I am very drawn to the monastic setting and scholarly pursuits; and yet, I am also drawn to helping others achieve cohesion of mind/body/spirit wholeness and well-being. How does one integrate both seems to be the problem for me. Given that the validity of both ways of understanding the Buddha’s intent is so clear to me, I am unsure of how to answer the question of what I would like to learn further from this tradition. I am wondering if studying the earlier tenets of the Buddha and becoming more cognizant of the nuances would be my best course? My thoughts around this are that with increased knowledge I could incorporate both schools in my way of being and manifesting outwardly in the world.

I seem to be a person unable to commit to any particular path at present. Buddhism does appeal greatly because living ethically is important to me and Buddhism espouses this regardless of which school of thought one studies. I do intend to continue my study of Buddhism and also am hopeful that more opportunities to actually interact with people following this path will present themselves.

References

Smith, H. (1991). The world’s religions. SanFrancisco, Ca: HarperCollins.

Smith, H. & Novak, P. (2003). Buddhism: a concise introduction. New York: HarperCollins.