Unmasking Buddhism

Bernard Faure

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781444356618
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Asian Religions

UNMASKING BUDDHISM

Can we talk of Buddhism as a unified religion or are there many Buddhisms? Is Buddhism a religion of tolerance and pacifism as many people think? Is Buddhism a religion without god(s)? Or is it more of a philosophy than a religion? Renowned Buddhist scholar Bernard Faure answers these and other questions about the basic history, beliefs and nature of Buddhism in easy-to-understand language. It is an ideal introduction for anyone who has unanswered questions about one of the world's largest and most popular religions.

Part I

Buddhism in History

“Buddhism is both one and many”

Many received ideas about Buddhism stem from a refusal to take the diversity of Buddhism as a living tradition seriously. Of course, all books which seek to popularize the subject are careful to state that Buddhism is both “one and many,” but they nevertheless go on to reduce this multiplicity to one fundamental unity by concentrating on so-called “primitive Buddhism.” Some such books jump directly from this “pure” Buddhism, i.e., that of the Buddha himself (as we imagine him), to Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, and Therav

da as if they are all directly derived from this original form. Unable to do justice to the rich diversity of Buddhisms which have evolved through the influence of the various host cultures, they focus upon a few of the simple ideas to which Buddhists of all denominations are supposed to adhere.

The Buddhist doctrine first developed in northern India towards the fifth century BCE and gradually spread its way across the rest of the subcontinent during the third century BCE following the conversion of King Ashoka, founder of the first Indian empire. During the same period, a schism occurred between the disciples of the Buddha that eventually led to a separation into the two main schools – the “Great Vehicle” (Mah

y

na) and the “Lesser Vehicle” (H

nay

na). The name “Lesser Vehicle” was given to the more conservative of the schools by its critics and rivals of the “Great Vehicle.” It later became Therav

da. The distinction between these two “vehicles” is not always as rigid as we are led to believe. Some also distinguish a third school of Buddhism, known as the “Diamond Vehicle” (Vajray

na), which is also referred to as or esoteric Buddhism or Tantrism (after the name of its canonic texts, the Tantras).

Without King Ashoka, Buddhism may well have remained a minority religion rather like Jainism, with which it shares certain common features. Legend has it that Ashoka ordered the construction of 84,000 st

pas throughout India – and indeed beyond, given that some have been found in China – where relics of the Buddha could be deposited. Whatever the case, this model of the Buddhist sovereign embodied by Ashoka had a lasting influence upon the relationship between Buddhism and the state in all Asian cultures.

The spread of Buddhism in India led to a proliferation of schools (or “groups,” the nik

ya), which is the reason why this form of early Buddhism is sometimes known as Nik

ya Buddhism. However, this expression restricts Buddhism to doctrinal aspects and in doing so fails to take account of the popular religion which does not always stem directly from Nik

ya Buddhism.

The factors that contributed to the diversification of Buddhism in India in the centuries following the Buddha’s death include the settling of the monks and the great distances between the centers of Buddhism. As the wealth of the monasteries grew, monks and nuns were able to live a more comfortable existence. Their tendency to specialize often led to a polarization between the ascetics, who practiced their religion in the relative solitude of the forests and the village, and city-based monks, who devoted their time to teaching or studying in the great monasteries. These different approaches to doctrine, ritual, and discipline became ever more established with each new religious council.

It was on the occasion of the third council that the first schism occurred between the group of the “Elders” (P

li: Thera, Sanskrit: Sthavira), partisans of a strict interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings, and the majority – the so-called “Great Assembly” (Mah

s

nghika) – which tried to adapt this teaching by relying on its spirit rather than on its letter. This schism paved the way to a new form of Buddhism, which named itself Mah

y

na, as opposed to the earlier form of Buddhism which, as we have seen, was referred to as H

nay

na. The term “vehicle” here means “a way of going towards salvation.”

The origin of Mah

y

na Buddhism continues to be the subject of much debate. Some have claimed that it stems from the lay-people reacting against the elitism of the monks and the opulence of the monasteries. Others point to the emergence of new forms of religious practice such as the worshiping of st

pas and relics, the worship of Scriptures, and, more generally, devotion to the Buddha. Some scholars have described Mah

y

na as a “fringe sectarian movement” trying to gain economic support. In fact, Mah

y

na seems to be an essentially monastic phenomenon and somewhat militant in nature. It could even be described as military in certain cases, if we are to believe the Mah

parinirv

na Sutra: “If a layperson observes the five precepts but does not bear arms to protect the monks, he does not deserve to go by the name of mah

y

nist.”

Despite its polemic declarations, Mah

y

na complemented rather than excluded H

nay

na: it considers salvation to be accessible to all, for example, and is more broadly accessible than H

nay

na – which advocates the strict observance of an ascetic lifestyle.

While the reform of Mah

y

na may have introduced certain lax attitudes, it also developed the more ascetic tendencies of Buddhism, focusing on virtues such as compassion, wisdom, and the use of skillful means (up

ya) to salvation. On a soteriological level, Awakening (bodhi) overrode the previous ideal of nirv

na. Where the conception of the Buddha was concerned, relative historicism was transformed into radical docetism and the Buddha, who had become purely “metaphysical,” was multiplied. The Buddha’s human form was now little more than a white lie intended to gradually guide people towards the truth. On a practical level, the emphasis was placed upon devotion to various buddhas (Amit

bha, Akshobhya, Baishajyaguru, Mah

vairochana) and bodhisattvas (Avalokiteshvara, Mañjushr

, Samantabhadra) as well as upon penitence and the transfer of merits.

Mah

y

na thought really took off with the tradition of the Perfection of Wisdom (prajñ

p

ramit

), as expressed in the sutras of the same name. The first of these texts dates from the beginning of the Common Era. They vary in length from one extreme (100,000 verses) to another (the Hridaya [Heart] Sutra) of around one page.

Mah

y

na began to spread throughout central Asia and China around the start of the Common Era and then spread subsequently throughout Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. H

nay

na (a term we are using here for want of a better one and which we do not intend to have any pejorative connotations whatsoever) was initially transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of Ashoka and then, from the tenth century CE, spread throughout Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia). It lives on today in the form of Therav

da, which has become the dominant form of Buddhism in the countries cited above.

Between the fifth and the seventh centuries CE, a third movement, known as Tantric or esoteric Buddhism, arose. For some scholars, it is a radically new form of Buddhism, a new “Vehicle,” known as the “Diamond Vehicle” (Vajray

na), but in fact it simply adopts many Mah

y

na conceptions, while taking them to their extreme.

As in Mah

y

na, the identity between nirv

na and sams

ra (the cycle of life and death) constitutes the basis for Tantric...