(1) Countermeasure against criticism of Buddhist doctrine by Hinduism

 (1) Countermeasure against criticism of Buddhist doctrine by Hinduism

 

 

Since its foundation, Buddhism challenged the four Indian caste systems: Brahmans or priests, Shatviyas or warriors, Vaishyas or merchants, and Sudras or serfs, and the ritual sacrifice of animals. Buddhism also challenged the Vedic tradition of Brahminism along with the criticism against materialism, hedonism, the doctrine of annihilation and skepticism of the liberalists of the Six Outside Ways penetrating into the hearts of the common people with its unique ideology and teachings.

As the power of Buddha's teaching spread out widely, it seemed that confrontation between Buddhism and Hinduism was inevitable. We can say that the criticism of Hinduism against Buddhism at the beginning was chiefly on the practical matters concerning the daily lives, and then gradually extended to the contention of the religious doctrines.

However, both Buddhism and Hinduism developed the system of their own doctrines influencing each other. The full-scale criticism of Hinduism against Buddhism was after the seventh or eighth century or after when the controversy of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism (部派佛敎) was founded.

The criticism of the traditional Hinduism against Buddhism arose chiefly from the schools of Mimangsa, Nayaya, and Vedanta, and the chief and most violent confrontation of logic was on the Buddhist doctrine of 'non-self' and Hindi doctrine of substance and its relation with transmigration.

 

According to the view of R. R. Murti, the conflict between 'the doctrines of subsistent-self (有我說)' and 'non-self in the history of Indian philosophy was more vehement than the conflict between rationalism and empiricism in the modern European philosophy.

At that time, the everlasting 'self' called atman was acknowledged by Hinduism. On the other hand, the Buddhism in India at that time, claimed the doctrine of 'non-self' and said that no everlasting 'self' could be acknowledged in no case whatsoever. (Of course, this interpretation of the doctrine of 'non-self' was erroneous.) Because of such entirely different polar doctrines, it seems that there was no way to avoid the great conflict between the two religions. Especially, when it comes to the problem of the substance of transmigration, the confrontation was even more violent.

For Hinduism, the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration without a substance would have been a good target to attack while it was very difficult for Buddhism to explain it logically. It is truly regretable that if there were the Lord Buddha in such a case, the World-honored One could have dashed to the situation and explained the problem. What's more, for Buddhism, neither the doctrine of 'non-self' nor transmigration could be relinquished, because if you did, it would have been like giving up Buddhism.

Sankara, one of the critics of the Vedanta School at that time, criticised the doctrines of five skandhas and momentalism of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism, the idealistic tendency of the Consciousness-only School, and pessimism of the Madhyamika or Middle Way School. Of all these criticisms, I want to investigate the criticism of five skandhas and momentalism, which seem to provide the basis for the doctrines of 'non-self' and 'non-self transmigration' for a moment.

About the momentalism, he criticized that as the preceding substance dissolves before the post substance arises, the law of causality could not be established. He also criticized both momentalism and substantialism of the Sarvastivada School in a bundle that the momentary substance to have both arising and dissolution at the same time is self contradiction. About the transmigration of 'non-self' which claims that there is no actual substance to transmigrate, he criticized as follows in a bundle of the doctrines of five skandhas and transmigration:

 

Perhaps you (Buddhism) might think that the piles of five skandhas or aggregates succeed from one element to another in the eternal transmigration, and therefore the ignorance remains in that aggregates.

However, in that case, you must say that each aggregate inevitably produce the same aggregate, or produce the same or different sort of aggregate without any established system. In the former case, no human being could be born as a God, an animal, or a being in hell. In the latter case, you could be transformed to an elephant or a God at this moment and then transforms back to human.

 

Sankara's criticism about Buddhism that does not acknowledge the substance of soul continues as follows:

 

[According to Buddhism], the compositions of mind and body do not posses the soul to wish to acquire and enjoy the composition. So is the nirvana. There is no one who aspires after nirvana.

Suppose someone aspires after nirvana, it is not that person that acquires it, because the moment when he attains the state of nirvana, it transforms to be entirely different composition. On the contrary, if the same person aspires after and then attains it, then it proves the everlasting soul.

 

In fact, such criticism of Hinduism could easily have foreseen. Even if there were no such criticism of Hinduism, at the time of Manifold Schools of Buddhism, each school tried to solve this problem proposing all kinds of dubious conceptions of mind and perception in place of the substance of transmigration as we already have investigated.

However, it was not the solution but another invention of illogical contradiction. In effect, it not only disregarded the basic doctrine of the Buddhist law of causality but also violated the cosmic law.

It was the same with the problem of 'non-self transmigration' of Buddhism. Due to the inborn limitation of deluded conception of the doctrine of 'non-self', Buddhism could not cope logically with the criticism of Hinduism and explain to them clearly. It was beyond the power of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism to cope with the criticism of Hinduism.

As we already have observed above, due to the misleading doctrine of 'non-self', Buddhism gave an impression of empty religion without the substance of transmigration and enlightenment and, therefore, could not take root in the heart of the common people.

If the Buddhism of the time could explain clearly the doctrines of 'non-self', transmigration, enlightenment, Buddha's power of deliverance of sentient beings, and emphasized the distinction of Buddhism from Hinduism on a higher level, the situation of Buddhism today would have been entirely different. What's more, Buddhism would not have declined in India and did not also have to suffer the invasion of Islam around the 12th Century and disappear from India.

Especially, when we think of the expansion of Buddhism to the entire territory of India, and its spread to all the regions of Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Egypt, Greece, etc., during the reign of the Great King Asoka in the Kingdom of Magadha, Buddhism could rather have, by this time, absolved Hinduism and eventually spread to the whole world including Europe. It is truly regrettable that time has elapsed too long without having this great religion to reveal its true face.

 

 

III. An Overview of 'Non-self' and the Buddhist History on the Problems of the Substance of Transmigration

 III. An Overview of 'Non-self' and the Buddhist History on the Problems of the Substance

of Transmigration

 

 

1. An Overview of the Doctrine of 'Non-self'

in the Early Buddhism

 

2. Understanding of the Doctrine of 'Non-self' and

the Substance of Transmigration at the Time

of Manifold Schools of Buddhism

 

3. Understanding of 'non-self' and the substance of

transmigration in the age of Mahayana Buddhism

 

4. Controversy of Hinduism and Christianity on the Doctrine of Buddhism and Our Defence Against Their Criticism:

Chiefly on 'Non-self', the Nucleus of Transmigration,

and the Substance of Soul.

 

 

III. An Overview of 'None-self' and the Buddhist History on the Problem of the Substance

of Transmigration

 

 

1. An Overview of the Doctrine of 'Non-self'

in the Early Buddhism

 

 

The early Buddhism means from the time of Sakyamuni Buddha to the time of 100 years after the great passing of Buddha. It is also called fundamental or original Buddhism. The sutra that transmits most faithfully the teachings of Buddha during the time of the Original Buddhism is Agama (scripture) (Skt) or Nikaya (Pal). This is the basic teachings of Hinayana and there are five Agamas in Pali and Chinese.

Pali Nikayas: 1) Diga-nikaya, or Long Collection. 2) Majjhima-nikaya. 3) Samyuta-nikaya. 4) Anguttra-nikaya. 5) Khuddaka-nikaya.4 The contents of Five Nikayas in Pali are similar to those of Chinese version, but they include the Dhammapada, the Dharma Phrase, or the Way of Virtue, a traditional collection of the teachings of Buddha, and Jataka, the birth stories of Sakyamuni Buddha's former lives and related biographical records, which Chinese version lacks.

 

4The names of Chinese version of Nikayas: 1) 長阿含經. 2) 中阿含經. 3) 雜阿含經. 4) 增一阿含經. 5) 小阿含經.

 

Included in Nikayas are the Four Noble Truths, the Tri-dharma mudra, or three universal truths, the Noble Eightfold Path or Truth, the Twelve Nidanas, or the twelve linked chain of dependent origination, the five skandhas, and the twelve sense fields or sense-media. Among these, I want to introduce some parts of sutras related to our topics here. First of all, I want to introduce the contents of sutra related to 'non-self' and the Tri-dharma mudra.

 

What are the four noble truths? All compounded things are impermanent, That is, all beings and the marks of myriad particulars, forms, things, or the characteristics of all external phenomena are impermanent and never lasting. This is the first fundamental truth. All compounded things are duhkha, or suffering. This is the second fundamental truth. All dharmas or phenomena lack self-nature or inherent substance. This is the third fundamental truth. The cessation of affliction brings everlasting peace and nirvana. This is the fourth fundamental truth.

They are four fundamental Buddhist truths familiar to us. For example, "Whatever is phenomenal is impermanent." "All is duhkha or suffering." "All is anata, or lack inherent self-entity." "Timeless void of nirvana, or nirvana in true peace (涅槃寂靜)." What the controversial term 'non-self', one of the main topics of our discussion, here means is that "All is anata, or lack everlasting inherent self-entity." However, it has slight different connotations according to the translators.

According to the Great Tripitaka Koreana, it says, "All dharma or phenomena lack something that can be called me or self," which is not quite different from the translation we have introduced above. What I mean is that we cannot say that it denies the ultimate substance of 'self' beyond the phenomenal world.

Three truths from the first to three refer attributes of their impermanence, duhkha or affliction, and non-self-entity. However, if the last truth, "timeless void of nirvana, or nirvana in true peace" refers to the substantial attribute that is beyond the phenomenal world, it is natural to see that the concept of 'non-self' we are dealing here is limited to the phenomenal world.

I want to investigate a few more sutras, and the following is a quotation from Samyuta-nikaya, Vol. I:

 

Rupa or matter is impermanent. Impermanence is duhkha or affliction. Duhkha is not self, and if it is not self or ego, it is not mine. Such is the impermanence of feeling or sensation, perception or intellect, mental formation, and consciousness.

 

The following is also from Samyuta-nikaya, Vol. VIII:

 

Everything is impermanent. Everything is duhkha or affliction (一切苦). Everything is empty (一切空). Everything is not me (一切非我).

 

The following is a quotation from the Sutra of 'No-self', Vol. II, collected in Sammyuta-nikaya:

 

One time the World-honored discoursed to all the bhikkus: "Duhkha is not self. If dhukha is self, surely no illness or affliction should arise from dhukha, or you should not wish the dhukha to become thus, . . . or wish not to be thus. . . . The illness and affliction arise in dhukha because there is no self. You also wish the dhukha to be thus, . . . or it should not be thus. Such is also of feeling, perception, mental formation, and consciousness.

 

"Bhikkus, what do you think? Is dhukha permanent or impermanent?"

Bhikkus replied to the World-honored One.

"It is impermanent, the World-honored One."

 

"Bhikkus, if they are impermanent, are they afflictions?"

"They are afflictions. The World-honored One."

"If they are impermanent as well as afflictions, they are changeable and also liable to transform."

 

When the people of Magadha were instructed that matter, feeling or sensation, perception or intellect, mental formation, and consciousness composed of five skandhas are all impermanent, they raised a thought, "If so, who moves and who is the recipient of the pleasure and afflictions?"

 

Buddha perceiving their doubts, expounded as follows:

As foolish common people haven't heard the illustrious teachings, they regard 'self' as 'self' and get attached to it. But it is evident that there is neither 'self' nor 'mine'. Hence you should empty the concepts of 'self' and 'mine'. If dharma arises, let it arise. If dharma cease to be, let it ceased to be. They all come from causality, and affliction arises thereof. Therefore, if there is no causality, all afflictions will cease to be.5

 

If we summarize the above quotations from the sutras regarding 'non-self', the human being composed of rupa or matter, feeling or sensation, perception or intellect, mental formation, and consciousness of five skhadhas is impermanent, and it is not 'self', ego or, I or me. That which is impermanent is affliction and changeable. It is evident that the Lord's emphasis on the concepts of impermanence, afflictions, 'non-self' of the phenomenal world was ever so painfully to remove the sentient beings from their fixation or attachment to 'self', self-entity or ego.

 

5The quotation is from the Sutra of Buddha Chanting of King Bimbisara, Vol. XI collected in Anguttra-nikaya.)

 

In the context of the sutras, it seems that 'self' is used more frequently in the sense of 'no-self (非我)' rather than 'non-self (無我)'. This proposition can be supported by the analysis of the Pali word 'atman' and 'anatman' that appear in the sutras.

As we all know, as the prefix of 'an-' of the word 'anatman' has the connotation of negation, it is more plausible or reasonable to understand that it is used in the descriptive sense of 'is' or 'not is' rather than subsistent sense of 'exists' or 'not exists'. The word that implies 'no-self' in Sanskrit is 'niratman'.

What is more important is not the question of 'non-self' or 'no-self' but that what all the sutras are denying is the 'self' in the phenomenal world, and there is not a mention of "the substance of self in the primal or ultimate reality."6 What it means is that it is overaction to extend the doctrine of 'non-self' to the realm of the primal or ultimate reality beyond the phenomenal world.

 

6You will find a great amount of talks on the true substance of 'self' in the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra.

 

Even if Buddha has mentioned about 'non-self', it was a skillful device, or an artful liberative means to remove the concept of 'ego' or 'self' from the sentient beings not the negation of the true substance of self in the realm of the primal or ultimate cosmic reality. We will comeback and discuss it more in detail.

 

About the doctrine of 'non-self' at the time of Original Buddhism, a Japanese Buddhist scholar Hirakawa Akira presents us a exact and clear point:

 

The doctrine of 'non-self' at the time of the Original Buddhism was not the denial of 'true-self' but rather to remove the attachment to the deluded view of self of the sentient beings.

 

 

2. Understanding the Theory of 'Non-self' and the Substance

of Transmigration at the Time of

Manifold Schools of Buddhism

 

 

About 100 years after the great extinction of Buddha, the unified body of sangha started to split because of the different ideas on dogma, precept, and the operating rules of sangha.

At first, it split into two branches of conservative Theravada Buddhism and progressive Mahasamgihika, or the adherence of the great mahacommunity (大衆部). Then it kept on splitting finally to about twenty schools. Each school started to study its own dogma and it helped developing the Buddhist scholarship of dogma.

The age of this period which continued for about 1,000 years after the great extinction of Buddha is called the Manifold Schools of Buddhism. However, it is also called Abhidharma Buddhism.

It seems that there were two great problems for Abhidharma Buddhism to solve. One was establishing the standard theory of nonbelievers, and the other was solving the problem of contradiction regarding 'non-self' and the substance or the main body of transmigration.

However, these two problems seemed to be too grave to be solved academically, because to solve such great problems, one had to reach the topmost level of practice. It was a matter of great regret that such fundamental problems of authoritative standard of doctrine could not have solved.

What I am saying is not that because I am a Buddhist. There are great many religions that proclaim to deliver the poor sentient beings, but Buddhism is, I think, the only true and unsurpassed religion that could actually deliver the sentient beings from their affliction.

But what I regret is that Buddhism failed to do its job, and it was because of our inability to teach the unsurpassed illustrious doctrine that Buddhism disappeared from India in the contention with Hinduism, and could not spread it to the whole world, mislead and then left in a dwindled shabby state.

 

To solve the problem of contradiction between the doctrines of 'non-self' and transmigration, all the eminent Buddhist scholars of the Abidharma came up with their divers ideas and doctrines. It was, of course, also to meet the challenge of Hinduism against Buddhism.

The general opinion of the great scholar monks of Abhidharma Buddhism was that although it is not the constant unchanging substance of transmigration, there are some modes of mind or the storehouse of consciousness (citta); thought, thinking, or discrimination (manas); and perception, cognition, or discernment (vijnana) that constitute transmigration.

On the other hand, Mahasamgihika, or the adherence of the great maha- community (大衆部) claimed the philosophy of fundamental vijnana or consciousness (根本識思想). This fundamental consciousness is the basis upon which the movement of our body and mind depends and stay alive even after the death of a person and incarnate in the physical form.

However, Theravada Buddhism (上座部) claimed the doctrine of bhavanga (有分識), or existence of consciousness that maintains every karmic power of life and becomes the subject or nucleus of transmigration. However, Vatsiputriya (犢子部) sees pudgala (補持伽羅) as the subject or nucleus of transmigration.

Etymologically, pudgala means physical body, soul, or an individual. They say that its original nature is neither the same as five skandhas nor different from them (非卽非離蘊). Anyway, pudgala has the attribute of transmigrating from this world to the other world, and from the other world to this world.

 

The Sarvastivada or Existence School (說一切有部) claims the inheritance of five skandhas. Human beings composed of five skandhas are impermanent without an entity, but its ultimate component exists, it claims. It is true that all dharmas in the universe rise and then dissolve every instant, but they subsist in their succession of the past, present, and future.

This is what the Sarvastivada School calls the doctrine of permanent existence of the dharma, or the self-nature of conditioned things throughout the threefold period of time (the past, present, and future). This doctrine seems to explain the karma and transmigration.

In a sense, this doctrine seems to be the transmigration of 'non-self' from the point view that its substance is composed of five skandhas. However, since it sees the ultimate reality of its component, we may say that this doctrine carries the character of the transmigration of substance or 'self', not ‘non-self'.

Sautrantika, or the Sutra School (經量部) claims that even the tiniest particle or molecule of matter survives and maintains its life even after its death without complete extinction.

On the other hand, Mahishasaka (化地部) of the Hinayana School claims the doctrine that the aggregates last up to the end of samsara, or the aggregates perdure throughout transmigration.

 

So far, I have investigated the substance of 'non-self' and the theory of transmigration of diverse schools. The most of the schools seem to favor the transmigration of 'non-self' as a major premise. However, the doctrine of pudgala of Vatsiputriya (犢子部) and the doctrine of the inheritance of five skandhas of the Sarvastivada (說一切有部) seem to have the characteristic of the transmigration of 'subsistent-self (有我)' not 'non-self'.

Other doctrines such as the transmigration of mind and perception could not be classified as pure transmigration of 'non-self', because it claims the consciousness as substance or the main body of transmigration.

Manifold Schools of Buddhism was obsessed by the doctrine of 'non-self' and could not present the clear-cut doctrine of substance or the main body of transmigration, and such ambiguous doctrines of pudgala and transmigration of mind and perception seem to be poor expositions. Even for the common sense without preconception, transmigration without a solid substance is unconvincing and hard to swallow. If it is true, it is natural that such claims lack the power to convince others.

 

 

 

3. Understanding of 'Non-self' and the Substance

of Transmigration in the Age

of Mahayana Buddhism

 

 

A special distinction of Mahayana Buddhism is a new movement and a kind of reaction against the scholarly and the monastic centered Buddhism of Hinaya to emphasize the belief in the Buddha as a savior of the sentient beings and to emphasize the spirit of Bodhisattva. It is roughly the period from the time of pre-Christianity to the eighth century.

We can say that the chief philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism is centered on the doctrines of the Middle Path and emptiness of Nagarjuna, and the doctrine of Consciousness-only established by Asanga and Vasubandhu brothers who received the instruction from Maitreya Bodhisattva, and the doctrine of emptiness which could be regarded as a forerunner of Mahayana Buddhism has developed through the Heart Sutra.

Nagarjuna supported his theory of emptiness in the Middle Path by the logic that all is empty and has no self-entity because everything arises from dependent origination. This could be regarded as a criticism of Mahayana Buddhism about the doctrine of the reality of dharma in the whole universe claimed by the Sarvastivada School (說一切有部) which contradicted itself by emphasizing the impermanence of self.

On the other hand, Nagarjuna, instead of the doctrine of 'non-self', introduced the concept of emptiness that transcends the idea of reality to overcome the contradiction of 'non-self' and transmigration. However, in effect, it seems to have deepened the nature of pessimism of the doctrine of 'non-self'.

The doctrine of Consciousness-only, another aspect of Mahayana Buddhism, sees all the phenomena in the universe is only the manifestation of consciousness. In other words, everything is created by the mind. The doctrine of Consciousness-only classifies our mind into eight levels: the first five consciousnesses (前五識) are: the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body or touch; the thought-consciousness (意識), the sixth consciousness; the manas or the sense-mind (末羅識), the seventh consciousness; and the eighth consciousness, the Alaya-vijnana, or the storehouse-consciousness (阿賴耶識).

The eighth consciousness is called the storehouse-consciousness, because it is the seat where all the seeds of karmic actions are stored, and people think that these seeds eventually become the substance of transmigration. It seems to be the unification of diverse perceptions which they thought to be the substance of transmigration into one alaya-vijnana, or the storehouse-consciousness.

 

This doctrine of the storehouse-consciousness as the substance or real body of transmigration seems to be an advancement of the doctrine of transmigration and its substance, because it seems not only more clear, and the seat of transmigration to be more plausible than the kinds of mind or perception of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism. Yet, this kind of consciousness still has a limitation to consider as a substance or main body of transmigration. We will discuss it more in detail later.

 

 

4. Controversy of Hinduism and Christianity on the Doctrine

of Buddhism and Our Defence against Their Challenge:

Chiefly on 'Non-self', the Substance of Transmigration

and the Substance of Soul

 

 

1) The criticism of Hinduism against Buddhist doctrine and our defence