by Ken Coates
Some modern day interpreters of Buddhism tend to play down the wholesale condemnation of desire or the will to live in Buddhism. Keown (52) for example writes that the Pali word Tanha (Trishna in Sanskrit), translated as thirst or desire ‘connotes desire that has become perverted in some sense, usually by being excessive or wrongly directed’. He argues that we can distinguish between good or right desires and bad or wrong ones (52) and it is the latter that the Buddha is concerned with. The point is that Buddhism as a religion has moved a long way from the austere teachings of its founder, and in any case there are numerous interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings. Nonetheless it seems that Keown’s distinction between right and wrong desires is difficult to sustain, at least from what is known of the Buddha’s own sermons and teachings. As well, most interpreters of tanha seem not to make any such distinction. Ancient Buddhism, it appears refers to the normal, in-built life force emanating from innate drives. Thus Herman writes: ‘The cause of suffering is existentially grounded in the individual’ (Herman 1983, 59). Or as Snelling puts it: ‘Basically tanha can be reduced to a fundamental ache that is implanted in everything that exists, a gnawing dissatisfaction with what is and a concomitant reaching out for something else. So we can never be at rest but are always grasping for something outside ourselves. This is what powers the endless ….Wheel of Life’ (Snelling 1991, 53). In his Fire Sermon the Buddha spoke of all human life as ‘ablaze’ with desire. Fire is an apt metaphor for tanha or desire, since it grows on what it feeds without ever being satisfied (Keown 1996, 51). To escape suffering we have to break free of desire. Thus all grasping, all passions must be “laid aside, given up, harbored no longer and gotten free from,” proclaims the third Noble Truth (Keller 1982, 3). How to achieve this difficult objective is the subject matter of the fourth Noble Truth which lays out an eight-fold path to achieve liberation from desire and attain nirvana. The Path consists of (1) Right View (2) Right Resolve (3) Right Speech (4) Right Action (5) Right Livelihood (6) Right Effort (7) Right Mindfulness and (8) Right Meditation.
A Doctrine of Salvation: The pattern of thought and action indicated by the Path is, in principle, open to anyone. But in reality its proper and full realization seems to require a withdrawal from worldly activities and a total dedication to achieving liberation or nirvana. It is generally acknowledged that Buddha’s teachings represent essentially a ‘doctrine of salvation’ meant for the world-renouncing monks rather than lay people. Although Buddha’s followers included lay people, soon a clear distinction was drawn between the laity who were not seen as qualified to achieve nirvana and the monks whose way of life alone was thought to provide the conditions necessary for liberation. These included non-possession of money, living on alms, homeless or mendicant status as distinct from the laity who were ‘house-dwellers,’ and strict celibacy. As Vallee-Poussin (1917, 150) observes, ‘The only Buddhist, in the proper meaning of the word, is the monk who has broken all ties with society’. The same point is made by other commentators. Buddhism was meant essentially for the monks, ‘for those who had retired from the world of activities to lead a celibate and monastic life’ (Herman 1983, 64). Or as Max Weber (1967, 214) the great sociologist of religion wrote, ‘Wandering homelessly, without possessions and work, absolutely abstemious as regards sex, alcohol, song and dance….. living from door to door by silent mendicancy, for the rest given to contemplation’, such was the way of the Buddhist seeking ‘ salvation from the thirst for existence’2. As for the laity, certain moral precepts were stipulated whose observance was to be rewarded by material well-being in this life and a better condition of life in the next birth. As a primary generator of passion, sexuality was considered ‘extremely dangerous by the Buddha’ (Snelling 1991, 58-9). The laity were to exercise moderation in sex as ‘indulgence of sexual desire could only serve ‘to feed the fires of passion and attachment’ ( 59). An important duty of the laity was to provide material support for the monks. It was indeed the highest honor and merit available to the lay or “house-dwelling’ Buddhist (Weber 1967, 215, 219).
Clearly the radical devaluation of the “world” and withdrawal from it into a mystical state of contemplative stance through meditation, implicit in the eight-fold Path, was something that only a small number of dedicated individuals – the virtuosi, the salvation-seekers – could hope to achieve. Buddhism began almost exclusively as a doctrine of salvation and gradually developed into a mass religion. The schism following Buddha’s death between Hinayana or Theravada and the Mahayana schools reflected this development. The latter, among other things, moved towards a religion which served the needs of the lay people, emphasizing faith and compassion. The former remained closer to the stance of ancient Buddhism, viz. a religion essentially for the monkhood.
What is Nirvana? The ultimate goal of Buddhist quest is nirvana which can be achieved by following the eight-fold path. But what exactly is nirvana and how does one know when one has reached this blessed state? Seemingly these are simple questions that have, to put it mildly, no clear answers. The mystique and the ambiguity surrounding the concept of nirvana are reflected in the vast literature that has grown up around the subject. Perhaps more has been written on nirvana than on any other religious concept. Buddha himself said little about nirvana, at least directly, and discouraged speculation and theorizing about it, e.g. what was the nature of nirvana-in-life, nirvana after death and so forth. When pressed for an answer concerning these and similar questions Buddha’s reply was “Whether this or that dogma is true, there still remain birth, old age, death, for the extinction of which I am giving instructions…What I have left unsettled, let that remain unsettled” (Vallee-Poussin 1917, 130).
Nirvana literally means ‘extinction’ or ‘blowing out’ as of a flame, and this seems to be an appropriate metaphor in this context. It denotes the extinction of the flame of desire and craving, the thirst for life which creates attachment and rebirth. The liberated one, the Arahat, is one who has finally transcended all craving and desire and who has direct intuitive knowledge of having done so. Such a one may be said to have attained nirvana in life. Freed from all karmic consequences he will not suffer rebirth. At last he or she has been liberated from the incessantly turning wheel of life.
The fire of which Nirvana is the extinction is described in Buddha’s ‘Fire Sermon’. It pertains to the three inner fires of greed, hatred and delusion and the three external fires of birth, aging and death. Nirvana during life is frequently described as the destruction of the three ‘ fires’ or defilements. One who has destroyed these cannot be reborn and so is totally beyond the remaining ‘fires’ of birth, ageing and death, having attained final nirvana (Harvey 1990, 61). The state of the Arahat who has achieved deliverance is said to be one of great inner peace, tranquility and contentment, in a certain sense a state of bliss. Nonetheless speculation and controversy goes on about the state of nirvana in this life and beyond. As in the case of moksha one approach is to suggest that it is essentially ‘mystical’ in nature and so cannot be conveyed in words. Thus descriptions of nirvanic experience stress its “otherness,” ‘placing it beyond all limited concepts and ordinary categories of thought’ (62). In the face of nirvana ‘words falter, for language is a product of human needs in this world, and has few resources with which to deal with that which transcends all worlds’ (62). What happens to the one who is freed from rebirth after death is also a matter of speculation. For unlike Hinduism, Buddhism rejects the idea of a soul or self which survives death. Yet it does believe in a process of karma causality which begs the question of who or what is the vehicle of karmic consequences and which undergoes rebirth and transmigration. This was another question the Buddha refused to answer holding it as irrelevant to the problem of Dukkha and deliverance from it which was the substance of his teaching.
To summarize: The Buddhist view of existence is very similar to that of Hinduism. Both see it at the very least as an undesirable, if not an evil, state and look for a way out. The Budd
ha articulated this viewpoint quite clearly and forcefully, defining existence as suffering, and providing a systematic and detailed analysis of the cause and cure of this malady. Common to both religions is the belief in the reincarnation of beings in an endless process of rebirth and redeath. And it is this process of samsara, in particular, from which release is sought. To get off the perennial treadmill of birth, decay and death is the supreme goal of both, expressed as moksha in the one case and nirvana in the other.
Scholars and others reflecting on the “pessimism” of these doctrines have wondered if it was not so much life per se but the timeless cosmic process of samsara, i.e. dying and being reborn repeatedly, the “eternal recurrence,” that drove these two belief systems into seeking an escape from existence. However this does not seem to be the case. For if existence were considered to be a “good” then recurrence of births and deaths should have been welcomed since rebirth means a new lease of life and death is not the end because it is merely a prelude to a new birth even if in a new life form. In short, reincarnation can be seen as a form of immortality. Now if these doctrines approved of worldly existence then why should they seek an exit from it? Surely it would be in their interest to perpetuate rebirth and their main concern should be to preach those moral precepts whose observance ensures good karma and helps the faithful achieve a good rebirth. Indeed, this has been a part of the teaching aimed at the laity by both religions. However, their summum bonum is not higher rebirth but liberation from the samsaric process altogether.
Another relevant issue is that both Hinduism (at any rate some of the major schools) and Buddhism also see the possibility of liberation–in-life although the liberated individual cannot communicate this experience to others in any way since it lies beyond all categories of worldly existence. In fact there is a great deal of ambiguity about what it means to be ‘liberated- but-living.’ The best accounts see it as a mystical state of blissfulness. Now if it is a condition of blissfulness, an extraordinary state of being that can be experienced in this life, then arguably it would be desirable for the individual to be reborn to have an opportunity to experience such a state again. But clearly that is not how these doctrines see the situation. Liberation-in-life is seen as only a stage in the ultimate liberation from rebirth. Thus existence in all forms, including in the blissful state of moksha or nirvana while living, is rejected in favor of freedom from rebirth altogether. This brings us to the inescapable conclusion that both these perspectives see worldly existence as an undesirable state, shot through with negativities of all kinds, so that escaping it altogether is the highest good possible for human beings. Even the blissful state of moksha or nirvana, which can be experienced while living, through individual effort, is not enough to justify rebirth.
Finally, for both religions transcending existence involves mysticism and faith. Thus liberation-in-life means turning away from worldly desires and preoccupations and escaping into higher reaches of being through immersion into a spiritual realm. This is a form of mysticism. The other form of liberation from existence is post-mortem, viz. the promise of freedom from rebirth. This is a matter of faith, i.e. that there is such a thing as rebirth and that one would escape it.
Endnote – Chapter 1
1. Was moksha meant for men only? This appears to be the case given the subordinate status - that of a server - accorded to women ( Koller 1982, 73-6). Moreover the assumption seems to be that only men – and a small minority at that – are capable of attaining the knowledge, the consciousness, the discipline and the asceticism required to free them from worldly attachment. Given this general stance of Hindu scriptures it would be misleading to replace ‘he’ with ‘she’ in the text for the sake of politically correct language. However with the introduction in the Gita of Bhakti yoga or devotion to Lord Krishna - and by extension to other deities - as a path to liberation the concept of salvation became more inclusive and presumably applied to female devotees as well.
2. As would be evident from the stringent requirements for Buddhist monkhood, including the state of an itinerant individual, it was ill-suited for women. However the Buddha’s essential message was egalitarian in its general orientation, e.g. in its rejection of caste distinctions, and was meant for all. Women were considered by the Buddha as capable of achieving the state of an Arahat and attain nirvana. Thus in ancient Buddhism, in principle at any rate, nirvana could be achieved by anyone prepared to follow the eight-fold path. The Buddha accepted the ordination of women as nuns and endorsed the formation of the order of nuns similar to those of monks although the nun’s status remained inferior to the monk’s. Subsequent development of Buddhism, with its schism and various socio-cultural influences, changed the situation in many ways. For example the order of nuns virtually disappeared in Theravada Buddhism only to be revived recently.
Chapter 2. Philosophical Perspectives :19th Century
Secular philosophies of existence are primarily a Western phenomenon. But concern with existential issues has not been the hallmark of Western philosophy. Almost since the time of Plato but particularly since Descartes, who is considered as inaugurating the modern age of philosophy, it has been the preoccupation with knowledge. Questions such as what do we know about external reality? How can such knowledge be authenticated? What is the role of sense perception in all this? And how does human mind or reason relate to knowledge? In short epistemology has been the chief focus and concern of Western philosophy for more than three centuries. Other issues with which it became involved in the 20th century were about language and ‘meaning’. This is especially true of philosophy in the English-speaking world. Thus ‘to what do we know’, was added the question ‘what do we mean’, e.g. when we say so and so? Meanwhile problems of human existence, e.g. the fundamental characteristics of existence itself, the meaning of existence for human beings, and the wider implications of all this, remained peripheral if they were not ignored altogether (Magee 1978, 77-81; Benatar 2004, 1-2). It was not until the 19th century that we see the beginning of engagement with existential issues. In different ways the works of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent this new departure. Of these it is only Schopenhauer, one of the great philosophers of all time, who takes a rejectionist view of existence.
In the 20th century existential issues were taken up by other European (Continental) thinkers, notably Heidegger and Sartre, who reflected systematically on the nature of man’s being in the world. After WWII the catch-all phrase ‘existentialism’ came to symbolize this new current of thought, mainly centered on the European Continent. We shall examine rejectionist philosophies of the 20th century and beyond in the next chapter. For the moment our focus is on rejectionist thought in the 19th century. Undoubtedly Schopenhauer is the key figure whose ‘pessimistic’ philosophy was highly influential especially in the Germanic world. Eduard von Hartmann was one of the thinkers who came after Schopenhauer and was undoubtedly influenced by him. His philosophy has many similarities as well as some significant differences with that of Schopenhauer. Hartmann was a highly regarded and popular thinker of the last quarter of the 19th century. In this chapter we shall look at these two philosophers.
Arthur Schopenhauer: Suffering and Willlessness
It is interesting to note that Schopenhauer was the first Western philosopher who was a professed atheist (Magee 1988, 213). Almost all his predecessors, with the notable exception of David Hume, were theists of one kind or another. They all posit a God or Godlike presence behind the phenomenal world. Human existence, with man as the unique possessor of reason, was glorified or just taken for granted and rarely, if at all, questioned as problematic in any fundamental way. A well-known example of this glorification or at least justification is Leibnitz’s view that God has created “the best of all possible worlds”. It was Schopenhauer who radically broke with this trend and propounded a metaphysical doctrine which saw existence largely as a source of pain and suffering for all creatures. As we shall see, this is related to his concept
of the Will - will-to-life in the case of living things - the driving force behind all existence. Will-to-life entails a struggle for existence within and between the species as well as the reproduction of the species. The result is the perpetuation of pointless misery and suffering; pointless because there is no ultimate aim or goal beyond the maintenance of one’s own existence and the perpetuation of life through reproduction. The pointlessness of the blind Will, with its constant activity without any rhyme or reason, is more clearly evident at the cosmic level. Schopenhauer’s relentless and uncompromising view of existence as nothing short of evil – something that should not be – has earned him the reputation of being the ‘pessimist’ philosopher par excellence. His philosophy has striking parallels to Buddhism albeit it was arrived at without any prior knowledge of the latter. We begin this section with Schopenhauer’s view of existence and what he sees as the path to liberation.