Home | Temple | Calendar | Buddhism | Photo Gallery | Newsletter | Bookstore | Resources and Links

Buddhist Philosophy

1. Prelude
2. Causality
3. Diversification
4. Nirvana
5. Hinayana/Mahayana
6. Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna
7. Yogacara and Vasubandhu
8. Avatamsaka - Hua-yen
9. Buddhist Logic
10. Buddhism in China
11. Sukhavati: Pure Land Buddhism
12. Kyoto School of Philosophy

Prelude

'Buddhist' = Peculiar to or originated from the Teaching of the Buddha, in the manifold forms it assumes, all however relating back to the same fundaments.

It will be more difficult to give a definition or even a description of the term 'Philosophy'. It is however very clear that 'philosophy' in its Western (viz. Greco-Christian) context shows a different 'content' than that in the East (predominantly Indian and/or Chinese).  From almost every definition of philosophy it goes to show that Western philosophy centers around the question of 'being', the 'first (or last) cause' and the 'absolute'. It tries to find an explanation, analyzes the experiential data and attempts to develop a dialectic around it.

Western philosophy then will be mainly concerned with metaphysics, and especially with ontological questions.
Another facet of Western philosophy (and mysticism) is that it places itself outside the realm of religion, even in those cases where its use lies in giving a coherent structure to religion (viz. Scholasticism).

In the East, philosophy endeavors towards a coherent scheme around which multiple soteriological practices can be weighed, evaluated and structured. The search here is not the search for an explanation (the why-question) but for an efficiency (the how-question). It is not so much the 'absolute truth' that counts, but the effectiveness of a given system or practice.

It is therefore not the question of 'being' but the question of 'knowledge and knowing' (epistemology versus ontology) (viz. Wisdom) that will be the center of philosophical thought in the East. There is the search for understanding the connections and inter-relationships between phenomena and the ability to express them. It is an attempt to translate the non-conceptual (meditative or mystical) into concepts and words, with the clear purpose of describing the salvific process or way to liberation (Enlightenment or Nirvana,...), without however confusing the 'description' with the 'described'.
Emphasis therefore is put on psychology and epistemology as the basis for the development of a soteriology.

Thus, there is no search for the 'absolute' as there is in the West, but an uninterrupted input of relativism and self-critique. It is therefore the religious aspect that is dominant, integrating both philosophy and mysticism. A non-religious philosophy, while characteristic for the West, is conceived as an impossibility in the Eastern context. Even Confucianism, with its initial rejection of all things supernatural takes into account the concept of Heaven (T'ien) and its Virtue (working or effectiveness).
A Buddhist 'philosophy' will make no exception to this rule.

Fundaments of Buddhism

The basic principles of the Teaching of the Buddha are found within the Four Noble Truths :

1. The Universality of Suffering
2. The Cause of Suffering
3. The Cessation of Suffering
4. The Way that leads to the Cessation of Suffering

(1) and (2) are situated mainly on the psychological level of the world of experience. Both the 'inner' and 'outer' world are seen as nothing more than a representation of the mind. Our knowledge originates in the subject. Not the world is illusory, but the glasses through which I see the world makes that the world as it appears to me is an ego-illusion.
If one looks at the meaning of these Four Noble Truths, one comes to the conclusion that the first three Noble Truths point to a theoretical model in which (1) can be taken as consensual, generally acceptable and not necessarily Buddhist; while (2) and (3) are causal: (2) as the cause of suffering, and (3) as the cause of the cessation of suffering. Truth (4) on the contrary is typically Buddhist in its referral to a praxis.

The concept 'suffering' is usually misinterpreted, due to a Christian or materialistic point of view. The term 'duhkha', although mostly translated as 'suffering' reaches much further than our ordinary conception of the term suffering: it implies not just our bodily or social torments or vexations, but also - and primarily so - our mental torments. Therefore duhkha would be better described as 'universal unsatisfactoriness' or 'dissatisfaction with the existing situation'.
In a certain sense we can also consult philosophers from the West for possible 'better' translations of duhkha. John Locke 1 (1632-1704) speaks of 'uneasiness', thereby remarking that this is the basic feeling, the drive behind every thought or action of humanity. Also found are terms such as 'Unerfülltheit' etc. It is through the use of these, that the term 'suffering' can be taken out of its physical-material context.

In a certain sense we could look upon the Buddhist concept of 'suffering' as being the interval, the distance between the existentially experienced and our expectations, on the one hand 'desire' and 'attachment', on the other hand fear:


Suffering here, does not belong to the sphere of salvation or enlightenment - as is often the case in other religions -, but is a characteristic of the existential world in which existence unfolds. This 'suffering' stands loose from the sphere of nirvana : this becomes clear although paradoxically expressed in the 'Heart-Sutra' ("Here, there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path that leads to the cessation of suffering.").
Duhkha indeed is one of the universal characteristics of that which exists, viz. the 'experienced'. As the locus typicus goes:

• All forms of existence are characterized by suffering;
• All forms of existence are characterized by impermanence;
• All elements of existence are characterized by non-self.

The distinction between 'forms of existence' and 'elements of existence' is of the utmost importance.

All 'things' or 'beings' are compound: these are the 'forms' that existence takes on. (samskara = compound).
This 'compound' is characterized by its composing elements or components (dharma = principle, basic principle, characteristic,...).
If one would use the example of computer science as a metaphor, one could picture a dharma as corresponding to a unit of communication (bit) or a unit of transmission (baud). Samskara than would correspond with a 'message' or 'data'.

Both samskara and dharma have in fact a multitude of meanings that are not always clearly distinguishable. The Monier-Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary for example gives the following lemma for 'samskara': "...the faculty of memory, mental impression or recollection, impression on the mind of acts done in a former state of existence. Buddh.: mental conformation or creation of the mind (such as that of the external world, regarded by it as real though actually non-existent...". In the Pali Text Society Dictionary on the other hand we read for the same lemma: "1. Aggregate of the conditions or essential properties of a given process or result e.g. the essentials or 'elements' of anything; - essential conditions, antecedents or synergy (co-ordinated activity), mental coefficients, requisite for act, speech, thought. 2. One of the five khandhas, or constitutional elements of physical life...".

'Suffering' is unavoidable since all 'things' are impermanent (not-remaining = Skt. anitya). This impermanence has given rise to a lot of esthetical expressions such as the inevitable withering of a flower, or morning dew, etc. Often this theme of impermanence is emotionally interpreted as the 'transitory nature of all things' through which a sense of doom is evoked, e.g. in poetry. Yet anitya should be understood as objectively neutral: if things where 'doomed' to perish or to disappear, than enlightenment would not be a possibility. Even impermanence can become a factor of enlightenment !
Besides this it is clear that every change in a 'subject' at the same time means a change in the experienced 'object'. In this way anitya in fact becomes a universal experience.

Things are impermanent because there can be no 'permanent' substance ('soul', 'atman', 'self', 'ego'). The 'elements of existence' (dharma) - and therefore also the 'forms of existence' which are composed by these elements - are 'self-less' (P. anatta). All that exists (the world of experience) is self-less, without self, without permanence, without absoluteness. This is the main criterion of the Teaching of the Buddha.


But : if there is no 'self', than who is it that suffers?

That which we call an 'individual', a 'personality', 'ego' or 'psyche', is in fact no more than a convergence of events, impulses, thought constructions, volitional actions, etc. In short, all that is conventionally understood under the term "mental activity". This collection (khandha, skandha) has no permanent substance or essence (atman). Just as no permanent 'house-entity' is found in a constructed house, in the same way no permanent 'entity' can be found within the different forms of existence including sentient beings. This compound nature of the forms of existence explains not only their impermanence but also their 'artificiality', their com-positeness (together + to put) (sam-skri), their polymer character.
The term 'samskara' has, as was mentioned before, a lot of meanings that can not be confused with one another. Each of these possible meanings however point to a compound nature, an aggregate; yet, the context in which the term is used can differ. Therefore it is necessary to make a clear distinction between its different uses: e.g. samskara is used to denote the fourth of the five skandha's (aggregates) in which case the connotations of 'karma' and 'will or volition' will be determining. When it is used as the second link of the pratitya samutpada (dependent co-origination), the emphasis will be put on the dynamic that runs from a (past) volitional action towards its (future) result, the fruit which conditions a future mental situation.

Every momentous 'being' is a compound of a series of ever-changing and impermanent aggregates called the 'five aggregates' (pañca-skandha).

• rupa: form, corporeality
• vedana: feeling, perception
• samjña: cognition, conception
• samskara: volition, karma-formations
• vijñana: consciousness, discrimination

How difficult it is to give a proper translation or even an approach of these terms becomes apparent from the multitude of (sometimes contradictory) translations.

These five skandha's are stages of perception, cognition and volition. They are NOT ontological elements. They give an approach of the mental process that is active in the 'psyche'. We thus can look upon them as psychological/epistemological elements.

It would therefore be wrong to consider each of these skandha's as an 'entity', a 'being'. Not only are they compound (ad infinitum), they also can not exist by themselves but only in relation to and in function of the other skandha's. They are therefore without substance and without autonomy, the two prerequisites for the so-called 'atman'. Thus there is no 'atman'. Or to state it more clearly: concentrating on or around the idea of an atman is (according to Buddhist thought) an inefficient thought-error. Buddhism in all its forms and aspects is an-atman (anatta): non-self.

This strict norm is the main criterion to separate things Buddhist from things non-Buddhist.
Further: the fivefold classification of the personality into skandha's and the twelve-fold classification of karmic existence (see later) are not a "scientific neurological or neuro-psychological" analysis and make no statements concerning an objective, anatomical reality. We are to look upon these classifications as empirical 'expedient means' (upaya) used to gain an insight into the process which leads from an 'existence characterized by suffering' (samsara) to a state of 'non-suffering' (nirvana). We are therefore clearly dealing with a soteriological methodology and not with mere psychological data or metaphysical statements.

The illusion to have or to be an atman - or even to take it into consideration - is the deep origin of suffering. Suffering comes to an end through the destruction of the atman-delusion (avidya = ignorance, mis-conception). This delusion leads to desire (trisna, P. tanha = thirst) and hatred (dosa = aversion), out of which the whole world of dissatisfaction or unsatisfactoriness, in short 'duhkha' comes into existence.
The term 'desire, thirst' should not be interpreted to narrow, in the sense of merely emotional or psychological. Desire encompasses 'all beings'. So for instance we could say that 'the heart desires to beat' seeing that this is the hearts necessary function. We can even speak of a certain 'cosmic' desire, e.g. as is seen in the mutual attraction of two masses (Newton's Law). Seen as such, desire is not only the motive or drive of the individual, it can also be transposed to a collectivity, yes even cosmically as the drive or the motive of the universe.

This all leads us to conclude that 'suffering' has its origin in 'desire', which in its turn has its source in 'ignorance'. To often however this is interpreted as "my suffering has its origin in my desire which in its turn finds its source in my ignorance". Such an expression leads to irrelevant questions concerning e.g. the suffering of innocent children. This mistaken shifting of emphasis is based on the input of the concept of 'mine' there where 'it' is meant. The reduction to individuality is in contradiction with the presupposition of anatman or 'no-self' and leads to a methodological incoherence. In our discussion of causality (next chapter) we should continuously take this into account with every step in our train of thought.

This makes that the Third and Fourth Noble Truths should consequently be interpreted in a purely soteriological and pragmatic (i.e. effective) way. A further consequence of the anatman-idea is than that all concepts, all ideas, all forms of thought are anatman, and therefore have no absolute or adequate sense, i.e. they can only be understood as being relative (i.e. in relation to). Further: anatman is also applied to anatman, meaning even anatman is relative: it is only a form of expression in which the content is relative, interchangeable, impermanent. From this the concept of 'emptiness' (sunyata) originated. However, also the concept of sunyata is a mere concept.....therefore.....

Buddhist philosophy than will primarily be an epistemology, a philosophy of knowing and Buddhist soteriology will be a wisdom of knowing: seeing things as they are in se, in their emptiness, and not as they appear to our existential consciousness.
In relation to this we could mutatis mutandis point to an analogy with "Gestalt Psychology", which has phenomenological data (Gegebenheiten) as its basis. "We do not perceive the world as it is, but as we are." The 'perceiver' organizes his/her own world of experience out of or around his/her own attitude.

To give a structure or a soteriological efficiency to such "emptiness-thinking", we can make use of several keys or paradigms with which we can solve the apparent unacceptability's or paradoxes. Most used in relation hereto are:

(1) the logical tetralemma, which forms the basis of the Buddhist fourfold logic :

a. A is
b. A is not
c. A is, and is not
d. A neither is, nor is not

In which the final and definitive emphasis is put on (d.). Where paradoxes occur (e.g. in the question of self/no-self) the thought process should - if possible - extend to the fourth lemma (d.) i.e. "neither self, nor no-self".

(2) the threefold level in relation to 'person', based on a centrifugal perspective:
 

a. personal
b. transpersonal
c. impersonal
 

ñ