It was only until last year that I really studied Buddhism and got to know what it’s about. All I knew were the generalized beliefs of detachment from materialism and peace. You know…the usual notion of love for every being and everything. From there, my knowledge on Buddhism evolved and I realized that it was much more complex than just the philosophical views. I’ve also had an interest, since then, in Buddhism. It got me back to the discussion we had in class on why we study certain things; the purpose behind it, if there is any. I was baffled at first but as I read on, I realized that I was fascinated with this tradition because it had many similarities with Sikhi; there are shared terms and views. Moreover, I also consider it to be rich. I mean, that may sound “cheesy” or too simple but that is how I feel towards it. One of these riches involves the diversity in its divisions; it has other branches within sects and these branches break out into even more sects, which have slightly different practices. My other interest involves the sangha. While there are other traditions out there that have monasteries, I’m particularly interested in the monastic life of Buddhists.
(Buddhist novice)
In the first reading by Lopez, he states that there is uncertainty with much of the Buddhist texts that are appropriated to the Buddha as many were written after his death. These texts were written by monks who had remembered Buddha’s sermons. This is similar to other traditions, such as Hinduism in which shruti was literature that was orally recited by Brahmins and wasn’t written down till centuries later. It’s amazing to see how many followers do not record the teachings until the death of their prophet or saint. Is it because they believe with the existence of this individual the teachings are immortalized, meaning there is no fear of expiration? Did the followers find it better verbalizing the words so they could ensure the memorization? Or maybe they didn’t have enough resources or tools. There probably is an answer out there for my curiosity but I haven’t come across it, yet.
(Buddha giving a sermon)
If you study world religions, you can see that almost all of them have disagreements with practices, beliefs or other foundations of their tradition. It’s led to separation in the form of different sects. Buddhism has Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Theravada is considered to be the way of elders, meaning it is the oldest or “original” form of Buddhism, whereas Mahayana can be viewed as a reaction to Theravada’s elitism and Vajrayana is seen as “advanced” Buddhism. These sects have more variations within, such as Pure Land or Zen Buddhism. Additionally, these sects are assigned to certain sections on the map; Southern Buddhism is associated with places like Sri Lanka, Burma and Northern Buddhism is linked to China and Korea. Again, what this reminds me of is the topic on what religion is. Do we accept all of these forms or is Theravada the only one that should be accepted for that is what started first? Can we build or modernize religion and still claim it to be authentic? These groups reject one another on a lot of practices but nonetheless, they all hold uniqueness and many basics of Buddhism. Some contain harsher methods, while others require more knowledge-based or concentrative means to acquire enlightenment; i.e. some starve or beat novices if they don’t get the correct or enlightening-based answers. If I remember correctly, Rinzai from the Zen school uses the koan method in which students must answer riddles, puzzles or questions through meditation; i.e. can a dog attain enlightenment?. From their meditation, they must unlock an answer that shows the Buddha nature. There is no correct answer but they must be spontaneous or convincing so as to create sudden (kensho) enlightenment. Some sects would not deem this to be appropriate as they believe nirvana is gradually obtained. This is one of many riches that I find in Buddhism to be absolutely fascinating!
(Bodhidharma, creator of the Zen school in the Mahayana sect)
On a side note, Lopez argues that if China’s government hadn’t become politically disheveled, then perhaps Buddhism would not have survived in China. I kind of agree with this because of the stronghold that Confucianism had on politics. This tradition had intertwined with politics, specifically with the Mandate of Heaven. Since it was a state religion, I believe it would have been hard for Buddhism to survive in enormous numbers at that time.
Moving on to the three jewels of Buddhism, which are the Buddha, dharma and sangha; these can be seen as the basis of Buddhism. Personally, I find the Buddha and sangha more interesting. The biography of Buddha is incredibly illustrative and also resembles life stories of other religious founders. For me, I can’t help but get attracted to the various connections between traditions. Firstly, the Master was born through Immaculate Conception, just like Jesus. Likewise, he set out to spread his message, experience and find ways to reduce suffering as Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad did. They were all rejected at first but gradually became accepted and revered. Moreover, Buddhists believe that merit is attained if one cleans and looks after the statues. This is also evident in Sikhi, when Sikhs care after everything in the gurdwara (temple) as a form of seva (selfless service), which is one of the three things that lead to liberation. Another similarity I found is how some women in Buddhism go on pilgrimages to ensure the health of their family. Such notions appear in religions like Hinduism, where women partake in a custom called Karva Chauth that requires wives to fast for a day for the well-being and life longevity of their husbands.
(Art depicting the Immaculate Conception of the Master)
In addition, monks and nuns must confess of any wrongdoing and this procedure exists in a lot of religions, noticeably in Christianity. Then there is the view that the Buddha will descend upon earth if dharma decreases. Islam, Judaism, etc. believe that if their faith is reducing or is in danger, that a messiah will come to right the wrong. What I’m trying to get at here is that even though religions have a lot of differences in beliefs, there are still many similarities that usually go unnoticed. Sure, many of these parallels exist because of influences from various traditions but they’re usually considered authentically Christian or authentically Buddhist. Many adherents typically don’t affirm these resemblances to be influences but to be a belief that sprouted within their religion for they want to be distinct. If traditions focused more so on the likeness between the values and such, then perhaps there would be less tension and animosity.
While it may seem as though Buddhism does not have any inequality, there are some evidences that prove otherwise. For the disciples of Mahayana, Theravada is not realistic for it reserves enlightenment only for the bhikshus and bhikshunis. They believe this is elitist and that all followers, including the laity have the ability to acquire liberation from samsara. Furthermore, nuns seem to have less power than the monks. While the vinaya rules outline that the oldest ordained monk has authority over those who were ordained less amount of years, this rule does not apply to nuns. So if a nun has been ordained longer than a monk, she must still pay respect to him.
(One of many Buddhist monasticism)
Lastly, the excerpt from the Lotus Sutra that was most appealing to me was The Parable of the Burning House. What I retrieved from it was the contrast that was made between materialism and life. The children got out of the house only because their father promised them with gifts. The kids are not at fault for attaching themselves to the material world and I think the Buddha establishes their innocence and unawareness of deep knowledge in this passage, which pardons them from what would be considered falsehood. Moreover, though the father got them out of the house through bribery, he is also not considered to be at fault because he did so only to save their lives.
(Picture depicting the The Parable of the Burning House)
I had my very own experience of monastic life within Buddhism. During my recent trip to India, we went to visit my grandfather who lives in Dharamshala. When we got there, I saw hundreds upon hundreds of monks and nuns. I thought I would feel out of place because there I was…a Sikh within a surrounding where people wore robes, not a kirpan. Within seconds I got smiles and head bows from various people. I can’t even begin to explain the feeling I had. I was overwhelmed. It had this crushing energy that you can’t ignore, like in New York only it was different…there was calmness in the middle of it all. We visited a temple and even got to see the Dalai Llama’s home from afar. It was simply amazing to see it all. I even noticed the changes. I was surprised to see many monks with earbuds in their ears and iPods in their hands. I’m not sure how they obtained it since they are in a world devoid of materialism. Maybe it’s because much of the vinaya rules concerning this aspect exist mainly in orthodox Buddhism, as Lopez highlights. What ever it may be, I think it’s quite clear that Buddhism is a lot more complex than the generalizations that we usually see in the media. It seems difficult as one must live a life that is free of worldly things, yet they live in a world that is increasingly modernizing and producing technology used to uncomplicated our lives. However, this view is probably not held by the adherents for Buddhism provides a harmonious life that is devoid of the distractions we see in modern societies.
(The Dalai Llama's home. Had to take the picture from far as the guards wouldn't let me do it up close!)
(Coming down from a little hike we took up towards a waterfall. There were many paths leading to places near the waterfall where you could do yoga and meditation.)
No comments:
Post a Comment