Buddhism

BUDDHISM. — The word is broadly inclusive, and designates not only the philosophical-religious doctrine preached by Gotama Buddha, but also the various forms it assumed over the centuries. Here only two of them will be discussed: the ancient, or Hīnayāna, and the reformed, or Mahāyāna. The two terms, the first of which is found in use for the first time in Fa-hian (ca. 414 A.D.), are ordinarily interpreted as “the small vehicle” and “the great vehicle.” Since the doctrine is conceived as a vehicle that transports its followers toward holiness and liberation from rebirth, ancient b. is called small, that is, inadequate to the purpose, because it liberates only a few followers, namely those who observe the strict monastic discipline, whereas the reformed religion liberates all the faithful, monks and laymen alike.

I. HĪNAYĀNA

The Buddha rejected belief in the God who created and rules the universe, in revelation, and in the efficacy of sacrificial ritual, but retained the Brahmanic belief in rebirth, according to which life does not end with death but continues (saṃsāratī) in another existence, so that each person may receive the reward or punishment for his actions, whether good or evil. Liberation from the painful succession of births and deaths is attained by following the path of nirvāṇa (extinction), discovered by the Buddha. The substance of the original doctrine is contained in the sermon at Benares, which is summarized here.

The B. begins by defining as ignoble and useless both devotion to pleasures and mortification of the flesh, two ways of life that he himself had experienced; the middle way between these two extremes is the one that leads to nirvāṇa. He then enunciates the four sacred truths: 1) To live is to suffer, and the pain manifested principally in birth, old age, sickness, and death is inherent in the constituent elements of empirical existence. 2) Pain arises not only from attachment to life and its pleasures, but also from the desire to survive death or from the conviction that with death everything comes to an end even without following the path of nirvāṇa. 3) Pain is destroyed by extinguishing the thirst for life. 4) The path leading to liberation from pain is traversed by observing eight forms of righteousness: right faith, right decision, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right thought, and right concentration. The first requirement is right faith, orthodoxy in beliefs, in order to avoid falling into heresies, especially concerning the characteristics of every being (animal, man, or God), which are subjection to pain, transience, and the nonexistence of the soul as a substance. In place of the substantial and permanent soul, the B. substituted the uninterrupted series of states of consciousness; saṃsāra must therefore not be understood as transmigration, since there is no substance capable of transmigrating, but as rebirth, when the final state of consciousness of the dying person, driven by karman, the effect of actions, toward another birth, perpetuates itself in a new psychophysical organism, the life that carries itself forward. To the rectitude of ideas must be joined that of conduct. This is ensured by observing the ten prohibitions, the first five of which also bind lay Buddhists. 1) Do not kill (ahiṃsā). 2) Do not take what has not been given. 3) Do not commit adultery. 4) Do not lie. 5) Do not use intoxicating beverages. Monks, who are required to observe chastity, are also forbidden to marry. The ascent toward enlightenment culminates in mental concentration (samādhi), which, through four degrees of mystical contemplation (dhyāna), reaches an ineffable state of peace that transcends both pain and joy. The practice of dhyāna, however arduous, is accessible also to laymen, but it is not sufficient to attain nirvāṇa, which only the monk is able to achieve when, having expiated his sins and extinguished his passions, he reaches, under the guidance of the four sacred truths, nirvāṇa in life, or the “visible” nirvāṇa, equivalent to holiness. This anticipates and prepares the perfect nirvāṇa, or parinirvāṇa, which the saint reaches in death through the destruction of the body. The essence of parinirvāṇa is shrouded in mystery; it is indeed liberation from rebirth, but it is impossible to know whether the cessation of the pain inherent in existence entails a state of actual bliss. The sermon affirms that the thirst for life is the cause of pain, but does not explain its origin or how it leads to rebirth. We find the explanation in the formula known as “conditioned production” (pratīva-samūṭāda), which is the subject of an entire group of sutta, the 12th, of the Saṃyuttanikāya.

This is the substance of the ancient doctrine; the practical life of the monastic community (saṅgha) was regulated by a complex of norms, which the pāli canon has transmitted to us in the Vinayapiṭaka, the disciplinary section. The oldest part is the Pāṭimokha, a “list of sins” that members of the Order must avoid; it is divided into two parts, one concerning monks and the other concerning nuns. The Khandakā, or “sections,” prescribe the rules of daily monastic life, but since the rules are preceded by accounts explaining where and on what occasion they were laid down by the Buddha, the Khandakā are also a mine of information, not all of it imaginary.

II. MAHĀYĀNA

The new form assumed by b. in northwestern India at the beginning of the Christian era had in Nāgārjuna (end of the 2nd century) its most fervent apostle, though not its founder. We do not know the history of the movement that gave rise to the new doctrine, but the councils provide sufficient evidence of the dissensions, later becoming schisms, by which the community was troubled after the Buddha’s death. The Mahāsāṅghika, or “members of the great community,” were among the earliest schismatics, and those among them who regarded the buddha as “supernatural beings” (lokottāra) must be considered the forerunners of the Mahāyāna. The Mahāvastu is attributed to them; it reflects a period of transition from the Hīnayāna to the Mahāyāna, since it expounds the theory of the ten bhūmi, or “degrees” of perfection, through which the follower of the Mahāyāna attains the dignity of a buddha. According to the new doctrine, every man is a bodhisattva, that is, “a being (destined) for enlightenment,” a buddha in potentiality, who, through supernatural inspiration or love of his neighbor, decides to practice the perfect virtues (paramitā) and vows to become a buddha. The first enemy to be conquered is egoism; therefore he practices charity by sharing with others not only his material possessions but also the merit deriving from his good actions. Śāntideva (7th century A.D.) says in the Bodhicaryāvatāra, III, 10: “My life in all my rebirths, the merit acquired by me, present and future, I sacrifice without distinction for the salvation of all creatures.” But where will a wretched sinner find the strength to carry out this sublime sacrifice? In the aid of the great bodhisattva who preceded him on the path toward enlightenment: compassionate saints who could have entered nirvāṇa, like the historical Buddha, but renounced it in order, by remaining in the world, to aid the spiritual and temporal needs of suffering humanity. From the celestial worlds where they dwell, they hear and answer the prayers of the devout. The one most frequently invoked is AvalokiteśARA (v.) “the Lord of compassion,” who, according to the Buddhology of the *Mahā-

yāna, he is the spiritual son of the buddha Amitābha, “of limitless splendor,” whom he procreated by emanation so that he might spread the Good Law throughout the world. After Avalokiteśvara, Manjuśrī is noteworthy for his importance; he is celebrated by the Gaṇḍavyūha (ca. 4th cent. A.D.) as the only one capable of promoting full enlightenment. Other bodhisattvas are Vajrapāṇi, “who has a thunderbolt in his hand,” and Maitreya, “the benevolent one,” the future human Buddha; other buddhas are Vairośana, “the resplendent one,” and Amoghasiddhi, “of assured success.” In order to provide an ancestor for the numerous family of buddhas and bodhisattvas created by popular imagination, the doctrine of the Ādibuddha, or Primordial Buddha, arose in Nepāl after the 7th century; by the power of his meditation, he was said to have generated five spiritual buddhas, among them Amitābha, king of Sukhavati, “the (blessed) region.” From these buddhas five bodhisattvas were likewise said to have emanated, among them Avalokiteśvara; and the bodhisattvas, through the power of magic, were said to have brought forth the human buddhas: Gautama, son of Avalokiteśvara, and other mythical buddhas. The obscure origin of this doctrine has suggested a possible derivation from Persian Gnosticism.

The mahāyānist was offered valuable assistance in the struggle against egoism by the theory of emptiness (sūnya), which belongs to the Mādhyamika philosophy founded by Nāgārjuna. The Buddha had denied the existence of a metaphysical Self, replacing it with the metabolic personality, formed of psychophysical elements in perpetual transformation. Nāgārjuna went further, denying the existence even of the elements, which, being related to one another as cause and effect, do not exist in themselves and lack substantial reality. The conviction that the Self does not exist, the source of altruism, is as necessary to the bodhisattva as the practice of charity. The reform enacted by Mahāyāna may be summarized in the following innovations: the practice of the perfect virtues and therefore an active life in society and the family; the transferability of merit, in opposition to the doctrine of personal and irreversible karma; intuitive knowledge of the doctrine of emptiness; the cult of the great bodhisattvas, dispensers of graces, and the remission of sins, as a consequence of the doctrine of grace. This religion of love was patronized and adopted by the Kuṣāṇa kings, the Scythian conquerors of Kaśmīr and Panjab, at whose court Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna (ca. 2nd cent. A.D.), apostles of the new doctrine, lived. For the second time Buddhism became a State religion, and the image of the Buddha appeared on the coins of Kanṣa. Toward the ancient doctrine, Mahāyāna showed itself conciliatory, admitting that it was authentic but provisional. Gautama revealed it in a form suited to the mental obtuseness of his contemporaries, in preparation for Mahāyāna. The followers of Hinayāna nevertheless remained steadfast in refusing to recognize the authenticity of the sūtras of Mahāyāna, which do not constitute a true canon, but rather nine works of different origin and date, to which their common title, “Sūtra of great extent” (Vaipulyasūtra), lends an apparent unity. The most important is the “Lotus of the Good Law” (saddharmapuṇḍarīka, ca. 200 B.C.), which celebrates the historical Buddha, called the ascetic of the sākya, a god above the other gods, who apparently entered nirvāṇa but lives an eternal life. Chapter 24 is devoted to the great bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, dispenser of the most varied temporal graces.

The final, degenerate form of Mahāyāna was Tantrism, which arose from the mysticism of the Yogācāra school (4th cent. A.D.) and was associated with the magical practices of Śivaite Yoga. The supreme gnosis is still that of emptiness, but the means of attaining it are not only asceticism and meditation, but also magical formulas and rites, as well as the artificial stimulation of the senses. This form of Buddhism took root in Tibet (7th cent. A.D.) because of a certain affinity it had with the ancient Bon religion.

III. CHINESE B

Buddhism passed from India into China at the beginning of the first century. The account according to which the emperor Ming (58–66) sent to seek Buddhist books in central India, prompted to do so by a dream, is a pure legend. But pilgrimages to India, undertaken for purposes of study and the collection of sacred texts, were later made by Fa-hsien (399–414), Hsüan-tsang (629–45), and I-tsing (671–95), whose accounts of their journeys have survived. The new religion flourished under the dynasty of the Eastern Han (25–221), and by the second century was already fully developed. Mahāyāna prevailed, although monasticism was modelled on the Hīnayāna discipline of the Pāli canon. The Ten Commandments, the rules of the Pātimokkha, and especially the rules of life prescribed for the Buddha’s disciples by the Brahmajālāsutta (Pan-tsang-hing) were observed. Religious life was cenobitic, since mendicant monks had by then almost entirely disappeared. Only a few monasteries were granted by the emperor the privilege of conferring monastic ordination, which, through the grades of śramanera and arhat, made it possible to attain the dignity of bodhisattva. The preaching of the Sūtras and the Vinaya was an important part of the monks’ activity; they were also translators and copyists. Sacred texts were credited with the power to ward off misfortunes, and consequently, during the golden age of Chinese Buddhism, the sūtras reached the enormous number of 2213, according to a catalogue from A.D. 518. The cult of the Buddhas Sākya (Gautama) and Amitābha, and of the bodhisattvas Maitreya and Avalokiteśvara or Kwan-yin, was in force; these figures enjoyed special veneration. An Indian mystic, Bodhidharma (in Chinese: Ta-mo), who landed at Canton around 520, introduced the practice of mystical contemplation into the monasteries (tch’an, from Skr. dhyāna) and founded one of the most important schools of Chinese Buddhism, known by the name of Tch’an.

During the Sung dynasty (960–1279), the revival of Confucianism led to fierce persecution of the Buddhists, and 260,000 religious, monks and nuns, were forced to return to secular life. Buddhism took refuge in lay secret societies, inspired by a syncretism that led them to adopt principles of Taoism and even of Confucianism itself. When religious toleration was restored by Khubilai, founder of the Mongol dynasty (1274), two monastic communities were formed in China: that of the Foists or Buddhists (Fo is the Chinese translation of Buddha), and that of the [b]Lamas in the provinces bordering Tibet and Mongolia. The Foists have no hierarchy; each monastery is independent. The [b]Lamas, on the other hand, belong to an organization arranged hierarchically.

IV. JAPANESE B

Japan encountered Buddhism in the form of Mahāyāna in A.D. 552. In that year, sūtras and images of the Buddha arrived at the Japanese imperial court through Korea, together with the news that all the countries between India and Korea had accepted the new religion. At court, opinions concerning the adoption of Buddhism remained divided for a long time; only in 593 did Prince Umayado, regent of the empress Suikō, promulgate the first constitution, in which faith in the “three jewels (the Buddha, the Doctrine, the Community)” was proclaimed the foundation of virtuous life. He had Buddhist temples and seminaries, hospitals and shelters built, and by 624 Buddhism already had 46 temples, 816 monks or bonzes, and 569 nuns in Japan. The rivalry with Shintoism, the national religion that predated Buddhism, was eliminated through the work of the bonze Gyōki (d. 822), by recognizing that the ancestral goddess Amaterasu was a manifestation of the buddha Vairośana, the personified universe, who had a bronze statue more than fifteen meters high in the temple of Nara. From then until the end of the Tokugawa regime (1868), the importance of Japanese Mahāyāna continued steadily to increase. In 1925 the temples and monasteries of the various Buddhist sects numbered 71,114, the religious 185,000, and the faithful 47 million, according to the data of the “Buddhist Congress of East Asia.” The divisions within the Community, begun in the eighth century by reforming bonzes, increased in the succeeding centuries, until they reached the number of fifty-eight. One of the most important is the Zen sect (from Sanskrit dhyāna, meditation), which, disregarding dogmatic and ritual questions, teaches the attainment of enlightenment through mental concentration. This sect (thirteenth century), today predominantly monastic, had the greatest number of followers among the military class.

The imperial restoration of 1868 restored Shintoism to prominence as the State religion, separating it from Buddhism, with which it had been associated by Gyōki. Buddhism suffered persecutions; the temples were devastated, the images destroyed, and the bonzes advised to secularize themselves. Only in 1872 were they placed on an equal footing with Shinto priests and officially recognized as kyōdōshoku, teachers of morality.

On Hīnayāna: H. C. Warren, Buddhism in translations, Cambridge Mass. 1909; T. W. Rhys Davids, L'India buddhistica, Italian translation, Firenze 1925; F. Belloni-Filippi, La dottrina di Gotama Buddha, Lanciano 1927; L. Suali, Gotama Buddha, Bologna 1934; T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhisme, its History and Literature, Nuova York-Londra 1896; M. Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Literatur, II, Lipsia 1920; A. Ballini, Le religioni dell'India, in P. Tacchi Venturi, Storia delle Religioni, I, 3e ed., Torino 1944, pp. 473-510.

On Mahāyāna: D. T. Suzuki, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, Londra 1907; L. de la Vallée Poussin, Bouddhisme, opinions sur l'histoire de la Dogmatique, Parigi 1909; id., Mahāyāna, in Enc. of rel. and Rth., VIII (1915), pp. 330-36; T. W. Rhys Davids, Sects Buddhist, ibid., XI (1920), pp. 307-309; Sāntideva, In cammino verso la luce (Italian translation by G. Tucc), Torino 1925.

Diffusion of Buddhism: J. J. M. de Groot, Le code du Mahayana en Chine, Amsterdam 1893; B. L. Lambresse, Le Bouddhisme en Chine et au Thibet, Parigi 1893; H. Hackmann, Der Buddhismus in China, Korea u. Japan, Tubinga 1905; L. Wieger, Bouddhisme Chinois, 2 vols., Hokienfou 1910-13; R. Fujishima, Le Bouddhisme japonais, Parigi 1889; A. Lloyd, The Creed of half Japan, historical sketches of Japanese Buddhism, Londra 1911; M. Anesaki, History of Japanese Religion, ibid. 1930; D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, 2 vols., ibid. 1927-33.

Ferdinando Belloni Filippi
V. CHRISTIANITY. - With regard to the relations between b. and Christianity, the latter of which, according to some, would have derived part of its doctrine and practices from the former, and almost even the figure and history of Jesus Christ, it will suffice to recall the following points of irreducible contrast between the two:

1) As regards the concept and existence of a personal God: primitive b. admits neither divinity, nor worship, nor the dependence of man, as a creature, upon a Supreme Being, as creator. Even when the subsequent development of Buddhist doctrine admitted and multiplied the gods, these were only human persons who had become such. Christianity, on the other hand, places at the foundation of human life and actions the unshakable faith in one God, eternal, personal, creator of the world, provident and paternal toward all his creatures; it does not see the world as a chain of interwoven processes subject to a fatal law, but as a work, wisely designed, which moves toward the end established by the Creator; 2) as regards the human person: according to b., “the self” is not a constant reality, consisting of a body united to a spiritual, immortal, and independent soul; rather, it is only a connection of elements that death separates, and which, through their inclination to reunite, contribute to form other living beings, rational or irrational, according to the law of karman, until one day everything dissolves in nirvāna. In Christianity, on the other hand, man, elevated by grace to the supernatural order and become a child of God, knows “that his transitory elements are anchored in a permanent spiritual substance, related, even on this earth, to the celestial kingdom; he also knows that his actions have decisive importance for his future state, where one day he will reap what he has sown, and where his contingent knowledge, a poor and uncertain glimmer, will blossom into the beatific and eternal vision” (G. Messina, p. 355); 3) as regards the value of life and its fundamental problem, suffering: for b. everything is centered on the common experimental fact that is suffering (“everything is suffering, birth, illness, death, etc.”); it explains its origin by the thirst that impels the elements constituting “the self” to pass from one rebirth to another without ever finding complete joy in any of them; hence the necessity of destroying this thirst through the total annihilation of every desire. Christianity, on the contrary, does indeed recognize the existence of suffering; but it indicates its origin not only in the fact that the world is limited and transitory, but also and above all in the fact of an original fault that likewise caused physical suffering and deprived man of the goods that had been bestowed upon him. Yet, in order to remove suffering, it does not advise shattering and annihilating life down to its deepest roots, but strengthening the will, transforming sufferings into as many wingbeats by which to rise toward perfection and the closest imitation of the example of its Founder. All the more because in this man can rely upon the intervention of grace and divine assistance, which increase the efficacy of his effort; 4) the fact that monastic life exists in both b. and Christianity does not imply the derivation of the latter from the former. In all times and among all peoples there have been isolated persons or groups who wished to obey the inspiration toward greater perfection, withdrawing from everything and everyone. Besides, we know the origins of Christian monasticism so well historically that we can say that it derives in no way from Buddhist monasticism; 5) some events in the life of Jesus offer analogies with events in the life of the Buddha. But here it is necessary first of all to demonstrate that these are true analogies between the different events, founded not merely upon consideration of the event in itself but also upon all the circumstances that accompanied them. Then their fundamental difference will become evident (e.g., in the virginal conception of Jesus and that of the Buddha, in their birth, in the episode of the temptations, etc.). Moreover, it should be noted that, while there is no evidence at all of the presence of Buddhist traditions in Palestine at the time of Jesus, it seems instead that Christianity penetrated India at an early date (v. INDIA), where Christian influence may have brought about a reworking of ancient Buddhist tales; 6) there remains the point of greatest resemblance: love, benevolence toward others, including animals and plants. Anyone, however, who observes that love in b. does not extend to loving one’s enemy, but is content not to hate him, and that even the feeling of friendly and merciful goodness remains weakened by the idea that every attachment of the heart distances one from liberation from suffering, understands how this love, at the very moment that it gives itself, withdraws; it has neither force nor impetus, but folds back upon itself; whereas the profound motive of love in Christianity, besides extending even to the enemy, rests upon the higher concept of the sonship of all in relation to God, and upon the example of the immeasurable love of Jesus Christ.