Let's continue our investigation here examination of the differences that Buddha  introduced into Hindu doctrine. Why it became a separate religion. And I  mentioned some of them, he dismissed the caste system entirely. That's just  part of illusion. And the world really is an illusion. And so is everything about it.  Buddhists think that if you press scientific investigation, you will ultimately come  to absurdities and contradictions and things that not only have no explanation  but seem crazy. And that's just part of the, the way, nature evinces itself to be  illusory. He also rejected the idea that karma is a, an enviable iron law that can't  be bent or escaped at all. Karma is the, the force that's the name for the fact that when you are reborn, you are reborn in a way that punishes you for your evil in  the previous life or rewards you for the good of your previous life. So it's tied  with the idea of samsara. And karma has, no, there's no escaping it in Hinduism. Buddha taught that there is a karma for people who do evil. But for people who  do good, who are seeking enlightenment, they can escape this, he called them  Arahants. Arahants who by steadfast mind has come to exempt himself from evil desire, may feel assured that the old karma is exhausted, and no new karma is  being produced. These are the Wise, who will be extinguished at death, like a  lamp, there will be no rebirth for them. There is only those who are not  emancipated from the will to live and have the desire, who will be reborn. So  there is a way to get out of the clutches of karma. It's, and there's a freedom that the individual has the individual determines to follow the, the proper path and  divest himself of desire and meditate and achieve nirvana, then he can escape  the karma altogether. And so this is part of Buddha's reason for rejecting the  caste, it doesn't matter what I what I caste I've been born into, I can achieve  nirvana directly from any caste, I don't have to be reborn, a Brahmin to do it. And I don't have to be reborn a man to do it. He dismissed the difference between  the sexes as well. Women can do it. In fact, Buddha said, at times, someone  who isn't even seeking Nirvana, who is not engaged in the discipline can  become suddenly enlightened, like a lightning bolt and be emancipated from  desire and achieve nirvana, and that lightning bolt of emancipation and  knowledge he called Zen. Well, all this is too much for the Hindus. And they  were very resistant. To Buddha's teaching. He's dismissing karma. He's  dismissing samsara and karma as inevitable. He's dismissing the castes. The  whole idea of how to achieve proper relation to the Divine is the same divine,  but it's a totally different idea of how to achieve proper relation to it. And some  people have compared Buddha to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation they said that they think there's a similarity between the way Buddha reformed  Hinduism and the way Luther reformed Christianity, I think that's largely a  misleading comparison. And let me tell you why. Both Luther and the the  established church in the Middle Ages, were acknowledging the authority of the  scriptures of what had been first the Hebrew, the Jewish Scriptures, and then  the addition of the New Testament and they were engaged in interpreting those. 

So they both had a common authority And neither, Luther was not trying to  establish a start a new religion. What he wanted to do is go back to his  impression of what the New Testament saw as the proper of Christian life, and  the proper role of the church and so on. And the established church disagreed  with him, of course. But if, but it was not a whole new way of achieving proper  relation to God, it was taken from writings that had pre existed, both Luther and  the medieval church. In Buddha's case, it's his own private personal insight into  how to how to change how to think of the proper relation to God, or to the Divine Brahman Atman or the nothingness. And without a common, authoritative  source to appeal to. So it's a very large difference in the way the two operated,  though, I can see why people would be tempted to make that comparison. It's  not nearly as far reaching a change as what Buddha inaugurated. Now we come to another point of great difference. That just caused a lot of consternation as  well. No soul, soul or self in Buddhism. There's nothing that passes over from  one life to the next. Well, then it doesn't seem as though anyone anything is  being reborn. You're not being reincarnated, something brand new is taking the  place of the one who died. And what Buddha said that he neither affirmed nor  denied that something passes over, but then that nothing passes over seems to  come to be be prevalent, to prevail. So among all the things that he said he  didn't say, remember, we read that last time? I didn't say this. I didn't say the  world's finite or infinite. I didn't say this. So that was the other thing. He said, he  says, what I want to talk about is the origin of misery. And how to escape it, the  path leading to the cessation of misery. That's what I talk about. And why,  because this does, people good it prophets, them to know it. And it has to do  with the fundamentals of religion, and tends to absence of passion leads us to  knowledge, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana. That's what's important. It was a  story that some people asked Buddha one day about the creation of the  universe. Well, granted that this world is Maya, but how does it get here? Why  does it exist? And in Hinduism, there is a creation story. Brahman Atman,  generates the world of Maya, and every so many 100 millions years, it destroys  that one and makes a new one that's in Hinduism. But Buddha just stood there  and wouldn't answer. And the teaching is that's conveyed is, it's not helpful to  think about that. You shouldn't be paying that much attention to the world of  Maya in the first place to wonder how it got here, or why it exists. Just try to  escape it. Divest yourself of any interest at all. And the same then goes,  however, for the individual human soul, that's part of the Maya world. This was a debate carried on after Buddha's death, there were meetings of Buddhists. They debated this issue. And one said that the, the, the unreality of the self was total,  there is no self at all, that's just part of illusion. And the other side said, well, the  self isn't the substantial thing people tend to think it is, but there has to be some  self, even to raise the question, and even to deny the existence of the self. And  they went back and forth about that for several centuries. I read one of those 

debates that took place in China in the seventh century. It's fascinating to see  these people argue in that way. But if, if there's a real problem here, and it is if  nothing passes over then it can't be said to be re incarnated or reborn. It's, it  would be something brand new. Let me see if I can try to make that clear. It's an  issue that we is raised in philosophy. It has to do with what's called the identity  of indiscernibles. If we are in doubt as to whether we're dealing with only one  thing, or with two things, then if it turns out that everything that's true about one  is true about the other, there's, there's really only one. So, I may have two  names, but they're for the same thing. It's like Clark Kent, and Superman. If  there really is one person, identical person, then anything true of Clark Kent is  also true of Superman and vice versa. They can't be that they have one has a  property the other doesn't have. If one thing has any characteristic the other  lacks, and there are two things not one. Take another example, we use the  expression Morningstar. And we use the expression Eveningstar. And those two  expressions don't mean the same thing. But they both refer to Venus. Venus, as  it appears in the morning was called the Morningstar. Venus, as it appeared in  the evening was called Eveningstar. But there was really only one thing there.  And everything that was true of this was true of this, and vice versa. Because it  was the same object. Now, if you have one soul, one being who dies here, and if that really is to cease existing then when a new soul or a new self takes over. In  reincarnation, they can't be the same thing. Because this one lacks a property  this one has, namely, this one ceased to exist at a certain time. This one didn't  do that. And this would began to exist at a certain time. And this one didn't do  that. So each one has a property the other doesn't have. And there are two  things not one. Nevertheless, that's what Buddha asserted. There is  reincarnation, but there is no soul that passes over from one to the other. And I  don't think that makes any sense. And here's why. But that sort of ruins the  whole idea of reincarnation, or Karma at all granted, he wanted to loosen up  those ideas, and make karma and re and samsara escapable. And more quickly  and easily than in Hinduism. Nevertheless, he still believed in them, he still  believed that if you were evil in this life, you'd be punished for it the next, how  can you when it's not you being punished in the next if it does, if it isn't you who  continues to exist and gets reborn? Then who's being punished for the evil you  did in this life? And yet that goes on being the explanation when evil things befall us in this life that's called, in the in Christian context, the problem of evil. It  doesn't mean why is there why do people do moral evil? It means Why do bad  things befall people who don't seem to deserve them? It's about undeserved  pain, undeserved suffering. Why is there undeserved suffering in the world? And the Hindu and Buddhist answer is because people have done evil in a previous  life they suffer in this life. So it looks as though they don't deserve it. But they do  because of what they did the previous life. That's the Hindu and Buddhist  answer. And it continues to be Buddha's answer, even though I think by denying 

that there is a self and a soul, and denying that it is reborn and passes over in  reincarnation is undermined that doctrine. That is inconsistent set of teachings.  That doesn't bother a Buddhists because he doesn't think consistency is a mark  of anything. This the entire illusory world is inconsistent, in his view, so he  doesn't care about that. A Jew or Christian or Muslim would have to give a  different answer. We don't believe that we've lived a previous life and are being  punished for things in it. Why do undeserved sufferings befall good people is is  the subject of the book of Job. And the the Judeo Christian Muslim answer to  that is very different and We'll get to that, we'll cover that when we get there. So  the, what all this boils down to is avoid attachment. That's the way that's the  wisdom that leads to enlightenment, which leads to Nirvana. And nirvana is an  escape from pain and woe and suffering, and is the only escape. So, avoid  every attachment whatsoever. Now, that brings me back to a point that I raised  about Buddha, Buddha's experience of enlightenment. He's there with his five  friends. And they realize just by the look on his face, that he's achieved  enlightenment, and that he could at that point, achieve nirvana, I mean, to their  view it would look like he died, but in fact, he would have achieved nirvana. But  he stays in the world of illusion in order to preach this Good News of  enlightenment to them and to others. And that's supposed to be love without  attachment. So it's the only it's the only sense of love that's allowed. It's this  Buddhist sense, the sense where you do something charitable, and that's  beneficial to somebody else, without becoming attached to them. If you become  attached, then you've destroyed the enlightenment. So if family attachments  have to be severed attachments. Attachments to things to possessions, to  wealth, even being attached to preserving your own body, he does not prescribe the extreme asceticism that he found didn't work, but neither are you to prefer  care of your body to in such a way, that it becomes an attachment for you. So,  there are 10 pitfalls to this attempt to Divest yourself of attachment. And, and the the 10 pitfalls are, number one, the belief in the existence of a self and soul, he  believes that is the first thing that undermines your attempt to Divest yourself of  all attachment. And second, doubt, doubt. It's very interesting that he lists that  your to accept this stuff on trust, that it is true, that he is reporting to his  experience as he has had it, and it can be a guide to yours. Three, he lists, trust  in rituals for salvation. If you think that by worshiping gods by being pious, giving to the poor, attending the various services, observing holy days and so on, is  going to help you at all that's just another chain holding you back preserving  attachments that you should be free of. Four, lust, and here he's talking about  sexual desire as another thing that you have to divest yourself from five anger  and resentment six the very desire to be reborn into other worlds into a better  life desire to be reborn up the up the scale of reincarnation is itself an  attachment you should divest yourself from what you really want is to be  unattached to it all escape at all all at once not not work yourself up your way up

the chain from woman to untouchable and untouchable to low class low class  the middle classes and so on until you become a Brahmin and I don't I forget  now I'm just gonna say that how many castes there are you know in India, there  are so many castes and sub castes that it turns out that the incredible number  another thing that prevents people from divesting themselves of all desire is  pride. And then the ninth is self righteousness. Wanting to make yourself look  right and good. And the last is ignorance. Now there are two main branches of  Buddhism today One is called theravada and the other is called Mahayana. And  the theravada Buddhism is the smaller group. Most Buddhists are a Mahayana.  By and in the theravada tradition, anyone who accomplishes the first three of  these, divest himself a belief of the self, divest himself of doubt, and divest  himself of trust in any rituals for salvation. That monk cannot be reborn more  than seven times. And when he conquers four and five, he can only be reborn  once more before ending, before entering nirvana. And when he conquers all  10, he will tame the earthly experience of Nirvana and become an Arahant. He  will experience Nirvana in his meditative trance. The theravada Buddhism is the  closer to the original, as far as we can tell, the Mahayana has more  developments and changes in that, but we'll come to that. On another occasion,  explain more about that. I wanted to read you another section from the Buddhist  scriptures. But the men of your country are violent, cruel and savage, when they become angry at you, and do you harm? What do you think? I think I shall. I  think them truly good and kind folk, for while, they speak angry and insulting  words, they didn't strike or stone me. They are very violent folk. What if they do  strike and stone you then I'll think them kind of good not to have killed me with a  sword. And what if they do kill you, then I'll think them kind and good, indeed,  who freed me from this vile body with so little pain. Well said, well said, You're a  great gift of patience who may indeed try this task. Go yourself, you are saved.  Now save others. So it's the divesting of any desire, no matter what anybody  else does. That is going to lead to this, to the enlightenment and to Nirvana. And notice that Buddha's idea of nirvana is very much like the original Hinduism, it  just means being annihilated and freed from all pain and suffering. It is nothing  like being in the presence of a god and living a life of pleasure and happiness.  Which came into boot into Hinduism toward the end, under Christian influence.  Now, I mentioned the difference between theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.  And I need to explain a little more about that. In the Mahayana, tradition, there  arose at a teaching about people who achieve nirvana. Buddha called an  arahant, and they were called, bodhisattvas in the Mahayana Buddhism. And it  was speculated that a person who achieves Nirvana then proceeds to be  absorbed in the Nirvana in stages. It's gradual, it takes a while, and in the  interim, between the time they die and the time that they're completely achieve  absorption into nirvana, they may be able to help you in some way. And so they  get treated somewhat like the way in which Roman Catholics think of saints, as 

people who have died and are in the presence of God and can help you if you  pray to them, they can aid you in some way. Mahayana Buddhism, there by  doing that, introduce something new and in between stages. And whereas  Buddha himself said, nobody else can help you even if there are gods they can't help you. It's up to you just save yourself. Now we get this modification. And  there are many other modifications that go so far as Pure Land Buddhism, which is very popular in, in Japan, which shows again heavy Christian influence. And  the idea there is that if one achieves divesting oneself of all desire, and at  achieves Nirvana, what happens is that one goes to the Pure Land, which is the  land with all the other people who have achieved this. And it is a conscious  individual life that's happy. And only then from there, they can achieve  absorption into unconsciousness, if they wish. It's striking how both these  traditions are impacted by the Christian idea of everlasting life, in the presence  of God. The restitution of your you as an individual bodily life, and the enjoyment forever, that's a powerful idea that is infected both of these religions actually  inconsistent with their bases, but which they cannot seem to resist. Of course,  theravada Buddhists would resist it and say, That's why they're not the real  thing. But they're very interesting people. I had the pleasure of being at the main temple, the big Buddhist temple in Bangkok, on Buddha's birthday, and they had quite a celebration in the procession, people putting gold on the (unintelligible)  of the dome, and so on. And the monks were all out chanting. And it was very  impressive. I remember writing home to my father, and said today we were at  Wat Po. And they celebrated Buddha's life, birth and death, but not resurrection.  Which is the main difference. If you have traveled at all, you will be keenly aware that there are more statues of Buddha on this planet by far than any other  person who ever lived. And his teaching is respected greatly by people who  don't practice it. In countries that are Buddhist, a monk is revered. Some years  ago, there was a riot in downtown Bangkok. And it was broken up not by the  police, but by because somebody put a monk on the hood of a car and drove  into the middle of the crowd. And the crowd parted. And nobody would think of,  of harming or threatening a monk people who don't practice divesting all desire  nevertheless, revere people who are trying to do that. And that's the state of  affairs in a country that's that's largely Buddhist, that you're the only country that  is solidly theravada Buddhist is Thailand, and the country that used to be called  Madagascar. I don't remember the the new name of it now, but we'll wrap this  up. And next time we'll begin with Judaism, so be sure again to do the readings,  then see the lecture and do the readings again 



Last modified: Monday, October 16, 2023, 7:50 AM