Question 5 - The reliability of councils

Question

Since the Buddha did not write anything himself, have there not been deviations? What reassures us that these compilations are faithful to the teachings of the Buddha?

 

Réponse

The earliest Buddhist scriptures are based on a compilation made after his death of sermons and teachings given over a period of 50 years by Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. Here are some of the unique characteristics of his preaching method.

  1. As a preacher, the Buddha's basic approach was to gain insight into the character of his audience (personality traits such as disposition, ability to understand, type, degree and content of the problem to be solved, and receptivity) on the basis of the truth he had acquired and to give effective teachings in a timely, flexible and immediate manner in response to these traits.
  2. On the other hand, the disciples and followers of the Buddha who listened to these oral teachings understood them on the basis of their own roots and, to the extent that they were able to understand the content in qualitative and quantitative terms, they engraved it in their minds. This attitude and method of listening is symbolized by the well-known phrase "thus I have heard", which is found at the beginning of many existing sutras.

Under these circumstances, the Buddha's oral teachings were accumulated only from memory by his disciples and followers, but the complete content was naturally diverse and varied in level.

Therefore, after the Buddha's death, the necessity of maintaining and transmitting the whole of his teachings (posthumous teachings) as "Buddhist doctrines," with their contents accurately confirmed by his surviving disciples, before they were lost due to death and the disappearance of memory, was strongly recognized. The most important and urgent undertakings of the Buddhist order at that time were called gatherings (saṅghīti, saṅghāyana) and were carried out soon after the Buddha's death. During the long history of Buddhism, which spans some 2,500 years, other gatherings have been held, six times in all, depending on the historical and social situation and the needs of the Order. The first of these gatherings is historically known as the "First Council". These gatherings continued in India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma) and other southern Theravada Buddhist countries.

The first gathering is said to have taken place shortly after the Buddha's death, bringing together 500 elders at Gijjhakūṭa on the outskirts of Rājagrha, the capital of Magadha in northern India at the time.

This assembly was presided over by Mahākāśyapa, who led the Buddhist order after the Buddha's death. The posthumous teachings of the Buddha were collected there in the "Dharma" and the "Commandments" (Vinaya).

The Dharma was centered around Ānanda, who was always the Buddha's closest assistant for many years and had the greatest opportunity to hear his teachings in person. Moreover, when the Buddha's ten senior disciples were praised as the "Ten Major Disciples" at a later time, the fact that Ananda and Upali were cited as the "Best in Many Hearings" and the "Best in Keeping the Commandments" respectively is considered a good illustration of their outstanding characteristics. In any case, it was in this first assembly that the posthumous teachings of the Buddha were first compiled and collected, with the confirmation and agreement of many of his most eminent disciples. These texts were then gradually expanded and organized to form the early Pali Buddhist scriptures (Sanzō, Tripiṭaka) that constitute the threefold basket, the original core of the present Buddhist doctrines and teachings.

Thus, the solely oral teachings of the Buddha were compiled after his death on the basis of the memories of his disciples, especially his cousin and faithful assistant Ananda.

Seen from today, we are perhaps entitled to ask ourselves: "Did Ananda hear everything, understand everything and faithfully transmit the teachings of the Buddha without adding his own interpretations? "Did the scribes transcribe what they heard from Ananda, without making mistakes or extrapolating? And then, later, these sutras, commandments and treatises were translated into Chinese with varying degrees of mastery. So yes, does all this reflect well the teaching of the Buddha?

In my opinion, the physical and mental capacities of humans living three thousand years ago and those of the same humans (us) living today are not comparable. Whether in India, Japan or Europe, at the time when cars did not exist and the only way to get around was on foot, walking hundreds of kilometers was normal and did not scare anyone. "It is a twelve-day walk from Kamakura to Kyōto," which is actually 491 kilometers. Who would manage to walk that distance today? Who would ever consider it?

I suppose it's the same for mental, memory, etc. abilities. In the days when there was nothing to write with, the only way to learn was to listen and, at the same time, to use one's memory. And then, we must not forget what is probably the most important thing: Ananda, Upali and all the others, not only listened to the Buddha, heard him, but also practiced as he taught them. This relationship of master to disciple, living together, practicing together made the awakening of the disciples more and more similar to that of the master. Shariputra (Sharihotsu) the "first in wisdom" understood the Buddha's teaching by listening to the ten thus of the chapter of the Means. Four other great disciples, Maudgalyayana, Mahākāśyapa, Kātyāyana, and Subhūti understood it by listening to the parable of the burning house and the three vehicles in the Parable chapter. The rest of the disciples and listeners understood the Buddha's teaching by hearing the causality of the past of the three thousand grains of eon dust in the Transient City chapter. There is absolutely no comparison with us.

The twenty-four successors of Shakyamuni gradually evolved the Buddhist doctrine, clarifying it and adapting it to the times. Later, Zhiyi, Dengyō (both reborn from the bodhisattva King-of-Remed, to whom Shakyamuni entrusted the mission of propagating the Lotus Sutra in the period of the Semblance of the Dharma) further evolved it with the principle of One Thought Three Thousand (ichinen sanzen), until Nichiren Daishōnin put the finishing touch by inscribing the Dai Gohonzon, the materialization of One Thought Three Thousand.

 

There is thus a continuity from Shakyamuni to the present day, admittedly based primarily on the memory abilities of the early disciples, but one that cannot be questioned.

Question 6 - On the non-existence of God

Question

How can we explain the non-existence of God in Buddhism?

Answer

The debate about the existence or non-existence of God has raged since the Buddha appeared. It is easy to say "God exists" or "God does not exist". However, these statements alone are enough to prove that God is not absolute, since he "is" or "is not". Now, the true absolute, the true aspect of things is outside the notions of being and non-being.

To try to answer the question about the proof of God's non-existence, I have chosen an excerpt from Nagarjuna's Treatise of the Twelve Gates, where he refutes the notion of an omnipotent God, especially in chapter 10.

Nagarjuna's rhetoric is difficult to follow for those of us in the Cartesian, Judeo-Christian, dualistic mindset. But at the same time, it is the foundation of the Buddhism of the Great Vehicle and its study is indispensable for understanding the Buddha's teaching.

 

SUMMARY

Who or what causes suffering in our world? Is it self-caused, caused by others, both self-caused and caused by others, or not caused? The author of the Treatise on the Twelve Gates denies these four possible ways of seeing the cause of suffering and says that there is no suffering. The term "self" here refers to both suffering itself and the Self (ātman or svapudgala). The term "other" refers to both the Self in the previous existence (parapudgala) and God the Creator (I'svara). The refutation of the existence of the Creator is the main theme of the tenth chapter, "The Creator."

 

Introduction

What is presented here is the theory of the negation of the creator deity found in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates, attributed to the Indian Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna (c. 150 - 250). The Twelve Gates is one of the founding documents of the Three Treatises school in Chinese Buddhism, which began with the translator Kumarajiva (344-413), but the controversy over the omnipotent deity or creator deity developed in the Twelve Gates received little attention in China.

In India, on the other hand, theistic thought, which began to surface as early as the first centuries BCE, gradually developed with the growth of Hinduism and began to influence various philosophical schools in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, those under the religious influence of this trend, such as the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools, introduced the omnipotent deity into their doctrinal system and the controversy over this deity developed rapidly. Among them, Buddhists, who denied the existence of spiritual or material entities from the standpoint of the theory of conditioned production, could never accept such a theory of the transcendent as the cause and master of the world, as well as the theory of time as the cause, the absence of causality, fatalism, and the theory of the Atman (soul) as the constant being at the basis of human existence.

The development of intellectualism and logic within Buddhism gave rise to heated arguments with the Nyaya school, which also advocated intellectualism and logic.

 

About the "Treaty of the Twelve Gates

The 12 chapters of the "Treatise on the Twelve Gates" are intended to elucidate the teaching of the "emptiness of the dharmas", according to which all phenomena are caused by conditioned production, thus denying the existence of any fixed entity whatsoever. It also denies the appearance of effects from causes and, of course, the birth and unfolding of all things from an omnipotent deity or primordial substance as the first cause.

The negation of fixed causality is a theme throughout the Twelve Gates and is discussed in detail in Chapter 2, which examines the theory that effects exist before causes (the theory of effect in cause) and the theory that effects do not exist in cause (the theory of no effect in cause). The author of The Twelve Gates defends emptiness and non-knowledge by showing that as long as we take a fixed view of cause and effect, no matter where we stand, we will fall into contradiction. This argument naturally leads to the denial of the ultimate cause or substance, which leads to the denial of the omnipotent God in the tenth chapter.

The critique of the omnipotent Godhead is found in a section of chapter 10, "That Chapter Which Considers What Produces [Suffering]." The subject of this chapter is: "What is the origin of suffering, which is inevitable for man? Is it self-produced (done by oneself), produced by others, co-produced (done both by oneself and by others) or is it entirely uncaused?   

Of these, particular emphasis is placed on the denial of self-creation and third-party creation, arguing that suffering is neither derived from the individual self (atman) nor given by the omnipotent deity (I'svara).

The individual self (atman) is the subject of perception and consciousness, and is considered the subject of samsara, but from the point of view of the origin of suffering, which is the question at hand, the theories of self-creation and third-party creation are nothing more than the assertion that the individual self in the present or past life is the cause of the suffering experienced in the present.

First, I will present the contents of chapter 10 in a modern translation, and then, after confirming the issues raised by this chapter, I will discuss the denial of the omnipotent deity.

 

Presentation of the subject

Suffering is created "by itself", "by others", "by both", "without cause"; these statements are irrational. In other words, suffering does not exist.

Denial of self-production

It is not true that suffering is self-created. For it is not possible for a thing to be self-made, even if it tries to make itself exist. Just as consciousness cannot recognize itself and the finger cannot touch itself, so it cannot be said that suffering is self-made.

Denial of production by a third party

Nor is it true that suffering is created by others. How could others create suffering?

[The objector] asks. We call "others" the various external conditions. Because various conditions create suffering, they are indeed created by others. Why do you say that [suffering] is not created by others?

[The speaker] answers. If we call the various conditions "others," then suffering is created by the various conditions.

Since this suffering is born of various conditions, its nature is these various conditions.

If the various conditions are its nature, how can we call them "others"?

For example, in the case of a clay jar, the clay is not considered the Other. Similarly, for example, in the case of a gold bracelet, gold is not considered the Other.

The case of suffering is exactly the same; the various conditions cannot be considered as other, simply because it arises from these various conditions.

And, secondly, these various conditions do not exist as their own nature either, so they cannot be established [autonomous and self-existent] by themselves. Therefore, it cannot be said that "effects arise from various conditions. As Nagarjuna explains in the Ode to the Middle Theory.

Even if the results arise from various conditions, these conditions do not themselves arise from themselves. If conditions do not arise from themselves, how can they give rise to effects?

Thus, suffering cannot be created from other sources.

Nagation of co-production and non-causality

"Self-production and third-party production [both]" is also incorrect. For there are two errors here. If one says that suffering comes from oneself and at the same time from a third party, then there are two errors: one for "self-production" and the other for "production by a third party". Therefore, it is also incorrect to say that "both create suffering".

If "suffering arises without cause", this is also incorrect. For this notion contains many faults. Indeed, if there is no cause, every worldly and non-worldly act becomes meaningless.

Scriptural proof that suffering is empty.

Dans le 12ème volume des Instructions diverses des Sutras Agama, il est écrit :

"The naked ascetic Kasyapa asked the Buddha this question. "Is suffering created by itself"? The Buddha remained silent and did not answer, "O Venerable One, if suffering is not created by itself, is it created by others"? Again, the Buddha did not answer. "In that case, is suffering created by itself and by others"? Again, the Buddha did not answer. "If so, then is suffering created without direct cause or auxiliary conditions"? Again, the Buddha did not answer.

Since the Buddha did not answer the four questions in this way, we must understand that "suffering is empty.".

 

 

Critique of the omnipotent divinity in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates.

 

The denial of omnipotent divinity in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates contains various elements, but we will address the relationship between omnipotent divinity and human action.

 

The omnipotence of the divinity and human action

Let's look at the question of the omnipotence of the Godhead and human action (karma) or free will. If the omnipotent God is the creator of everything, then human actions and their consequences are also predetermined by the omnipotent God. Human efforts would be meaningless and life would be, from the human point of view, governed by pure chance.

Buddhist scriptures tell us that this problem already existed at the time of the Buddha's reign. For example, in the Brahma Net Sutra, we find the following commentary on the fifth of the sixty-two erroneous views.

"In the empty palace of the god Brahma, a creature is born. It desires a companion. The first creature, when other creatures are born, considers:

"I am the God Brahma. The Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Invincible, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of All, the Author of All, the Creator, the Most Excellent Creator. Controller of all, Father of what belongs to the past and the future. These creatures were created by me. Because I used to think, "Oh, let other creatures come here too. So there was a strong desire in me, and so these creatures came. The later creatures mistakenly identify him as their creator, but later, born in this present world and gaining intuitive knowledge by practice, they say, "He is the creator of the world. He is Brahma, the conqueror, the father ...... of all things past and future. God Brahma, the Exalted One who created us, is constant, firm, eternal and unchanging, and will remain so forever. But we, who were created by Brahma, have come to this world with an impermanent, unstable, ephemeral and perishable nature".

There, the god Brahma is called the Lord of Creation (Jizaiten), which indicates that at that time the neutral name Brahman, originally the cosmic principle, was considered the personified (male) deity of the creation of the universe.

The Buddhist response to this type of thinking is that people kill or have wrong opinions because of God's creation (divine power). Buddhists argue that those who believe in the soundness of God's creation have no desire or effort to do what is right and what is wrong.

In other words, the objection is that if the causes of inequality in the world, such as happiness, unhappiness, good and evil, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness, are attributed to an omnipotent deity, then all human efforts and ethics to overcome inequality will be meaningless. This also leads to the question of why the omnipotent God imposes such injustice and inequality on his creatures. It is, after all, a question of karma, which is universal in Indian thought.

Why doesn't the omnipotent deity create only happy creatures?".

To this question, according to the Compendium of All Madhava Philosophy (14th century), the Nyaya school answers.

"To consider that the omnipotent God should have created happy beings is a mistake. Indeed, it is possible that the living beings to be created have already done good and bad deeds in previous lives, and that these deeds are in different states of maturation.

In other words, God's creation and man's individual actions (karma) are compatible. In this regard, Uddiyotakara uses the concept of "consideration" to state that each person receives the fruits of his or her actions, but the omnipotent deity performs the creations in consideration of those actions.

Mercy of the omnipotent divinity towards his creatures.

In connection with the "consideration", the question of the mercy of the omnipotent deity arises. It is emphasized that this deity has feelings of both hatred and love. However, there is an expression of derision in the Kusha ron that mocks this point.

"If the Almighty God creates creatures who are afflicted with many miseries in hell, or elsewhere and derives satisfaction from them, then it is better, at best, to return one's life to such an almighty."

Prajñākaramati's 8th century Treatise on Entering Bodhisattva Practice also states the following objection of the Middle Way school to believers in the omnipotent God.

If this "Almighty God" is merciful, what need does he have to create here the beings afflicted with these hells and the like. If he created the beings in this way, then his merciful nature could be verified by faith. But this is not the case. If it is said, "He strives to eliminate the fruits of the misdeeds that he himself created, how can he have the name of the Merciful?

The following is also found in the Mādhava's argument against the Nyāya school in the Compendium of All Philosophical Sciences.

If someone tells you that "it is because of his mercy that his activity is established," you should answer him in the following way: if this were the case, the omnipotent Godhead would create every living being as a happy thing and not as something full of suffering. For creating suffering creatures would be incompatible with compassion.

 

Conclusion.

The words of the Buddha are as follows.

"This bud was not created by itself, nor by others, nor by both [itself and others], nor embodied by Jizaiten (created at will by divine power), nor transformed by time, nor originating from a primordial nature, nor depending on a single cause, nor originating from any cause."

 

Thus, the Buddhist school of Medianity, especially Nagarjuna, based on the principle of conditioned production, rejects the various theories of world causation, including the theory of the Creator God. From the Buddhist point of view, the diversity of the world is based on karma. The first verse of chapter 4 of the Kusha-ron states.

The diversity of the world arises from karma (acts). These acts are the result of the will of the doer. Will is the act of the mind. What is done in this way is the act of speech and the act of the body.

In other words, our own physical, verbal and mental actions make the world diverse.

There is a passage from the Mahabharata that is often quoted by theists.

Living beings, being senseless, are unable to control their own suffering and pleasure. They are directed by the God, to go to heaven, or to the cave (hell).

Buddhists would have used "own karma" (acts) instead of "God".

 

Question 7 - Causality and One Thought Three Thousand

Question:

What understanding can we have of causality (cause and effect) in the doctrine of ichinen sanzen? The perfect, absolute understanding.

Answer:

Buddhism teaches that every existing phenomenon is the result of a previous cause and that every future effect depends on the present cause. This notion is called the "Law of Causality" or "Principle of Karma" (karma meaning "act"). According to Buddhism, our actions (physical, verbal and mental) have consequences that determine our future. The Law of Causality enables people to understand how actions and thoughts create their own reality and how they can work to improve their future existence.

In his Abhidharmakośa sastra, Vasubandhu speaks of 'acquired cause' and 'acquired effect', indicating a continuity between different causes and their effects. An earlier moment of each psychic state is a similar cause of later moments of that psychic state, in the same way that wheat causes wheat and not rice.

In the Notes on the Meanings of the Lotus Sutra (Hokke giki) Fa-Yün writes:

"The bad cause, good cause or neutral cause generated in one thought continues as is in the next thought, becoming good effect, bad effect or neutral effect.

In his Treatise on the Transmission of the Three Secret Teachings, in the chapter on Quantitative Definition of One Thought Three Thousand, Nichikan Shōnin explains the Ten as follows:

"The ten thus are aspect, nature, substance, energy, production, cause, condition, effect and retribution.

"Thus is the aspect" (Nyoze sō), evokes the manifestation of each world, with, for example, an unhealthy air at the supreme moment (death) representing hell and a radiant look representing the heavens.

"Thus is nature" (Nyoze shō), indicates the good or bad nature of the ten worlds. Nature is inscribed in the innermost thoughts of a person and remains unchanged until the next life.

It is important to note that "So is nature" refers to the way in which the nature, benign or maleficent, of the ten worlds is deeply embedded in the mind of each being, representing properties and characteristics passed on not only in this life, but also in lives to come, remaining unchanging.

"Thus is the substance (Nyoze tai), representing the body itself of each of the ten worlds, its root, its essence.

"Thus is the energy" (Nyoze riki), represents the capacity to act of each of the ten worlds, its intrinsic competence.

"Thus and production" (Nyoze sa), represents the good or bad actions performed through our three forms of acts".

 

This passage means that "So is the production" represents good or bad actions performed physically, verbally and mentally.

"There are acquired causes and acquired effects in good and evil. The previous thought is the cause, the next thought is the effect".

In short, "learned causes" are the result of actions and thoughts that are repeated so often that they become an integral part of our being to the point of becoming a deeply ingrained habit in our body and mind. Thus, as a result, we see a regular and uninterrupted effect of these acquired causes.

Thus, for every good or bad thing we may feel, there is a cause that has become a habit embedded in us, as well as an effect that flows from that habit. The thoughts and feelings that drive us to act come from these acquired causes, which are deeply rooted in us. Thus, these causes and effects are inseparable and it is by understanding this process of learned causes influencing our lives that we can hope to change the effects we experience.

"Accordingly, it may be said that pernicious thoughts give rise to evil, while beneficial thoughts give rise to good. The thoughts that come afterwards, whether good or bad, are the fruit of previous thoughts. Thus the first thought is the acquired cause, which, as the axiom says, 'Thus is the cause', while the thoughts that follow it are the acquired effects, which, in the same way, are expressed by the axiom 'Thus is the effect'.

In other words, it can be said that bad thoughts and feelings produce bad effects, while good thoughts and feelings produce good effects. The thoughts and feelings that arise later, whether good or bad, are caused by the thoughts and feelings that preceded the action.

Thus, the thoughts and feelings that precede the action are considered "So is the cause", having taken root in our mind and body and become an acquired cause, while the thoughts and feelings that arise from the effect of the action are called "the acquired effect" and are described as "So is the effect".

"The condition that enriches the substance of good and bad acts is "Thus is the condition".

The condition that mediates, reinforcing cause and effect, is known as "Thus is the condition".

"As a consequence of karmic acts, resulting from acquired causes and acquired effects, the just reward, whether beneficial or pernicious, is called "Thus is the retribution".

The beneficial or pernicious reward, which arises from virtuous or evil deeds, caused by the effects born of the acquired causes embedded in the body and mind, is known as "Thus is the retribution".

 

"Consider the first (Thus) 'aspect' as the origin, and the last, 'retribution' as the end. The substance of this origin and end, which is the true aspect of the Middle Way, is called 'total equality from origin to end' (Honma'ku kyō tō)."

This means that from "Thus is the aspect" to "Thus is the retribution", all of these are contained and maintained in one thought, whether it is an activity, behaviour or appearance, and they are all in perfect harmony and consistency.

In his commentaries, the 59th great patriarch Nichikō Shōnin stated:

"As for "Nyoze" (Thus), "Nyo" possesses the meaning of "Emptiness" and "Truth". "Ze" has the meaning of "conditioned" and "phenomenal". If we merge the two ideograms "Nyoze", we obtain the meaning of the middle.

Constituting the threefold truth of Emptiness, Conditionality and Midway, the aspect, nature, substance and all ten Thus represent the true aspect of Emptiness, Conditionality and the Midway.

  • Appearance" is that which is visible from the outside, i.e. appearance.
  • Nature" is what is inside and cannot be seen, i.e. the unchanging nature.
  • Substance" is the support of the body, composed of the external appearance and the internal nature, like two sides of the same coin.
  • Energy" is the driving force and "production" is the manifestation of energy.
  • The "cause" is the main cause, the "condition" is the auxiliary cause.
  • In the relationship between 'effect' and 'reward', the effect is the inevitable result and the reward is the inevitable reward.

The difference between the notion of "effect" and "retribution" is that "effect" is manifested earlier, while "retribution" comes later. The "effect" is latent (insidious, hiding from view) while the "retribution" is manifest (obvious and understandable).

Moreover, "the retribution" is composed of two distinct elements: "the retribution of the principal", representing the sentient beings who inhabit the ten worlds, and "the retribution of the support", which is the non-sentient environment in which the sentient beings live. Sentient beings themselves are subdivided into two categories: us, consisting of the five aggregates (form, perception, conceptualisation, reaction and consciousness) and other beings. Therefore, it can be said that "retribution" is made up of three distinct domains: the five aggregates, the beings and the non-sentient environment. Finally, these elements are an integral part of the doctrine of "One Thought Three Thousand", so that it can be said that everything, including ourselves and our environment, exist only from the moment we become aware of them, and not outside our "One Thought".

In the Gosho On Omens, Nichiren Daishōnin writes on this subject:

 

"The ten directions represent the reward of the support; the beings represent the reward of the principal. The reward of the support is like the shadow; the reward of the principal is like the body. Without the body, there can be no shadow; without the reward of the principal, there is no reward of the support. Moreover, the payment of the principal also creates the payment of the support.

 

This last sentence "the retribution of the principal also creates the retribution of the support" is the proof that what we perceive and believe to be outside ourselves is only a "reflection" of our One thought.

Nouvelles publications

Depuis le 18/09/2014