Hello there
You have clarified your question extremely well. Now I have a basis
to work from and you understand that this answer will be from a Shin
Buddhist perspective rather than doing the impossible and attempt to
speak for all of Buddhism.
First, I must apologize to all if this answer winds up sounding like a
sermon or an attempt to proselytize. It is meant to be neither.
However, this is a question which is going to need some basic
understanding of the Buddhist thought process, Shin process in
particular, and a brief history of Shin in order to provide a
framework for understanding. This framework is needed as I am going
to present this answer from an eastern philosophical reference rather
than a western 'interpretation' of it.
Now if you don't want to read through all that, I will give you the
abrupt version of the answer first. Then if you choose you can go on
to read some explanations.
To simplify, "duality" presents God and His creation as distinct,
permanent, and separate entities, with the second depending on the
first. It makes a sharp distinction between the 'sacred' and the
'profane,' with sacredness being assigned only to the creator and the
profane to the physical creation.
"Non-duality", represents a universal view of 'all is one' with no
distinction between the sacred and profane. To the Buddhist, there is
no "creation" and no "Creator God." The sacred and the profane have
existed simultaneously and forever. No 'creation' was needed. That
is why most Buddhists are such staunch 'evolutionists.' The
scientific theories of the "Big Bang," the evolutionary origins of
life on Earth and other life in the universe, etc, fit right in with
ancient and traditional Buddhist teaching. We say that in some form
or other, the profane universe has existed forever and the spiritual
universe has existed forever, they are one and the same. Even the
"Big Bang" does not dispute this. Science claims that this
manifestation of the universe is from 12 - 15 billion years old.
Please note the words "this manifestation." Before the Big Bang,
according to science, there was a "singularity" or disturbance in
space time, or whatever. All that means to us is that the physical
potential for this universe existed before the Big Bang, it just
existed in some other form, and before that and before that.
The non-creation core beliefs of Buddhism preclude an independent
development of dualism since the spiritual and the mundane are one and
the same. It is what we mean when we say "All things are Buddha
things" all are part and parcel of the unified reality. So, the
abrupt reply to your question is that 'dualism' cannot arise within
the parameters of Buddhism. If it does, then the philosophy is no
longer Buddhist, but something else entirely. The same would hold
true with Christianity. Salvation by the grace of the risen Jesus is
the outer parameter of the faith. Any religious philosophy rising
within Christianity which denies that basic principle is no longer
Christianity, but something else entirely. Christianity is
dualistic, of necessity, and Buddhism is non-dualistic, also of
necessity.
You hit on a key phrase when you said "illusion of duality" and asked
whether or it was taught by the Buddha. In order to approach that, we
are going to have to learn the difference between a Buddha and a
Buddha. I must presume from your question that you are speaking about
the Shakyamuni (Gotama) Buddha who was born a prince, achieved His
awakening, and founded Buddhism. He became a Buddha at the age of
thirty-five and ministered and taught through Northeastern India for
the next forty-five years. He remained actively engaged until his
death around 480 BC. He is neither a deity nor God. He was the first
great Buddha of our age. He taught that difficulties are natural
occurances and that our reaction to them causes our own problems and
suffering. The Buddha's disciples found this teaching extremely
liberating. They gained a fresh way of understanding the source of
their bumpy lives. Suffering was not brought about by gods, chance or
fate. Any concept of blaming an outside spiritual or supernatural
source for their problems was eliminated. The illusion of duality was
broken by that teaching. The spiritual cannot be blamed for the
temporal. They were now in control of their destiny, for they found
a path for overcoming suffering through their own effort.
However, this is not the Buddha venerated as the core of Mahayana or
of Shin. The Shakyamuni was a teacher to humanity but He learned from
one even higher, Bodhisattva Dharmakara who was Shakya's enlightener.
The Buddha of veneration and our salvation is Amida (Amitabha) Buddha,
Tathata- He is an expression of the infinite Oneness, life-giving,
formless and beyond human understanding. Out of deep compassion
Oneness took form as Bodhisattva Dharmakara (hongan), who eventually
became Amida Buddha to establish the Pure Land, and to lead beings to
Buddhahood (nirvana). The Amida is not in a dualistic relationship
with the physical universe as a separate spiritual being. He is the
universe, its physical and spiritual aspects all combined in One. To
become One with The Amida is part of the definition of Nirvana. I say
"part" of the definition because Nirvana is a concept and a word very
difficult to translate into English.
The Amida can also be said to embody the Dharma, reality, if you will
- the truths by which we try to think and live, the "Oneness" of
reality. It is the Dharma which is the object of actual worship to a
Buddhist rather than a historical Buddha. It is the Dharma to which
The Amida himself is bound and the Dharma bound to Him. This makes up
the centerpiece of Jodo-Shinshu teaching. Its importance becomes clear
when we see that the central object of reverence in the shrine is
Amida Buddha, not the Shakyamuni Buddha.
Again, this concept of "Oneness" precludes any dualistic development
within Buddhism.
You will find that dualistic and non-dualistic religious philosphies
have a tendency to guide in different paths.
Dualistic religions have historically been exclusivist, claim
"ultimate truths," have demonstrated a propensity toward violence in
their spread, consider questioning of their authority a "sin" or at
the very least a sign of disrespect toward the belief and deny
salvation to non-believers.
Non-dualistic Shin Buddhism is "voluntary," "open," and "personal."
"Voluntary" means it's not a "sin" to turn away from the Dharma or
teaching. When the Buddha called out, "ehi passiko" (come here and
see). He knew if people were interested, they would listen, if not,
they would not.
"Open" means that Buddhism is open-minded about other religions and
sects. Buddhists believe in the figurative statement that there are
84,000 ways to enlightenment. What's more, we don't think people are
doomed to be punished if they walk other paths or other faiths.
"Personal" means that there is much value placed on personal
understanding. Dharma cannot come alive without speaking directly to
our own unique experience. We do not accept the Dharma blindly. We
test how it works in our everyday lives. Just before he died, the
Shakya said, "Make yourself the light, and make the Dharma the light."
Also he cautioned: "Do not accept a statement on the ground that it is
found in our books, nor on the supposition that "this is acceptable,"
nor because it is the saying of your teacher."
The closest we may come to a dualist philosophy (by using a long
stretch of the imagination) would be found in the teachings of Shinran
Shonin who was the founder of our Shin denomination.
He taught Shinjin Awareness- The transformation in the present life,
e-shin, "the transformed mind". In breaking with the earlier Pure Land
teachers, Shinran Shonin stressed the here-and-now, rather than the
afterlife. This has contributed to Shinran's popularity among
spiritual seekers in modern times, "This Shinjin is none other than
Buddha nature."
Buddha nature and its related teachings is talked about by virtually
all Mahayana schools, including the Pure Land tradition. To compare
Buddha nature with Amida Buddha is like comparing apples and oranges.
It is more correct to compare Buddha nature with Shinjin. Both
doctrines refer to the inner dimension. However, Shinjin and Buddha
nature are not possible without the "outer" reality of Amida or
Dharmakaya that embraces all beings. Shinran Shonin explains, "This
Tathagata (Buddha) pervades the countless worlds; it fills the hearts
and minds of the ocean of all beings.''
The concept of "inner" and "outer" to some may sound as though it were
a dualistic philosophy, however, you must remember it is still within
the parameter of "Oneness."
"Shinran Shonin viewed Shinjin awareness as a realization equal to
that of the Stream-enterer of the Theravadins, or the Stage of Joy of
the Hua-yen or Kegon school. These two stages are accepted by
virtually all schools of Buddhism and are essentially of the same
level. This level is the initial level of enlightenment at which we
are assured of the complete enlightenment that all Buddhas realize. In
other words, we can no longer fall back to the lower spiritual levels.
That is why it is referred to as the Stage of Nonretrogression.
Persons who realize this stage share two qualities: 1) Insight into
the truth that all existences are not discrete and separate but are
interdependent, and 2) Absence of doubt regarding the teaching." -
quote from the Shin Buddhist Primer
Number 1 in the previous paragraph once again eliminates the concept
of dualism through its insistance on interdependence.
What Shakya taught about the "illusion" of duality is just that. That
it is illusion. "Our action." Our mental and spiritual well-being is
determined by our own actions (karma), not by fate, not by chance, not
by miracle, and not by divine being. By cultivating correct awareness
of life, we gain an upper hand over the "bumps" and remain generally
at peace with ourselves.
Some comparisons between Shin and Christianity may help clarify things
a bit. The following is quoted from the Shin Buddhist Primer.
"Human Nature: Christians regard humans as deeply sinful (original sin
and acquired sin) while Jodo-Shinshu regard humans as foolish (bombu).
Both religions see human nature as self-centered, and assert that
almost all people are unable to change their nature fundamentally
through their own efforts.
"The Ultimate: In Christianity God is ultimate, while it is Amida
Buddha in Jodo-Shinshu. Both God and Amida represent spiritual power
that lies outside our human capabilities. Both also have qualities
that are diametrically opposed to the "sinful" Christians and
"foolish" Jodo-Shinshu Buddhists.
"God is the all powerful supernatural being who is the Maker, Lord and
Father. Amida has none of the same characteristics, but is the
"spiritual power" that we experience as understanding and caring in
our lives.
"Both teachings find humans to be incapable of realizing their
spiritual goal by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Because of our sinful or foolish nature respectively, nothing we do
can liberate us. So, no works or disciplines are required. Instead,
our spiritual resolution relies on power beyond the self: God's grace
in Christianity and the Other Power in Jodo-Shinshu.
"Human Imperfection: Christian sin implies a failure to keep one's
promise with God by not living in accordance with his will. The focus
is on one's relationship to God. In contrast, foolishness (bombu) in
Jodo Shinshu stems from being awakened by the Buddha's wisdom. The
focus is the realization of one's inability to overcome one's
self-centered attachments through one's own power. So, they differ in
the reasons why humans are believed to be imperfect.
"There is a subtle difference in the way we relate to the transcendent
spiritual source. Christians maintain an ongoing personal relationship
with God who exists independently from humans and the world. This
relationship is maintained largely through prayers, sacraments and
contemplation. In contrast, Jodo-Shinshu Buddhists do not regard Amida
as a divine being with whom they maintain an ongoing relationship.
They realize their essential oneness with Amida in their oral
recitation, for Amida is none other than the Name, "Namu Amida Butsu"
Dualism cannot co-exist with such a world view.
Shin salvation is by faith alone. Works follow faith but works alone
and without faith have no meaning.
Once again a dualistic concept is denied. - - - - It also seems as
though "works and faith" were issues of major concern in the Christian
west as well, and perhaps still are. A little Christian dabbling into
the realm of non-dualism, it was.
I hope the above has helped you in your quest and I'm sure it brought
up a lot of things that need clarification or may even need to be
asked as a new question. Please feel free to do so.
Some additional information about Shin Buddhism and Buddhism in
general.
Pure Land Buddhism is the largest Buddhist denomination and practice
in the world.
"Jodo-Shinshu Buddhism, Dharma for the Modern Age" - You will find a
good overview of Shin, its philosophies and history.
( http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/amida.html )
"The Future of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism in America: "Why Shinshu?" -
Another good overview directly relating to the experience of Shin in
America.
( http://www.vbtemple.org/dharmarain/dr11_why.htm )
"Buddhism, Materialism, Physicalism and Dualism." - Here you will find
an excellent resource explaining the differences between dualism and
non-dualism as well as materialism and other "isms." It is an
excellent read as an introduction to the topic.
( http://www.geocities.com/scimah/materialism.htm )
"Frequently Asked Questions" - this website is a compilation of
answers to questions by Lama Surya Das of Tibetan tradition. It
contains one of the best descriptions of Buddhism I have run into yet
- as follows:
"Is Buddhism a religion? Do I have to convert in order to practice
meditation, visualizations, yoga, etc.? Are all religions leading to
the same place?
"Of course Buddhism is one of the major world religions, but it is
more of a psychological-philosophical-ethical system of awakening; a
technology of enlightenment. Since Buddha's teaching does not posit a
supreme Creator, Buddhism does not fit the usual definition of a
religion. Buddhism takes an agnostic stance on such matters as the
Creator question. It is not atheistic, as some uninformed critics
suggest. Buddha's principle subject was suffering and the end of
suffering, not theological and ontological issues.
"All religions are similar in many ways, yet each has its different
emphases. A good comparison might be the different types of cuisine in
the world; all food is for nourishment and enjoyment, yet there are
many different styles suited to varying peoples, tastes and habits. My
own teacher Kalu Rinpoche used to answer this question by saying you
do not need to convert. It is probably useful to hold your current
beliefs up to examination, whatever they may be. Investigation is said
to be one of the most transformative agents facilitating
enlightenment. There is nothing to believe in Buddhism, and everything
to discover."
( http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/faq.htm )
The best of luck in your studies.
In ghasso
Namu Amida Butsu
digsalot |
Clarification of Answer by
digsalot-ga
on
23 Sep 2002 10:10 PDT
Hi again raustovich - - - First of all, thank you for the kind words
and the rating, especially the rating. For being a practicing
Buddhist, trying to shed my ego, letting go of the "I," and all that,
I certainly love to cater to my currently self-centered personality by
collecting as many of these little stellar Brownie points as I can :)
Now, I'll see if I can give you some information as to how that
duality came about. As you say in your clarification request: "...but
it does not answer the question of how that duality arises. I guess
this is something you have to see for yourself."
Well - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - yes and yes.
The Shakya didn't teach how the duality between the sacred and the
mundane came about, He taught how to overcome it. Until the
appearance of Shakyamuni Buddha, all religious philosophy was
dualistic in nature. From the Hindus to the religions of Rome and
Greece, from monotheism to animism, all are of a dualistic nature with
a division between the sacred and the mundane.
This was brought about because every single one of them without
exception was based on an "ego centered" relationship with the divine.
In other words, the practice of any of these religions was for
personal benefit or in the case of the "classic" religions of Rome and
Greece, for the benefit of the State. - - Prayer was centered on
request for favor, good crops, personal wealth, personal healing, for
victory in battle, health and longevity for rulers, good luck, even
the outcome of sporting events. Everything was based on the 'eternal'
me, what can "I" get from the gods and what do "I" need to do to get
it? A dualism is needed for this type of religion to work.
When the "duality" is ended and one believes in the "Oneness" of
things, then responsibility for ones own actions takes over. There is
no longer an "Out There" to ask for help since there is no longer an
"Out There." The Amida Buddha is the spiritual force which pervades
the universe as proclaimed: "Above Heaven and Below Heaven, I alone
am the World Honored One."
However, without a duality, in the concept of "Oneness," I am also the
Amida and the Amida is me. It throws all responsibility for our lives
back on ourselves.
So when Buddha taught how to evercome the dualism between the sacred
and the mundane, he was teaching us how to overcome the "self." The
fact that dualism arose because of the concept of "I" or "me" is not
addressed. His teachings regarding the "ego" assumed a knowledge of
the cause would arise from the teachings on how to overcome it.
That's why I didn't address it formally in the answer, it wasn't
formally addressed by the Buddha.
So while I can make an attempt to explain it, yes, it is something you
need to find for yourself.
Now for some research clarification. As mentioned above, I used
Google and the key terms I listed were those I used to find the final
websites. The search strategy was something else entirely. When you
gave me a clarification and I had some idea of what you wanted, my
first thought was to head in the opposite direction, so I did. I
first went to websites published by other religious faiths and found
what they had to say 'against' Buddhism. It did not take long to find
a pattern. I figure those aspects of Buddhism which were attacked the
most are also the aspects of Buddhism which concern them the most.
The concept of "Oneness" and its denial of a "Creator God" was first
on the list. Through what I already knew and by searching to the
Buddhist counter-arguments to these points, dualism became the heart
of the topic. For subjects which may be controversial, it is often
easier to start with the opposition and work your way backwards. That
way you can counter points as you go, get the objections covered as
you find them, and by the time you get remotely finished, you are no
longer jumping all over the place to find point and counterpoint.
|
,
0 Comments
)