The Approach to Buddhism

by Sangharakshita

It is possible to approach Buddhism in many different ways, some of which are more adequate than others - a few being simply wrong. Ideally, one has to approach Buddhism as Buddhism. This surely seems obvious enough, but the fact is we do not always do this.

To understand what it means to approach Buddhism as Buddhism, we have to understand what Buddhism essentially is. I have defined religion as 'the achievement of the state of psychological and spiritual wholeness and in that state relating to other people and to Ultimate Reality'.1 Religion is also the sum total of all the teachings and methods which conduce to that particular achievement. Buddhism reflects this definition - perhaps more purely than any other teaching; Buddhism is essentially a means to psychological and spiritual wholeness. In its own language, Buddhism is the 'way to Enlightenment'; Buddhism, or the Dharma, is compared to a raft,2 a raft which carries us over to the farther shore which is nirvana (Enlightenment, Perfect Peace of Mind, Freedom, Insight, Wisdom, Compassion). In more modern terms, Buddhism is the instrument of the Higher Evolution of mankind; that is to say, the instrument of the evolution of each individual human being from an unenlightened condition to the condition of supreme Enlightenment.

If therefore one is to approach Buddhism as Buddhism, one has to understand that essentially Buddhism is a means to psychological and spiritual wholeness; the way to Enlightenment; and the instrument of the Higher Evolution.3 Unless one understands this, one cannot really approach Buddhism. One may approach something, but that will not be Buddhism. At best, it will be a rather unfortunate distortion of Buddhism.

I will give you a few examples of the way in which Buddhism is distorted because it is not approached as Buddhism. Some time ago I received a charming visitor from Japan - a Shin Buddhist4 priest, who was on a world tour. In the course of conversation, he said to me, 'I must tell you about something which pleases me very much. On my way from Japan to London I called in at various places, among them Rome, where I had the honour of an audience with the Pope. Not only that, but the Pope gave me a letter in which he expressed a very high appreciation of Buddhism.' When I heard this, to be quite frank I became a little suspicious. I felt it was somewhat uncharacteristic of the Pope that he should express a high appreciation of Buddhism. So I said, 'Have you any objection to my seeing this letter?' My visitor was delighted to show it to me and produced it out of his briefcase. It was on a large thick sheet of parchment-like paper, with an enormous coat of arms embossed at the head. It was indeed from the Pope, though rather interestingly it did not actually carry his signature. The good Japanese priest, beaming, read the letter out to me. What the Pope had written was that Buddhism was to be commended because it was 'an excellent human teaching'.

To anyone who knows a little about Catholicism or orthodox Christianity it is very clear what this means. As far as Catholicism or orthodox Christianity is concerned, there are two kinds of religion: revealed religion and natural religion. Revealed religion is transcendental, one might say, while natural religion is merely humanistic. Because in Buddhism there is no supreme God who has revealed the religion to mankind, Buddhism is classified as a natural religion and described as a 'human teaching'. In other words, it is the teaching of just a human, not the teaching of a Son of God. It is nothing more than a system of ethics, certainly not something which is capable of leading one to salvation. The Japanese priest, because he was not familiar with Catholicism, did not realize this. He thought that Buddhism, in being described as 'an excellent human teaching', was being praised and appreciated, whereas in fact it was being subtly undermined and depreciated.

If one reads books written by orthodox Roman Catholics one finds that this is the general line that they take. They say that Buddhism on its own level is very fine and noble, but it is nevertheless a 'human' creation and you cannot therefore get salvation through it. In one book that I read, the Roman Catholic author, after a quite scholarly survey of certain Buddhist teachings, concluded his book by writing - in the very last paragraph of the last page - that it was a pity that so many millions of people should have embarked on the raft of the Dharma, considering that in the end the raft simply founders.5 Such Roman Catholics do not regard Buddhism as a way to Enlightenment. In other words, they do not approach Buddhism as Buddhism, do not approach Buddhism on its own terms as a way to Enlightenment. If one does not approach Buddhism in that way there is just a very learned, scholarly missing of the mark.

In this respect, the Roman Catholics are not by any means the only offenders. One might cite also the example of the Hindus. Orthodox Hindus, especially the brahmins, have great difficulty in approaching Buddhism as Buddhism. In the course of many years spent in India, I came up against this very often. As soon as one mentions Buddhism to them - this has been my experience literally thousands of times - they say at once, without even waiting for another word on the subject, 'Yes, it is only a branch of Hinduism.' It is significant that they always use the word 'only'. Sometimes I asked, 'Why do you not say "It is a branch of Hinduism"? Why do you say, "It is only a branch of Hinduism"?' This little word 'only' gives one a clue to their attitude: the word implies depreciation and limitation.

Even some quite good Hindu scholars, when they take a look at Buddhism and find that certain doctrines of Buddhism are not found in Hinduism, say that these cannot really be a part of Buddhism at all. Buddhism, according to them, is just a branch of Hinduism, so if there are any doctrines in Buddhism which are not found in Hinduism, they must be 'corruptions' which have been introduced by the 'designing Buddhist monks'. This is what they explicitly state in some of their works. For instance, some Hindu scholars, including Radhakrishnan, try to argue quite seriously that the doctrine of no-self, anatmavada, was not taught by the Buddha but was the invention of the monks later on. Similarly with the non-theistic attitude of Buddhism. Some Hindu scholars go so far as to argue that the Buddha did in fact believe in God, but did not like to tell his followers so because it might upset them - some scholars have actually put this down in 'scholarly' works. These then are some examples of the way in which Buddhism is distorted because people are not willing, or not ready, to approach Buddhism simply as Buddhism.

If we want really to approach Buddhism, we have to approach it as Buddhism: we have to approach it as a means to psychological and spiritual wholeness, as a way to Enlightenment, as the instrument of the Higher Evolution. Unless we understand this, we will not really be able to approach it at all. We may, as I have said, approach something, but it will just be our own distorted version of Buddhism, our own subjective interpretation of it, not the objective truth about Buddhism.

The culmination of approaching Buddhism as Buddhism is the 'Going for Refuge'.6 We go for Refuge to the 'Three Jewels': the Buddha (the Enlightened teacher), the Dharma (the way to Enlightenment), and the Sangha (the community of those who, side by side, are walking that way which leads to Enlightenment). Even if we do not take the step of Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels, we should at least seriously ask ourselves whether we do regard Buddhism as the means to Enlightenment, or whether we have any other idea - or a lack of ideas - about it. We should ask ourselves whether in fact we are trying to approach Buddhism as a way to Enlightenment, whether in fact we are trying to lay hold of the instrument of our own individual Higher Evolution.

We now come to another important point. It is good to approach Buddhism as Buddhism, but that alone is not enough; we have to approach Buddhism also as a whole. Buddhism is a very ancient religion: it has behind it 2,500 years of history. During this time, especially during the earlier part, it spread over practically the whole of the East.7 As it spread it underwent a process of continual transformation and development, and it adapted the expression of its fundamental doctrines to the different needs of the people in the midst of which it found itself. In this way many different schools and traditions came to be established. Historically speaking, we may say that Buddhism is all of these. 'Buddhism' represents the whole vast development that took place in the course of the 2,500 years during which the Dharma spread.

Broadly speaking, there are three major forms of Buddhism extant in the world. Firstly, there is South-east Asian Buddhism. This is the form of Buddhism current in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and a few other places. This form of Buddhism is based on the Theravada Pali Canon (the version of the Buddhist scriptures in Pali handed down by the Theravada, the 'school of the elders', which is one of the most ancient of all the schools of Buddhism).

Secondly, there is Chinese Buddhism. This includes Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese Buddhism, all of which, at least in their early stages, were offshoots of Chinese Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism is based on the Chinese Tripitaka, or 'three treasuries' (the collection in Chinese of the translations of all the available Indian Buddhist scriptures of all schools: Mahayana, Sarvastivada, Sautrantika, and so on).

Thirdly, there is Tibetan Buddhism, including the Buddhism of Mongolia, Bhutan, and Sikkim. This form of Buddhism is based on two great collections of canonical and semi-canonical works: the Kangyur, or translated word of the Buddha, and the Tangyur, the translated commentaries by the great acaryas, the great Buddhist philosophers and spiritual teachers.8

These three major forms of Buddhism are all branches of the original trunk of Indian Buddhism. They represent forms of Buddhism which originally developed in India over a period of roughly 1,500 years. South-east Asian Buddhism represents the first phase of development of Buddhism in India. This first phase lasted roughly 500 years, from about the time of the parinirvana, or death of the Buddha, up to about the beginning of the Christian era. This is known as the Hinayana phase of development. During this phase Buddhism was stated predominantly in ethical and psychological terms.

Chinese Buddhism represents Indian Buddhism in the second phase of its development. It represents a synthesis of Hinayana and Mahayana. The Mahayana comprises more devotional and metaphysical expressions of the Buddha's teachings. This phase lasted from about the time of the origins of Christianity up to about 500CE.

Tibetan Buddhism represents the third phase in the development of Buddhism in India. This final phase lasted from about 500 CE to about 1,000 CE - or a little longer. It represents a synthesis of Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. The Vajrayana is a yogic and symbolically ritualistic Buddhism.

These further three major forms of Buddhism all include numerous schools and sub-schools. In South-east Asian Buddhism the differences are largely national - Sinhalese Buddhism differs from Burmese Buddhism, Burmese Buddhism differs from Thai Buddhism, and so on - although there are also individual schools within each particular country. In Chinese Buddhism there are very many schools indeed: the T'ien-t'ai School, the Hua-yen School, the Ch'an School (usually known as the Zen School), and so forth. Altogether in Chinese Buddhism there are about a dozen important schools. Japan too has schools of its own, which it developed independently of Chinese influence, notably the Shin School and the Nichiren School. In Tibet there are four major schools: the Gelugs, Nyingmas, Shakyas, and Kagyus.

I am not going into any details here and am mentioning all these names just to give you an idea of the richness of content of Buddhism. When we approach Buddhism, we approach all of these different schools and traditions, all of these adaptations and applications of the central fundamental principles of Buddhism. We approach Buddhism as a whole; we do not approach any one school only, but the total Buddhist tradition as it developed over 2,500 years throughout practically the whole of Asia.

We certainly do not treat one particular school of Buddhism as though it was identical with the whole Buddhist tradition, or was, in fact, the whole Buddhist tradition. Unfortunately this is sometimes done. I have selected just a few statements from some books on Buddhism to illustrate this.

In the introduction to one particular book on Buddhism, I found this statement: 'The Buddhist scriptures are to be found in the Pali Tipitaka.' This statement is incorrect. One can say that the Theravada Buddhist scriptures are to be found in the Pali Tipitaka - that is quite correct. But if one says merely 'Buddhist scriptures', one is leaving out of consideration the Chinese Canon, the Tibetan Canon, and several other minor Canons also. So here the Pali Canon is being regarded as identical with the Buddhist scriptures as a whole, which is a mistake.

In another little pamphlet I found this statement: 'Buddhism teaches salvation by faith in Amitabha.'9 It is quite correct to say that the Shin School of Japanese Buddhism teaches this, but it is not at all correct to say that Buddhism teaches this. Here, what is the teaching of one particular school is being attributed to Buddhism as a whole. That again is a mistake.

In another booklet I found this statement: 'The Dalai Lama is the head of the Buddhist religion.' The Dalai Lama is certainly the head of the Tibetan branch of the Buddhist religion, but he is not the head of the whole Buddhist religion. Here again, the part, Tibetan Buddhism, is being confused with the whole, the total tradition of Buddhism.

Each of these statements, allegedly about Buddhism, is really true only of one particular branch, or school, or line of tradition, of Buddhism. In every case, the part has been mistaken for the whole.

One's approach to Buddhism should therefore be not a sectarian approach, but a synoptic approach. One should approach the whole Buddhist tradition - whole in time and whole in space - and try to include, comprehend, and fathom the essence of it all.

I have said that one should approach Buddhism as Buddhism and as a whole. One should also approach Buddhism in a balanced manner. There are many sides to human nature: emotional, intellectual, introvert, extravert, etc. These sides are represented in Buddhism by the 'Five Spiritual Faculties' (faith, energy, mindfulness, meditation, and wisdom). These Five Spiritual Faculties have to be kept in balance. Faith and wisdom, which represent our emotional and intellectual sides, have to be balanced. Meditation and energy, which represent our introvert and extravert sides, have to be balanced. Mindfulness, or awareness, which is the equilibrating faculty, balances them all.

One should not have just an emotional approach to Buddhism, nor just an intellectual approach, nor just a meditative approach, nor just a practical, active approach; one should approach Buddhism in all these ways. One's nature comprises all these aspects - one feels, thinks, acts, also sometimes sits still - so one should approach Buddhism with all these aspects. In other words, one should approach Buddhism with one's total being. One should not just try to feel and not understand, nor just try to understand and not feel. One should not always look within and never look without, nor, on the other hand, always look without, never pausing to look within. There is a time and place for all these things. If possible, we should try to do all of these things all the time. As we ascend higher and higher in our spiritual development, we shall tend more and more to think and feel, act and not act, simultaneously. It sounds impossible, but that is only because of the limitations of our present way of thinking. Eventually, as one's spiritual life develops, all these four apparently contradictory senses are fused and harmonized into one spiritual faculty - into one 'being', as it were - which is forging ahead. Unless one has a balanced approach of head and heart, unless the whole of oneself is involved, there is no real commitment to Buddhism as a way to Enlightenment.

To summarize, we should firstly approach Buddhism as Buddhism, as the way to Enlightenment, as the instrument of the Higher Evolution, not on any other terms, since otherwise we cannot possibly hope to understand it or even begin to approach it. Secondly, we should approach Buddhism as a whole, not approach just the Theravada, or just Zen, or just Shin. We should take in and try to assimilate the best elements in all these traditions. Thirdly, we should approach Buddhism in a balanced manner. We should approach Buddhism not with head or heart but with both - in fact with our total being.

Notes

1 See Sangharakshita, tape lecture no. 17: 'Is Religion Necessary?', Dharmachakra, London 1966.

2 I.B. Horner (trans.), The Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima-Nikaya), Pali Text Society, London 1967, Vol.I, 134-5.

3 Since this lecture was delivered in 1966, Sangharakshita has expounded the Dharma much more fully and consistently in evolutionary terms. Though 'the Higher Evolution' is not a traditional Buddhist term, the idea of spiritual development as an evolution of consciousness is consistent with and implicit in the Buddha's teaching.

The whole process of the development of life, from the primeval stirrings at its origins right up to the supremely developed consciousness of the Enlightened mind, can be seen as one long evolution, which can be divided into two distinct stages, the Lower Evolution and the Higher Evolution. The Lower Evolution denotes the process of development of life from its beginnings aeons back in pre-history up to the emergence of human life. The Higher Evolution begins from a certain level of self-(or reflexive) consciousness and continues right up to Enlightenment itself. The Lower Evolution is what we have developed out of; the Higher Evolution covers what we can develop into, if we so wish.

It cannot be said that there is a definite point at which the Lower Evolution ends and the Higher Evolution begins. The junction of the two divisions is seen as a sort of broad band in which a certain degree of self-consciousness is developed, the kind of consciousness which enables man not only to be aware of the world around him but also to be aware that he is aware; with it, as the name implies, he reflects back and observes himself. This distinguishes him from animals which are only equipped with simple or sense consciousness.

The individual human being equipped with a sufficient degree of self-consciousness is able, if he wishes, to undertake the spiritual life, to embark on the process of the Higher Evolution, from the stage at which he finds himself, right up to Enlightenment itself. Thus, whereas the Lower Evolution is a biological and collective process, the Higher Evolution is an evolution of consciousness and can only be undertaken as a result of individual choice; progress can result only from individual effort. The Lower Evolution is covered by sciences such as physics, biology, and chemistry, and the Higher Evolution by psychology, philosophy, and religion.

For a detailed study of the Higher Evolution, see Sangharakshita's two series of tape lectures: The Higher Evolution of Man (nos. 75-82) and Aspects of the Higher Evolution of the Individual (nos. 83-90), Dharmachakra, London 1969 and 1970 respectively. Also see Robin Cooper (Ratnaprabha), The Evolving Mind, Windhorse, Birmingham 1996.

4 Shin Buddhism is one of the main groups of schools of Buddhism in Japan; it is a branch of the Indo-Chinese Mahayana tradition. In Shin, there is no effort to achieve the goal of Enlightenment; instead the devotee surrenders self to 'other power', that is to Amitabha, or Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light. (For further details, see pp.ff.) Such surrender leads to rebirth in Amitabha's Pure Land, Sukhavati (the 'Land of Bliss'). Shin devotees revere The Larger and Smaller Sukhavati-vyuha Sutras and The Amitayur-dhyana Sutra. See Buddhist Mahayana Texts, ed. E.B. Cowell and others, Dover Publications Inc., New York 1969.

5 Henri de Lubac, Aspects of Buddhism, G.R. Lamb (trans.), Sheed & Ward, London 1953.

6 For a full account of the importance of Going for Refuge, see pp.ff; Sangharakshita, The History of My Going for Refuge, Windhorse, Glasgow 1988; and Sangharakshita, Going for Refuge, Windhorse, Glasgow 1986.

7 For a brief historical account of the spread of Buddhism, see Edward Conze, A Short History of Buddhism, Allen & Unwin, London 1982.

8 For a detailed account of the Pali Canon, the Chinese Tripitaka, and the Tibetan scriptures, see Sangharakshita, The Eternal Legacy, Tharpa, London 1985.

9 See Sangharakshita, A Survey of Buddhism (7th edition), Windhorse, Glasgow 1993, pp.355ff.