| by Prof. N.A. de S. Amaratunga
The bone of contention appeared to be the respective position taken up by each faction regarding the concept of transcendence in relation to the Buddha and his Dharma. This seed of discord had remained throughout the history of Buddhism and grown to be the major fundamental difference between the main schools of Buddhism. Mahayana seems to have taken up this concept as its central philosophy and developed it further. Mahayana writings appeared in the 1st Century of the Christian era and these too appeared to be an attempt to transform Buddha-hood into a transcendental phenomenon (see- Saddharmapundarika sutra). Therefore it is important to find out whether there are any transcendental features in early Buddhism or later Theravada analyses such as the Abhidharma.
Before we look at this issue we would have to briefly see what is meant by transcendence in the context of religions. Basically it refers to a phenomenon that exists or manifests in a realm that is beyond this world. In this sense it is beyond experience in our life. Further its exact nature cannot be clearly described using the language we know. In this sense it is beyond language too. Hence it is a phenomenon that is beyond our experience and something we cannot comprehend and explain in words. Further it is the view of philosophers of religion that all religions have features of transcendence. God in theistic religions would qualify as the transcendental phenomenon. The exact nature of God is ineffable, beyond our experience and language. This is an essential feature of a religion, they say. In Buddhism Nirvana, they say, is the transcendental. In Mahayana Buddhism the Buddha and Nirvana are depicted as transcendental phenomena. In Buddhist writings the transcendent is referred to as "lokottara" as against "laukika" which means worldly.
First let us see what the Buddha’s view was regarding things that are beyond our experience. Buddha was beyond doubt an empiricist. He identified three methods of gaining knowledge practiced during his time and they were: 1) Authority of scriptures 2) Reason and 3) Experience. He rejected authority as a reliable means of gaining knowledge and cautioned against the over reliance on reason. He said he gained knowledge through experience. Buddha rejected mystic powers as capable of arriving at knowledge. He said his Dharma should be accepted after careful study. Buddha told his disciples that Buddha himself must be carefully scrutinized over a long period (Vimamsaka sutta). He told the Litchavi and Kalamas that nothing should be accepted without personally ascertaining the facts. This would mean that his dharma was not beyond this world and not beyond language. Any intelligent person could understand it. There cannot be anything transcendental and ineffable in such a doctrine.
Buddha gained his higher knowledge by a process of purification of the mind and training and intense concentration. It was a natural process and a causal process (Anguttara Nikaya). This higher knowledge was gained by his own effort and not endowed by inheritance, god or a mystic power. He had tried other methods (Attakilamathanuyoga – extreme self mortification) and found by experience that they do not work. During his time there were religious leaders who claimed to have higher knowledge gained by the grace of god. There were others who said their knowledge was not gained by a causal process (Niganta Natha). This method of gaining the higher knowledge that Buddha experienced is described in the Arya Astangika Marga. There is nothing beyond language in that description. Further it could be practiced by anybody without god’s grace or mystic intervention. There is nothing transcendental in the method.
The higher knowledge that the Buddha attained, Nirvana, too could be explained as Buddha did in the Samyutta Nikaya. Nirvana is defined as extinguishing of fire by covering it and depriving it of further fuel, by not feeding it, or by withdrawing the cause of its production (see A.Tilakaratne). What has to be extinguished is the fire that originates in our senses and burns with the fire of greed, hate and delusion. The purification of the mind of these defilements is the path to Nirvana. It is achieved by great effort and it is cultivated and earned in a gradual and systematic manner. Most importantly it is not gained by the intervention of an external mystic power unlike in theistic religions where the goal is transcendental and therefore external intervention is needed. Nature of Nirvana could thus be described in very clear terms. It could be experienced by following the path and reaching the goal. It was experienced by a historical human being who was born, lived and died in a natural process. Others too had experienced it by following the path taught by the Buddha.
Buddha had rejected all ideas about mystical, metaphysical and transcendental phenomena. He did not subscribe to the theory of a personal god or a creator god. He fought against such ideas that appeared in the Upanishads. The theory of "anithya" that Buddha developed was based on experience. A permanent state in life or matter in the world cannot be experienced. The life we experience is an impermanent phenomenon (anithya). Therefore permanence (nithya) which we do not experience is a metaphysical theory. Similarly there is nothing that we could identify as "I" or "me" or "mine" and therefore there cannot be a self or soul (anathma). A theory that identifies a self/soul (athma) is metaphysical which Buddha rejected. Same could be said about "ducca" (suffering) which we experience and its opposite "succa" (enjoyment). He rejected the concepts of "nithya", "succa" and "athma" that appeared in the Upanishads and propounded "anithya, ducca, anathma" instead. Hence Buddha could not have preached any metaphysical or transcendental doctrine in keeping with the empiricism he tenaciously adhered to.
Mahayana on the other hand seems to have latched on to the concept of transcendence, which as mentioned earlier was initiated by the younger generation of monks, hundred years after the pari-nirvana of the Buddha. Mahayanists had modified the Buddha’s preaching to support this idea. Saddharmapundarika suthra which is one of the earliest Mahayana writings and which was largely responsible for the emergence of Mahayana as a separate school of Buddhism devotes large parts of its chapters to expound the transcendent features of Buddha and his dharma. Buddha is depicted as incomprehensible to the ordinary. He could be comprehended only by other enlightened beings. The Arahath is qualitatively lower than the Buddha and what the Arahath has attained is not the final goal but a resting place on the way to enlightenment. Buddha is immortal, not the Arahath. Thus the historical Buddha has been transformed into a metaphysical phenomenon. It was these ideas which contributed to the conversion of Buddha into an avatar of Vishnu by the Brahmins as there was little difference between the Buddha these ideas created and Vishnu.
In order to support the theory of transcendence of Buddha-hood Mahayanists had to make the path to enlightenment, the Arya Astangika Marga, longer. They had to show that the path adopted by the Theravadins falls short of the final transcendent goal they manufactured. They contended that the Arahath of Theravada has not reached the final goal because the Arya Astangika Marga would take a person only part of the way. Only Mahayana (Great Vehicle) has the capacity to take a person to the final goal and not the other Hinayanas (Little Vehicles – Mahayanists referred to all other schools as Hinayanas). This would mean that the total elimination of the defilements, greed, hate and delusion, is not the final goal as Buddha taught in the Samyutta Nikaya. Mahayanists believed there is a further distance to go to attain immortality in a type of nirvana called "apratisthita-nirvana".
In Theravada there is no qualitative difference between Buddha-hood and Arahath-hood. Only difference is that it was Buddha who found the path to enlightenment and the Arahath followed that path. Both had attained "sopadi-sesa-nirvana" in which the five "skandas" ; "rupa, vedana, sangna, sankara, vingnana" still remain. They will remain so until total release is attained at physical death when they attain "nirupadhi-sesa-nirvana". Buddha had always drawn a very sharp distinction between "samsara" which consists of the above mentioned "skandas" on the one hand and nirvana, the cessation of "samsara" on the other. The immortal "apratisthita-nirvana" of Mahayana, however, would retain the five "skandas" or some of it which would be an incongruity according to Buddha’s preaching. In Theravada, nirvana is basically a state of non-rebecoming. This has been transformed into a state of immortality in Mahayana. Thus the Mahayana doctrine in regard to Buddha-hood and nirvana consists of transcendental, metaphysical and ineffable features rendering it very similar to other religions such as Hinduism. The uniqueness that Buddhism inhered due to its basis of empiricism has been totally removed by Mahayana making it vulnerable to distortion. As mentioned earlier even the Buddha had been made into an avatar of Vishnu as a consequence of these distortions.
Writings of some of the most eminent Buddhist philosophers such as Ven. Nagarjuna, Vasubandu and Dinnaga have been wrongly interpreted as expounding Mahayana thought (see DJ Kalupahana). Ven.Nagarjuna and Vasubandu have been wrongly identified as founders of Madhyamaka and Yogakara (Vingnanavada), the two main branches of Mahayana, respectively. The commentators of the above mentioned three great philosophers, namely Candrakirti, Sthiramathi and Dharmakirti respectively have been greatly responsible for these misinterpretations. Nagarjuna’s views on "sunyathava" described in his major treatise "Mulamadhymakakarika" had been misinterpreted as a new theory and later adopted as the foundation for the branch of Mahayana Buddhism that came to be known as Madhyamaka. According to Ven Nagarjuna himself, his views on "sunyathava" do not constitute a new theory and moreover he says he has no theory to be propounded. A careful study of "Karika" shows that what he says is true; it has nothing that could be taken as a cogent theory. On the contrary it is a refutation of all theories put forward by the substantialist Sarvasthavadins, the nihilist Sauthanthrikavadins and other schools of Buddhism active during his time. He was defending the "anathma" (non-self/soul) theory of Buddha. The word "sunya" had been used by the Buddha to emphasise the fact that the world is empty of self or what belongs to a self (Samyutta Nikaya). Ven. Nagarjuna uses the word for the same purpose. He says if anybody gets hold of ‘sunyathava’ by the wrong end it will be like grabbing a snake by the wrong end. It was Ven.Nagarjuna’s commentators and disciples who adopted the sunyathava as a dharma and developed it as Madhyamaka, a branch of Mahayana in Tibet and the Far East. Some present day commentators both local and foreign treat "sunyathava" as a doctrinal entity and equate it with Nirvana without foundation.
Similarly Vasubandu’s major work the "Vignaptimatratasiddhi", which does not contain any of the essential metaphysical idealist tenets of Mahayana, has been distorted by its commentator Sthiramati and presented as a Mahayana text (see DJ Kalupahana). Same could be said about Dinnaga’s work, a thinker who is considered as the father of Indian logic.
In conclusion it could be said that it is the notion of transcendence in relation to enlightenment or nirvana that differentiate Mahayana and set it apart from early Buddhism and Theravada. Such notions by and large do not conform to the empiricist foundation of Buddha’s preaching. Moreover such distortions would distance Buddhism from the people who need it now more than at any other time as they grapple with greed, hate and delusion.
 The Buddhist Sanga experienced serious disagree...){kind=link}