Buddha: The Perpetual Iconoclast
by Alfred Bloom, Professor Emeritus, Department of Religion, University
of Hawaii
Introduction
There are many facets of Buddhism. However, the essence of Buddhism which
distinguishes it in some ways from other religions or religious philosophies
may be called iconoclasm.
Iconoclasm means to break down and break through fixed images
and conceptions projected by our minds. This condition is evidenced in our
attachment to ideas and views, giving rise to dogmatism and fanaticism.
Buddhism presently exists as a religious tradition in several Asian
countries and is gradually spreading in the West. It has been a major
tradition among the Asian immigrant communities in Hawaii where numerous
groups have brought their traditional faiths and cultures. It combines
religious beliefs, metaphysics, rituals and folk beliefs and practices in a
grand complex. It is institutionalized in diverse forms.
The history of Buddhism and the development of its institutions is not
particularly exceptional in the history of religion. All major world
religions have evolved in ways beyond their founders. However, there is
usually something which represents a unifying thread, as the essence of that
religion which gives it its distinctive character. It is common for people
to criticize the gap between the origins and the later developments in a
religion, but it is much less common to see the unity that binds a tradition
together.
On the background of these considerations, I am focusing on Buddha: The
Perpetual Iconoclast because, despite the many forms Buddhism has taken
through the centuries, its essence is not to be attached to any of these
forms.
It is probable that Buddha never intended to start a religion. Rather, he
initially developed a philosophy which later transformed to a religion in
order to meet the spiritual needs of the masses. However, the essential
principles of Buddhism, while non-religious, allow room for the expression
of religious faith and devotion. Buddhism affirms religious activity if it
helps the person to a deeper understanding of the nature of life and the
resolution of the basic problem of egoism which Buddhism addresses.
I am presenting Buddha as an Iconoclast, because, in the manner of
iconoclasm, he overthrew conventional ways of
thinking which are self-serving to society or individuals. His analysis of
experiential reality as possessing no inherent, substantial core or
essence, represented in the teaching of non-soul and theory of skhandas (the
elements that make up a being), held implications not only for issues of
metaphysical reality, but for self-understanding and social relations. He
shifted the meaning of the ascriptive or inherited title of Brahmin from
birth to virtue and altered traditional views of caste. In the West, perhaps
Socrates was the most outstanding Iconoclast.
Buddhist Iconoclasm is not
merely throwing down or breaking down the material images revered by others.
Rather, it is a deconstructing of the way we look at things, perceive,
pursue, and possess things, which then become a source of our ego-bondage.
Buddhism is an approach to knowledge and understanding which raises doubt
about our most prized, most certain perceptions and concepts, those things
about which we may argue and fight with each other. It questions our grasp
of reality, the world and ourselves.
Buddha's Essential Teaching
Without going into the detail of Gautama's life, much of which is legend, he
set out to solve the problem of human suffering by seeking the truth of
life. He observed deeply the fundamental condition of impermanence and the
passage of life through birth, sickness, old age and death. In this process
he realized the truth of the law of cause and effect and its implications
for the understanding of the nature of things in the world in the
interdependence of all things.
While people everywhere may have some sense of the relation of cause and
effect, Buddha applied it to the very nature of human existence and the
world, in order to transform human attitudes and relationships to that
world. Basically, he recognized that everything that exists is a result of
interacting causes and effects. There is nothing self-existing. Everything
is interdependent, constantly changing, without a fixed nature or
essence -- and in humans at least -- an eternal soul. Things mutually arise
and mutually decay. It is the nature of constituted things to decay and pass
away.
According to Buddha, the problem of suffering arises from the fact that we
seek permanence for ourselves, reflected in our strong efforts for
self-preservation. We persist in the belief in a permanent essence or soul
in ourselves and things as the basis of value. We wish to possess them and
through possessing, establish the stability and permanence of our own being
and world. Many people define themselves and their value by what they
possess. From the standpoint of Buddhism, it is a question of attributing
inherent value to things which are passing and whose value is delusory. It
is a problem of I, my, mine.
Buddha's Iconoclasm was not aimed at overthrowing
the ancient religion or belief in gods. For true enlightenment and the
resolution of personal suffering, the gods are merely useless. That answer
can only come from within oneself, through one's own understanding. Rather,
one must overthrow the conventional, habitual view of ego as the permanent
center of the world.
In the first stage of Buddhist thought the concept
of the independent self-existence of things was broken down through analysis
of the process of cause and effect and interdependence. Our perceptions of
things as real in themselves was seen as delusion. A favorite illustration
was the chariot or today, the automobile. It can be broken down into its
various parts. These component parts may be further broken down to elemental
units from which they have been constructed. Eventually we come to the
basic constituents of things which are beyond perception and possession. The
issue is that the names which we give to things and the value we ascribe
them are imposed by our deluded minds on the configuration of elements. What
we perceive is not reality as it is. There is no chariot or auto existing in
and of itself apart from the constituent elements and our perceptions and
desire for it. We give it a name and ascribe value.
This approach is not totally unknown in the west. In Democritus' theory of
atoms in early Greece we have a somewhat similar approach. The difference here is how it is
turned to shape attitudes and relations to things as a means of resolving
problems of suffering rooted in our passions.
From Non-Soul to Voidness
In the following centuries,
Buddhist reflection on the issue of attachment and
the nature of the self deepened, evolving into the Mahayana tradition which
is the dominant form of Buddhism in North and East Asia.
Two philosophical approaches developed. On the one hand, there is the
Middle Path School of the philosopher
Nagarjuna of the second century of the Christian Era and on the other, the
Consciousness Only school of the teacher Vasubandhu in the fourth century.
In these schools not only is issue taken
with our understanding of things as they exist, but also with the concepts
by which we believe we understand things and know reality. They propose two
or three levels or dimensions of truth. These dimensions reveal the limits
of our ability to know reality or truth in our ordinary way of living. They
point the way to the ultimate truth which is spiritual liberation and
described only by the term 'Voidness.'
The Middle Path school maintained that
our concepts have no necessary relation to reality, since they are only
constructed relative to each other. Motion is defined in terms of rest and
rest in terms of motion. Being is only contrasted with non-being. Reality
itself lies beyond these terms and relations. It is essentially Void or
Empty, without mark or definability. Our words are at best only pointers and
means of communication on the relative level to speak among ourselves. They
tell us nothing about reality as such. This was an approach to reality in
terms of logic which compares with the Eleatic paradoxes in Greek
philosophy. They agree in showing the inner contradictions of thought
itself.
The second tradition is called
Consciousness-Only. It teaches that essentially the world is the product of
mind and is a more psychological approach to reality. It establishes that
there are three levels of truth, the delusory, the provisional and the real
or ultimate truth. A major illustration for this teaching describes a man
walking on a road at dusk. Suddenly he spots an object in the road that
looks like a snake. He grabs a stick to fend off the snake and discovers
that it is only a piece of rope. The snake is the delusory level of truth.
It is not there at all. The rope is the provisional level. It is there but
from the ultimate standpoint it is not the highest reality. Only when we go
beyond the appearances to the fundamental basis of experience do we come to
know reality. Ultimate truth is beyond all relative perceptions.
These philosophical teachings underly all
the major schools of Mahayana Buddhism as a religious system and have aided
in the evolution of a vast body of mythology and symbols. Words, symbols and
beliefs are all seen to be instrumental in attaining higher spiritual
purpose, depending on the level of insight and understanding a person may
have. Buddhism recognizes individual differences. Everyone is at a different
stage in life and it is compassionate and tolerant in accepting a variety of
paths suitable to different people.
Buddhism does not try to overthrow belief itself, but to guide the person to
a deeper understanding of oneself and reality so that one will become free
from the bondage of egoism created by our addiction to speech and concepts.
Zen Iconoclasm
The Iconoclasm
of belief in things and concepts reached its zenith in the development of
Zen Buddhism in China. Zen attempts to guide people in breaking through
their habitual patterns of thinking and perceiving and allowing spontaneity
and creativity to flow out as they find their true nature in harmony with
reality. The freedom attained through Zen offers the ability to cope with
the turbulent suffering of life from a point of stillness -- or Emptiness -- within oneself. It is the old question of being in the world but not of it.
Being liberated from the world and its delusions means that one can work
among the delusions, assisting others, without one’s self being trapped or
bound by them.
In recognizing the relativity of one's ego, one's concepts, one's
perceptions, one becomes free -- not in detached isolation, but in detached
involvement. One may interact with people, but not, say, take it personally,
when problems arise. Zen masters attempt to inspire their students to break
through the shell of prejudices and misunderstandings that make up the way
we perceive reality. One becomes self-aware of one's true nature as defined
by no-definition and not self-conscious, by being defined by the outside
world and others.
The ultimate of Buddhist Iconoclasm
is expressed in several Zen principles gleaned from many stories and
illustrations. It is expressed in the declaration of Zen master Dogen that
Buddhism means to transcend Buddhism. A Buddhist
should not even be attached to Buddhism as some fixed system opposed to all
other systems. I shall briefly summarize the principles which underlay the
philosophical basis of Zen.
The First Principle is inexpressible. This principle means simply that
whatever reality or truth may be, it lies beyond our words, logic, and
intellectual formulations. It is what I call a healthy agnosticism in
recognizing the inability of the human mind to encompass the truth of
things as they are. There is always something beyond; the horizon keeps
moving ahead of us as we attempt to approach it.
The Second Principle is paradoxical. It
states that "spiritual cultivation cannot be cultivated." Conscious effort in
trying to reach a goal already divides reality between myself and what I aim
at. With this type of discriminating mind the goal of union with reality or
the experience of enlightenment cannot be reached, just as we spoke of the
problem of approaching the horizon. The conscious purpose we hold places the
I-ego at the center and lends itself to all forms of comparisons and
judgments in terms of others.
This is difficult to grasp, perhaps, yet it is a common experience in many
areas. We may start out with the purpose to become enlightened, but it must
transform at some point in the cultivation where the goal disappears as goal
and one is just what one is. The closest ordinary experience is learning to
play an instrument, drive or to type. We start out with very concrete
practices, but in the course of learning, what was conscious behaviour
becomes unconscious, and without deliberation. Accomplished artists do not
play their instruments because they think about it, but because they are
their activity.
If we apply this to spiritual and religious endeavor, it is
not a matter of trying to be religious or in attaining some goal in
religion. It is, rather, that whatever spirituality one develops is what one
is in even the most unconscious moments. Thus, spontaneity becomes a key. If
a lover asks the partner: “Do you love me?” and the partner hesitates and
has to think about it, you know already there is a problem. Thus for
Buddhism, to be religious is not a matter of conscious thought and practice,
but at its deepest level being what one is. This places religion beyond
formalism and external requirements. In the Western tradition, Augustine put
it, love God and do as you please.
The Third Principle is: "In the last resort
nothing is gained." Here we confront the resistance of Zen to the
objectification of reality, religion and Zen itself. It is not merely that
one moves from ignorance to enlightenment or somehow religious people are
essentially different from non-religious people. There is an old Zen saying
that when I saw the mountain, it was merely the mountain. When I learned
Zen, the mountain was no longer the mountain. But when I really knew Zen the
mountain was the mountain. Here we have three different levels of spiritual
perception. There is the ordinary, perhaps insensitive, perception that
takes the world for granted. Mountains are just mountains. However,
dualistic religious perception sometimes destroys the world in order to
highlight and stress the spiritual. The world is rejected in order to reach
the spiritual. In the third stage of true insight, we realize the world as
it is is spiritual reality.
Religion, faith, enlightenment, whatever term we may wish to use, is
realized within the very context and life of the world. Thus when the monk
Tozan was asked: "What is Buddha?" he answered, "Three pounds of Flax."
The Fourth Principle is: "There is nothing much in the
Buddhist teaching." Here we see the Iconoclasm
of Buddhism at work in breaking through all the terminologies, ideas and
theories that are used to express or communicate Buddhism on any level.
These efforts can never displace or replace the fact that fundamentally
Buddhism, as perhaps any other religious faith, must be one of inner
experience and one's own reality. It is the finger pointing to the moon with
which you may be familiar. We need fingers and pointers to guide us to
reality or truth, but ultimately it is the sight of the moon that is
important. The finger is incidental; it is the sight of the moon that is
important.
The Fifth Principle
is: "In carrying water and chopping wood, therein lies the wonderful Tao." The
issue of life for Buddhism is not a matter of dogmas, doctrines or rituals
and organization, though there is plenty of that in
Buddhist history. The issue is the mind and the awareness one has
concerning oneself and the things of the world. The enlightened mind becomes
aware of the truth in all actions and things and that all things and actions
are manifestations of the truth. In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth
Patriarch by Hui Neng (638-713), there is a phrase which asks: "Do you
turn the Lotus Sutra or does the Lotus Sutra turn you?"
The famous Lin-chi I-hsuan (d. 867) Rinzai
monk in China declared:
"Seekers of the Way. If you want to
achieve the understanding according to the Law, don't be deceived by
others and turn to (your thought) internally… I merely put on clothing
and eat meals as usual and pass my time without doing anything. You
people, coming from the various directions have all made up your minds to
seek the Buddha, seek the Law... Crazy people! If you want to leave the
Three Worlds, where can you go? 'Buddha' and 'Patriarchs' are terms of
praise and also bondage. Do you want to know where the Three Worlds are?
They are right in your mind which is now listening to the Law."
For me the most important phrase in this
passage is the declaration that the terms of Buddha and Patriarch are terms
of praise and also bondage. The problem of authority in religion acts
frequently to deprive the person of his/her own self development because
they always appear inferior to the so-called master. The structures of
religion, while claiming to offer salvation, entrap the person in a web of
ideas and concepts which they take for the reality itself. That reality only
lies within the person. It is not something external to be pursued outside.
The spiritual freedom that results from becoming truly self-aware, that the
meaning lies within and not in external structures and associations, is
regarded as dangerous in traditional religions which build their social
power by getting the individual to trade their freedom for security in many
ways. Though Buddhism itself has been guilty of this, it is important to
recognize that in the deepest levels of Buddhist
experience and insight, such attempts are rejected.
Conclusion
Buddhism in its various modes has carried on the spirit of Buddha's effort
to bring people to confront how they are used by their concepts and views,
shaped by the many social and cultural forces that screen reality for us. It
offers a corrective to a society and culture and to people who think that
seeing is believing, who believe in telling it like it is or who believe
they have a monopoly on the truth and see things only in black and white. It
is a corrective to the intolerance and dogmatism that expresses itself in so
many areas of our culture.
From the Buddhist understanding, the assertion that
I have the truth means that one has already obscured it. Even Buddhists make
such assertions and have to be constantly reminded that there is no truth in
what they say. Assertions only have functional value to open the way for the
seeker to penetrate more deeply into the mystery of the self and of the
world in whatever way they can. While at some point one may become
enlightened, to claim to be enlightened or have true faith is to be yet
unenlightened. Enlightenment is not for one to see in oneself, but for
others to become aware of as that person embodies egoless wisdom.
Buddhism, at its deepest, is an open path
of spiritual development. It works to break down all barriers of concepts,
views, and attitudes which delude, divert and deter the person in his/her
spiritual progress. In this sense Buddha, through the tradition he
initiated, may be seen as the perpetual Iconoclast for every age,
culture and creed.
