A Sense of Self-Superiority Is a Life Disaster
Every belief is a way of living. Different people choose different beliefs because their karmic conditions differ, which leads to a diversity of life choices. Some choose religion, others choose some ideology within secular life. As long as it does no harm to others and benefits one’s own body and mind, any belief is a good one. In my view, all beliefs are simply ways in which human beings amuse themselves, and there should be no hierarchy among them.
For believers, the most dangerous thing of all is an inner sense of superiority that emanates from the belief itself; this sense of superiority shows itself more clearly in religious believers than in adherents of other kinds of belief. To a certain extent, religious people are therefore more dogmatic than ordinary people.
Jews believe they are the chosen people of God; Buddhists believe that the Buddhist Path they pursue, “anuttara-samyak-sambodhi” (supreme perfect enlightenment), is the ultimate truth of the universe; Daoists believe that the Dao they follow is the supreme Dao; Muslims even launch jihad to purge infidels.
Moreover, every religion splits internally into various sects, sometimes to the point of irreconcilable enmity. The American scholar Huntington put forward his famous “clash of civilizations” thesis, arguing that the principal conflict of the twenty-first century would be between civilizations. Many of the wars and conflicts in today’s world do, at root, stem in part from clashes among civilizations.
Lord Russell said that the world is rich in variety, and that the joy of life comes precisely from this variety. Learning to coexist with others requires that believers of every persuasion give up the inner sense of superiority born of their faith. But this is extremely difficult; the Crusades and the various jihads are proof enough.
Personally, I have chosen to take refuge in Buddhism, yet I appreciate all the sciences and civilizations outside Buddhism, even other religions. While taking refuge in Buddhism, I equally retain my love of medicine, philosophy, and science, and will keep studying them. I treat Buddhism simply as my own life choice, holding the outlook and values that a Buddhist ought to hold—though, of course, this varies from Buddhist to Buddhist, and perhaps the outlook and values I hold would themselves be regarded as heretical in the eyes of other Buddhists. Even if one day I become a full-time Buddhist, I hope to keep this attitude.
I do not wish to be regarded as a heretic by others, nor do I wish to regard anyone else as a heretic. I do not encourage others to change their beliefs and become Buddhists like me, nor do I claim that Buddhist faith is nobler or superior to any other. Even within the community of Buddhists, I do not wish to deny others’ views and choices merely because of my own personal leanings.
Belief should impose demands only on oneself, not on others. Still less should one, because of belief, develop an inner sense of superiority and place oneself above others; for others, this is disrespect and offense. Buddhism often emphasizes that the Buddha only guides those with whom they have an affinity; in substance, all beliefs can only attract the same kind of people. And even within that same kind of people there are all sorts of disagreements—otherwise there would not be so many sectarian and doctrinal disputes.
True tolerance requires giving up every kind of self-superiority; self-superiority is a life disaster. The modern Chinese Buddhist master Yinguang once said, “Everyone is a bodhisattva; only I am an ordinary being.” This attitude toward life is worth my studying for a lifetime and putting into every detail. In order to eliminate his disciples’ ”mana” (conceit) and “upadana” (attachment)—what ordinary speech calls arrogance and prejudice—the Buddha required Buddhists to wear “bad-colored robes” (dressing plainly, even shabbily) and to live by alms-rounds. On the one hand this was meant to keep Buddhists from being attached to the sensual pleasures of secular life; on the other, it was meant to train their minds through such conduct and make them abandon their inner sense of superiority. Among the “Twenty Difficult Things” the Buddha mentions in the Sutra of Forty-two Sections, one is precisely “it is difficult to eliminate conceit.” The reason arrogance is hard to eliminate is that it often lurks in our subconscious, where we ourselves do not easily detect it.
Before leaving home, the Buddha was a prince, caught in the vortex of human rivalry for advantage and accustomed to all kinds of war and dispute. After he left home, his own clan, the Shakya, was invaded by King Virudhaka. The Buddha tried three times to stop the slaughter, but in the end could not prevent the tragedy; the Shakyan city-state was finally destroyed by King Virudhaka, much like the chaos of China’s Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. One reason the Shakya sowed the seed of their own destruction was that they had once humiliated and despised Virudhaka’s father, King Prasenajit.
The Buddha loathed the discrimination that flows from a sense of superiority, and so among the Twenty Difficult Things he also lists “it is difficult to practice equality of mind and conduct.” In ancient India where the Buddha lived, the caste system existed; different castes were marked with different class symbols, producing all kinds of discrimination and the disputes and killings that arose from it. That caste system has still not been eradicated from Indian society.
At that time the Brahmins who held social power colluded with the “kshatriya” class (the warrior class, the various armed groups). The Brahmins, through their religious authority, granted the kshatriyas the privilege of enclosing land, while the kshatriyas used their armed force to protect the Brahmins; the poor were preyed upon and slaughtered. The Buddha deeply disliked all this, which is why he renounced his throne and left home.
At root, all discrimination comes from a sense of superiority and of entitlement; the Buddha felt this keenly after leaving home. In the Ganges valley the shramana movement had a long history; going into the forests to study with the wise was part of the educational system of ancient India along the Ganges. The ideas then current among the shramanas were chiefly the various Upanishads, transmitted orally.
Mr. Xu Fancheng translated part of the ancient Indian Upanishads; those interested may read his works to understand the sources of the Buddha’s thought, which helps in grasping the Dharma more deeply. Incidentally, Brahmanical doctrine is also worth knowing; it helps in understanding why the Buddhist scriptures contain so many myths and miracles, for in ancient India it would have been impossible to preach without such devices.
What the Buddha first practiced after leaving home was the asceticism of the shramanas, because asceticism was fashionable in the shramana movement of the time. Asceticism did not resolve his afflictions, so he gave it up; the five men who had followed him out of the home, led by Ańrna-Kaundinya, thereupon left him. After he attained enlightenment, he began to teach them his realization; the five accepted his teaching, followed him again, and became his first disciples—recorded in the Buddhist canon as the Buddha’s first turning of the Dharma wheel.
Ańrna-Kaundinya and the other four had been subordinates of the Buddha’s father, King Suddhodana, originally sent into the forest to persuade the Buddha to give up practicing and return home to be a prince. After these five came under the influence of the ascetic shramana movement, they too had regarded the Buddha as a heretic. The exclusion that a forest innovator like the Buddha met when he first taught is easy to imagine. Hence when the Buddha spoke of “the difficulty of practicing equality of mind and conduct,” it was truly born of his own experience.
By the way, even today some temples in China still emphasize asceticism; some Buddhists even burn their fingers as offerings to the Buddha—monks dip their fingers in oil, set them alight, and offer them. Such conduct is contrary to the original intention with which the Buddha created Buddhism. Though I feel one should not criticize others’ way of practice, any act that injures one’s own body seems unsafe and should not be encouraged. If pushed to the extreme—self-immolation or suicide as an offering to the Buddha—that is even more extreme. Far from encouraging such acts, the Buddha was firmly opposed to them. The Buddha himself practiced austerities to cultivate the Way not only without attaining enlightenment but nearly died from severe malnutrition; had he not ended his asceticism and accepted the offering of a milkmaid, there would probably be no Buddhism for later generations.
The Buddha’s cousin Devadatta insisted on the ascetic path and tried to establish an ascetic system within the sangha, so that the order split and he took away a large following. Devadatta’s followers still existed when the monk Xuanzang went to India in search of the Dharma, and they were numerous; even today there are ascetic monks in the Indian forests.
The crime of “splitting the sangha,” listed by later Buddhists among the five heinous crimes, arose precisely from the conflict between Devadatta and the Buddha. Not long ago I read an article that cursed Devadatta. I do not think the Buddha would have approved or encouraged such behavior; the canon records that although the Buddha did not agree with asceticism in the order, he still made a prediction about Devadatta, holding that Devadatta too would become a Buddha in a future life.
The Buddha’s mention of Devadatta cultivating in hell is by no means a malicious curse. Ascetic monks take joy in suffering, so for Devadatta going to hell would suit his inclination; ascetics hope to attain spiritual liberation through bodily suffering. Nowadays many Buddhists readily curse anyone who criticizes Buddhism and wish them hell; this is very wrong, for it makes people who do not understand Buddhism afraid to deal with Buddhists and see them as narrow-minded.
The Buddha was serene in mind, maintained an attitude of tolerance, and treated all beings equally; he did not, because he had awakened to bodhi, develop the slightest arrogance or contempt for living beings. Toward the misunderstandings of beings, the Buddha advocated upholding the precepts and patience, responding gently, and continuing to practice the Way—not retaliating tooth for tooth. Even toward the “outside paths” often mentioned in Buddhism, the Buddha did not adopt a condescending rejection.
Besides the ascetic Devadatta, Jainism—which still has large numbers of followers in India—is also one of the outside paths mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures (the canon calls them the “Nirgrantha outside paths, the unbound, the naked, the shameless”). Its doctrine too was refined from the many ancient Indian Upanishads. Objectively speaking, Jain doctrine is also very meaningful. Jainism’s core—non-violence, truthful speech, pure conduct, non-stealing, non-attachment—is very close to Buddhist doctrine. Its founder Nirgrantha Jnataputra was a contemporary of the Buddha and is called by his followers Mahavira (“Great Hero”); the main hall of Chinese Buddhist temples, the Daxiong Baodian (“Mahavira Hall”), also bears the word “Great Hero”—how close the two are.
The Buddha was an intellectual reformer who knew firsthand how existing stale ideas shape the masses. People have an inertia of thought, and changing that inertia is not easy. What is worth learning from the Buddha is not only his character and system of thought, but also the pedagogical skill and reforming spirit he brought to bear when facing stale currents of thought and striving to renew them. Most of the admired Buddhist religious figures of later generations also possessed this pedagogical skill and reforming spirit.
How best to coexist and symbiose is a major question facing human civilization in our time, and an important problem each of us must face and solve in how we live. If we do not give up self-superiority, always trying to place our own belief or will above others and seeking to convert or change them, it will be hard to live in peace with others, and sometimes conflict and bloodshed will follow. A person who is at odds with society and with those around him, whose self-proclaimed inner peace is to a considerable extent self-deception.
The world is pluralistic; the life and wisdom we experience are wonderful, and the life and wisdom others experience are equally wonderful. Maintain a humble attitude, empty yourself, live at peace with others, respect others from the heart, and honor their learning and cultivation; only then can belief help us attain happiness without turning us into dogmatic people.
I offer this article as an encouragement to myself, and as a shared exhortation to those who feel the same.