Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The subject today will be Buddhism. I’m not going into the
long story that began two thousand five hundred years ago in
Benares, when a prince of Nepal – Siddharta or Gautama – who
had become Buddha, spun the wheel of the law, proclaimed the
four noble truths and the eightfold path. I will speak of the
essential in this religion, the most prevalent in the world. The
elements of Buddhism have been preserved since the fifth century
before Christ: that is, since the epoch of Heraclites, of Pythagoras,
of Xenon, until our times when Dr. Suzuki expounds it in Japan.
The elements are the same. Now the religion is encrusted with
mythology, astronomy, strange beliefs, magic, but because the
subject is complex, I will limit myself to what the various sects have
in common. They may correspond to Hinayana or the small
vehicle. Let us first consider the longevity of Buddhism.
This longevity can be explained for historical reasons, but such
reasons are fortuitous or, rather, they are debatable, fallible. I think
there are two fundamental causes. The first is Buddhism’s
tolerance. That strange tolerance does not correspond, as is the
case with other religions, to distinct epochs: Buddhism was always
tolerant.
It has never had recourse to steel or fire, has never thought that
steel or fire were persuasive. When Asoka, emperor of China,
became a Buddhist, he didn’t try to impose his new religion on
anybody. A good Buddhist can be Lutheran, or Methodist, or
Calvinist, or Sintoist, or Taoist, or Catholic; he can be a proselyte
to Islam or to Judaism, with complete freedom. But it is not
permissible for a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim to be a Buddhist.
Buddhism’s tolerance isn’t a weakness, but belongs to its nature.
Buddhism was, above all, what we can call a yoga. What is the word
yoga? It is the same word that we use when we say yugo [Spanish
for yoke], and which has it origin in the Latin yugu. A yoke, a
discipline which a person imposes on himself. Then, if we
understand what Buddha preached in that first sermon in the Park
of Gazelles in Benares two thousand five hundred years ago, we
will have understood Buddhism. Except that it isn’t a question of
understanding, it’s a question of feeling it deeply, of feeling it in
body and soul; except, also, that Buddhism doesn’t admit the reality
of body not of the soul. I will try to explain that.
Furthermore, there is another reason. Buddhism demands much of
our faith. This is natural, for every religion is an act of faith. Just as
one’s country is an act of faith. What is it, I have often been asked,
to be Argentine? To be Argentine is to feel that we are Argentines.
What is it to be Buddhist? To be Buddhist is, not to understand,
for that can be accomplished in a few minutes, but to feel the four
noble truths and the eightfold path. Let’s not go into the twists and
turns of the eightfold path, for this number obeys the Hindu habit
of dividing and sub-dividing, but into the four noble truths.
There is, furthermore, the legend of Buddha. We may disbelieve
this legend. I have a Japanese friend, a Zen Buddhist, with whom I
have had long and friendly arguments. I told him that I believed in
the historic truth of Buddha. I believed and I believe that two
thousand five hundred years ago there was a Nepalese prince called
Siddharta or Gautama who became the Buddha, that is, the
Awoken, the Lucid One – as opposed to us who are asleep or who
are dreaming this long dream which is life. I remember one of
Joyce’s phrases: “History is a nightmare from which I want to
awake.” Well then, Siddharta, at thirty years of age, awoke and
became Buddha.
I argued with that friend who was a Buddhist (I’m not sure that I’m
a Christian and am sure that I’m not a Buddhist) and I said to him:
“Why not believe in Prince Siddharta, who was born in
Kapilovastu five hundred years before the Christian era?” He
replied: “Because it’s of no importance; what’s important is to
believe in the Doctrine”. He added, I think with more ingenuity
than truth, that to believe in the historical existence of Buddha or
to be interested in it would be like confusing the study of
mathematics with the biography of Pythagoras or Newton. One of
the subjects of meditation which the monks in the monasteries of
Japan and China practice is to doubt the existence of Buddha. It is
one of the doubts they must assume in order to reach the truth.
The other religions demand much more credulity on our part. If we
are Christians we must believe that one of the three persons of the
Divinity condescended to become a man and was crucified in
Judea. If we are Muslims we must believe that there is no other god
than God and that Mohammad is his apostle. We can be good
Buddhists and deny that Buddha existed. Or, rather, we may think,
we must think that our belief in history isn’t important: what is
important is to believe in the Doctrine. Nevertheless, the legend of
Buddha is so beautiful that we cannot help but refer to it.
The French have paid special attention to the study of the legend
of Buddha. Their argument is this: the biography of Buddha is
what happened to one man only over a brief span of time. It could
have been this way or some other. The legend of Buddha, on the
other hand, has illuminated and continues to illuminate millions of
people. It is the legend that has inspired countless paintings,
sculptures and poems. Buddhism, in addition to being a religion, is
a mythology, a cosmology, a metaphysical system, or, rather, a
series of metaphysical systems which disagree and are disputable.