The main distinction between philosophy and all other branches of knowledge is generally considered to be double, ie a difference in the method and a difference in the extension. It is said that the method of philosophy is different from the method of science more as soon as she began her research without assumptions or preconceptions of any kind. Science, however, all involve the truth of the law of causality, plus every science makes certain assumptions in its particular and peculiar field of research. Classical physics, for example, presupposes the existence of matter, biology, the existence of life, and the geometry of the existence of space, but they which is not consider themselves the reality of matter, life and space, or it must exist.
It considers the matter of philosophy and declares that it makes no assumptions of any kind. However, at least makes an assumption of fact: and that knowledge is possible. Yet research on the possibility of knowledge implies that knowledge of any knowledge is possible or not. Philosophy can not avoid the assumption of the possibility of knowledge as the initial act of philosophy is presupposed. Similarly, the religion is based on the assumption that it is possible to do good, which means first of all freedom of will and secondly the existence one goal, next or final, to be achieved.
The difference in method does not distinguish, therefore the philosophy of science on one side or the other religion. But the difference in length, content or subject in fact distinguishes the two.
The various sciences are so obviously restricted to their respective fields of research that it is unnecessary to give examples to prove it. Religion restricts itself to reach the highest good and consider the other things only insofar as they help or hinder this supreme desire. But philosophy, by contrast, is essentially synoptic and strives to understand the totality of existence with a single glance justified then the famous definition of the philosopher Plato as "The spectator of all time and all existence." The philosophy, however, sees things just as a mere aggregate of heterogeneous elements, but just as do the scientific and the spiritual in their respective restricted areas, she is determined to trace the unity of the law operating in the middle diversity of events, and as the field is universal, the law or laws that it wants to point are universal too.
The statement that the Buddha was both a philosopher and a saint, and that the original Buddhism was, therefore, both a philosophy and a religion, should consistently supported by the capability they have, the oldest records to present statements, attributed to the Buddha, about the nature of existence as a whole. Representatives of the Theravada tradition the Buddha generally consider actually characterized the whole of existence as dukkha, and anatta anicca, 1 which means that is either currently or potentially painful, transient, and no soul or permanent and unchanged. The first and second sign or signal, namely anicca dukkha and obviously do not apply to Nibbana, 2 which is characterized as Paranam, sukha and nicca or dhuva. 3 This leaves us only with anatta. But a purely negative characterization of existence as a whole is certainly a very suitable basis for a philosophical superstructure. The difficulty is, however, more apparent than real. An analysis of the implications of the doctrine of Anatta will finally clear that this is simply a negative formulation of what appears condensed into widespread and positive Samuppada Paticca doctrine. 4 That this doctrine is nothing that the conceptualization of the supreme Buddha's spiritual experience and, therefore, must be regarded as his vision of existence as a whole becomes transparent when we consider that it was precisely this doctrine that considering debated with himself whether or not it known to the world after your lighting:
"In the mind of the Almighty, being quiet and withdrawn alone, there came this thought:" I entered this profound truth, which is difficult to perceive, and difficult to understand, dispensing peace, sublime, which transcends all thoughts, deeply meaningful, which only the wise can grab. That human being on earth moves in a sphere in an earthly sphere has its place and finds his joy in earthly sphere will be very difficult to grasp this issue, the law of causality, the chain of causes and effects, and also be very difficult to grasp this, the extinction of everything made, the end of all that is earthly, the extinction of desire, the cessation of desire, the end of Nirvana. If I now preach the doctrine and the human group I knew it, this does not bring me more than fatigue, it would cause me nothing but trouble! "Ref1
And then came incessantly through the mind of the Almighty, the voice that nobody had heard before.
"Why reveal to the world what I have won by a severe effort?
The truth will be hidden for those who desire and hatred absorb.
is difficult, mysterious, deep, hidden from the ordinary mind;
can not be grasped by one whose mind is heavily surrounded by earthly vocation. "
" When Exalted and thought, his heart was inclined to go quietly and do not proclaim their doctrine. "Ref2
This important text embedded in it is without doubt one of the oldest strata of the Pali Tipitaka, 5 makes it clear that Samuppada Paticca doctrine is the conceptual formulation of the content of the experience of Buddha's enlightenment 6 and can therefore be regarded as the philosophical foundation of Buddhism not only original but also of schools that appear subsequently in Buddhism developed. It was this The venerable doctrine that Assaji deftly summarized in a single verse when questioned by Sariputta 7 (then a mendicant pilgrim from another sect) on Buddha's teachings - a line that has since been recognized as one containing the bone and the core of Buddhism, "Stocks that flow from one cause, the cause of the Perfect taught, and how they end, this is the doctrine of great Samana. " The passage in the Tipitaka that relates this episode is one of those, like Oldenburg said that "the king Asoka, 8 Bhairat enrollment (about 260 BCE), ordered monks, nuns, lay brothers and sisters, listen and learn carefully. REF3 later studies in the literature indicates that the four noble truths can be divided into two parts, each of which includes a cause and effect, namely dukkha (the first truth) and Tanha cause (second right) and Nirvana (the third truth) and its cause, the Noble Eightfold Path (the fourth truth). It is hardly necessary to multiply examples that demonstrate the paramount importance of the doctrine of Paticca Samuppada taken from the Pali Tipitaka. The doctrine of Sunyata Madhyamikavada 9 of 10 is simply a dialectical version of the doctrine of Anatta or Paticca Samuppada. This will become clear when we go a little deeper into the meaning of the fundamental philosophical doctrine of the Buddha. The importance of the principle of Dependent Origination (* Emergence condition) in the teachings of Vijnanavada or Yogacara school of Buddhism, 11, is amply demonstrated by the fact that at the beginning of his encyclopedic philosophical work on Tattvasangraha Santarakshita (705-762 CE), founder of Tantric Buddhism with Padmasambhava in Tibet and one of the brightest ornaments of the great University of Nalanda 12, not only presents the Buddha as the teacher of the doctrine of Dependent Origination but makes the vehicle doctrine, both to examine all the other schools of Hindu philosophy as his exposition of the doctrines of the Mahayana school of Buddhism Vijnanavada to which he belongs. In this way, announcing this doctrine as the basic tenet of Buddhist philosophy, Santarakshita has just outlined the vision of all Buddhist thinkers from the time from the Buddha himself to his own day.
Anatta negative doctrine teaches that all phenomena of existence are those that are not are own or substantial nature and are therefore characteristically conditioned or contingent. Anything depends for existence of other things and so on until all the threads of existence - physical, mental, moral and spiritual, are locked together in a single interrelated, interconnected, interdependent fabric. Nothing is set aside or unique, nothing is isolated, nothing is separado.Una dependence flower blooms in all the universe and the universe exists depending on the flower. In the words of Shelley:
"Nothing in the world is unique,
All things by a divine law
In either be joined ..."
The transition from Anatta doctrine which is the downside of Paticca Samuppada, the doctrine of universal flux or Devenir 13 which is its positive expression, is probably made in the best way saying it is impossible in a universe which each part exists only in dependence on any other party, that a thing is in a state of flux or becoming without another thing to be at the same time in such a state estado.Si was static and unchanging, all other phenomena would be static and unchanging as well. The statement that the universe is immutable which is what William James called a "universe - block" or the belief that reality is somehow static, is therefore contradicted by the discovery of just a phenomenon in flux or becoming . This discovery is of course one that is made daily on empirical experience.
The position that the reality is permanent and unchanging and seemingly only change is logically insupportable and it recently in a dualism between the world of appearances and the world of Reality, which can be surpassed only by denying the existence of world of appearances entirely. This denial was actually made by Parmenides later in Greece, and Gaudapada and Sankara in India. The logical consequence of this position is the Maya theory which instead of solving the difficulty, it helps to make it worse. It is impossible to explain how unreal originates from the real, imperfect perfection, the dynamic of the static, Maya of Brahman, without admitting that the former was potentially present in the latter, which is equivalent to admitting that Reality is partly unreal, partly imperfect, etc. Even if he refuses the origin of Maya in Brahman, as Gaudapada Ajatavada to do, not enough to solve the problem because it can not explain why, assuming that Maya does not originate, but she appears to be causing. And if Maya says there is or appears to exist, but originated from Brahman, the result is simply a duplication of the old Sankhya Purusha - Prakriti dualism with all the perplexities that brings. These and numerous other difficulties that are involved in such false claims as "changes in appearance but not in reality" can be avoided just by looking at the totality of Reality as a single large Becoming, which is not just all but the unit aggregate becomings concrete all "individual."
Just as the Buddha's doctrine of Paticca Samuppada is, historically speaking, a protest against the static concept of Atman - Brahman Upanishadic certain thinkers, the doctrine Heraclitean of "Everything Flows" (Pantarhein) is a protest against the abstract Being of the philosophers Eleatics. It is therefore not surprising to find that the teachings of the great philosopher of Ephesus serve equally well to expose at least part of the teachings of Indian contemporary even larger. Prof. WT Stace writes:
"Not only did things change from moment to moment. Even more in one and the same time they are and are not the same. There is only one thing is first and the next moment is not she is and is not at the same time. The once "is" and "not" is the meaning of Becoming. We understand this better if we contrast it with the Eleatic principle. The Eleatics everything described under two headings Being and Being is not Being, for them, the whole truth all the facts. Being is not entirely false and illusory. For Heraclitus the two, Being and Non-Being are equally real. One is as real as the other. Both are true, because the two are identical. Becoming is the identity of Being and Non-Being. Becoming has only two forms, namely, the emergence of things and his disappearance, his beginning and his end, his home and his death. Perhaps you may think that this is not correct, there are other ways to change along with the origin and death. A man is born. This is their origin. He dies. This is his death. Between birth and death are intermediate changes. Becomes larger, older, wiser or more foolish, his hair turns gray. Similarly the leaf of a tree not only comes to be and fails. It changes its shape, form, color. Passes light green to dark green, dark green and yellow. But there is this after all, nothing except origination and death, not the thing itself but of their qualities. The change from green to yellow is the death of the green and yellow color development. Emergence is the passage of the Self Be No Death is the passage from Being to Becoming Self then is not it only two factors and Being and not Being and its meaning is the passage from one to another. But this step does not mean to Heraclitus that there be a moment and the other does not mean that Ser Ser and Ser are not everything in one and the same time. Being is not Being Being is to not be in it. "REF4
Both Heraclitus and the Buddha are able, in contrast to the Eleatics and Advaita, consider the totality of existence as governed by a principle, the principle of Becoming and as they considered the events as intrinsically dynamic for them was not necessary to violate the unity of conception by introducing some secondary principle to account for the origin of movement, change or becoming. The existence and Becoming are convertible terms. Exist Devenir means.
That the Buddha was not only a philosopher but also a critical philosopher is shown by the masterly manner he handled the various sophistries of his time. It is easy to declare that our opponent is wrong, but it is difficult to pinpoint not only where and why it is. It is even harder to not only a scientific classification of all existing and all possible philosophical views according to a single framework of principles. The hardest part is deduced from this principle to its own creed. The Buddha did all these things. In the Sutta of the Digha Nikaya Brahmajala ranked schools sixty-two philosophers into two groups: the first consists of those who hold the doctrine of Eternal (Sassatavada), the second composed of those who hold the doctrine of annihilation (Ucchevada). A moment's reflection will show that the first set of doctrines Reality identifies the abstract Being, while the second group identified with the no less abstract non-being. The Buddha and Heraclitus, on the other hand, identified with Becoming, which is the actual unit at the time of Being and Non-Being. The sixty-two approaches are thus classified as a result, all unilateral and therefore mutually antagonistic. They only see a position of truth, and then the authors are not philosophers in the sense of Plato's definition. Or at least not successful philosophers. But the doctrine of Buddha as Becoming Reality allowed to take a look deep synoptic existence and therefore propose a system of thought that is truly philosophical. Madhyamika school of Buddhism developed in this way is called by his followers simply because their doctrine of Sunyata is the middle way between the two extreme views of Eternalism and annihilation.
The beautiful parable of the blind men and the elephant, due to the Buddha, is intended to illustrate not the popular but lazy doctrine that all religions and philosophies have the same meaning, but essentially Synoptic thinking of the Buddha nature in comparison with unilateral and mutually contradictory statements of the sectarian non-illuminated. Ref 5 Just as the King in the parable was not only able to see that the blind men were partly right and partly wrong, but was able to see why this was so and to what extent, the Buddha was not only able to claim that sectarian thinkers were partially certain and partially uncertain in their conclusions, but also was able to indicate the source and extent of their mistakes. You can then rightly be designated as the first critical philosopher in the history of human thought.
As the Buddha's philosophy equates to Becoming Reality we must conclude that all that is becomes too real. This raises the question of whether Greater Good pointed to religion is something that becomes or, more precisely if it is a becoming. The same problem as stated in Buddhist terms: Paticca Samuppada includes Nibbana? The question is important because of the nature of the response depends on the position of Buddhism as a philosophy. Many people, even those that were created under the beneficent influence of the Buddhist tradition, and declare his followers may be hesitant before giving an answer to this question. Some may even think that the concept of becoming is Nibbana as a pure contradiction in terms. However, the Buddha has no doubt identified with Becoming Reality and the assertion that Becoming does not include Nibbana means, therefore, or that Nibbana is not Real, which is impossible or that the development does not contain all of Reality, which implies that the Buddha was not a philosopher, and he did not see existence as a whole and was therefore unable to establish something about it as such. Acceptance of the latter alternative would lead us to believe that the Buddha was one of the sectarian unilateral your dish. Then Buddhism would have no philosophical foundation. The whole edifice of religion would be in imminent danger of collapse. Fortunately, the question has been asked and answered by a great scholar who is at the same time, without doubt, the most Buddhist brilliant thinker of modern India, the late Dr. Beni Madhab Barua. At its founding conference of the Alpine Donna Ratnayake, about Buddhism as a personal religion, Dr Barua asked "... whether or not the enduring cosmic order of life, which is expressed by the Buddha's conception of the genesis casual is an all-inclusive reality. If so, does it include or not include the Nirvana? If you exclude the Nirvana or some other element of experience, material, mental, moral or spiritual, can not be all-inclusive reality. Plus, if is not all inclusive for nothing does not deserve the name of reality. To be a reality should be not only the fact but the whole fact known or to know, actual or potential. "Ref 6 Having established the problem with such force and clarity the speaker is going to point out that creates a conundrum and a difficulty in personal religion of the Buddha and Buddhist teachers divided into two well-defined opposing schools of opinion, one of which argues that as the Counter-trial Nibbana is the end is logically excluded from Paticca Samuppada which is Becoming. Dr Barua added that the great scholar Buddhaghosa Theravada discussed and tried to keep, based on texts or other sources, that the process of Becoming as the Counter-trial completion are included in the law made Samuppada Patican by the Buddha. But Buddhaghosa notes that not grasped the logic of metaphysical difficulties involved in the matter and says that to do justice to what he believes are the two central points in the personal religion of the Buddha, namely Paticca Samuppada and Nibbana, we must be absolutely clear about the logical relationship between them.
"The most welcome light on this point comes from the intellectually gifted, Dhammadinna sister who was one of the first Buddhists and whose way of looking at the problem was properly approved and supported by the Buddha, who added that he had no nothing more to add. As interpreted by her conception of the Buddha of Conditioned Genesis supports two different patterns of things in the whole of reality. In one reaction (patibhaga) occurs in a cyclic order between two opposites (paccanikas) such as pleasure and pain (sukha - dukkha), virtue and vice (punnapapa), good and evil (Kusala - akusala). This is called appropriately by Buddhaghosa as visabhaga-patibhagas. In another reaction occurs in a progressive order between two counterparties or additions or between two things of the same gender, the factor that enhances the effect of case precedent. This is what Buddhaghosa called sadisapatibhaga. By the term "world" as distinguished from Nirvana, represents another trend in the Conditioned Genesis in which the course reaction forces are deployed in force, rather well, and this to an even greater good, happy pleasure, happiness to happiness to happiness, from bliss to bliss, intuitive knowledge (vijja) to feeling release (vimutti), east to the mastery of his being (vasibhava) or self-consciousness as the acquisition of a free state and then to the full enjoyment of Nirvana. In response to the question that follows as a reaction to Nirvana Dhammadinna wisely says that Nirvana was generally regarded as the final stage of the process, in order to avoid the infinite regress in order, in their own language Pariyantagahanam. But she did not fail to note that even if it is a reaction also occurs in the same trend and follow anything that belongs to Nirvana and therefore share its nature "Ref 7
This explanation seems to be correct. Mapping the logical connection between Samsara and Nibbana 14, it justifies the doctrine that Reality is becoming and therefore set to Buddhism in a solid philosophical base. The correction is also confirmed by the history of development of the Mahayana school of Buddhism. That all the All-Comprehensive Reality that appears in founder's original Buddhism as Paticca Samuppada is later named, as Sunyata in Nagarjuna and Madhyamikavadines as Vijnana 15 per Asanga, Vasubandhu and Vijñanavadines, and as 16 per Asvaghosha alayavijnana and his followers. Certifies the fundamental unity and continuity of all schools of Buddhist philosophy. The difference between them is largely one of method and approach rather than a difference in creed. Only in the light of this conviction is possible to observe the development of Buddhist philosophy as an intelligible process of organic growth rather than a confusing series of conflicting doctrines and faiths mutually exclusive. The continuity of Buddhist thought through the years is exemplified even more when we move from considerations of Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu and Asvaghosha on the nature of reality to their considerations on the logical connection between the two tendencies, as here but they also closely follow the footsteps of Buddha wisely and Dhammadinna.
In Madhyamika philosophy of Nagarjuna on Becoming Reality = = = Pratiya-Samutpada Sunyata, the Madhyamika Sastra says, according to the interpretation of Kumarajiva, "is because unrestricted Sunyata or everything becomes possible, without it, nothing in this world is possible. " Ref 8 Aryadeva, commenting on this Karika said "It is because the absolute irrestringibilidad the activity, in regular order (following the law of regularity, and of cause and effect), of all things (dharmas) can be mundane and supramundane . If the (noumenon) is otherwise then such activity would be impossible "This is what the school called Madhyamika-sunyata Asamskrita (empty of incompuesto), and corresponds to what Buddhaghosa called Sadisa-patibhaga or" in a progressive order reaction between two partners or additions or between two things of the same genus the next term by increasing the effect of the foregoing. The Madhyamika Sastra also says "What has been produced by causes and conditions we say that is" always "Changeling" is an apt name, and could be called also "the way" medium. "There is no dharma other than 17 produced by causes and conditions. Therefore there is no dharma which can be called or not ever-changing asunya. Aryadeva states that this verse means "I say that whatever is produced by causes and conditions is Sunyata or ever-changing because whatever the outcome of the union of various causes and conditions is limited by the law of causality. So those who are devoid of any special or Svabhava are Sunyata "This is what Nagarjuna and his followers call Samskrita-sunyata (empty of compound) and corresponds to what Buddhaghosa called Visabhaga-patibhagas or reaction in a cyclic order between opposites . Yamakami Sogen, whose invaluable work Systems of Buddhistic Thought Ref 9 have been taken all dimensions indicated, notes that "The conception of Sunyata in Madhyamika philosophy goes further in its development that views Asamskrita Samskrita and 18 as these are relative terms as the great Nagarjuna says in his Dvadasa-Nikaya-sastra fundamental work of this school. "The two dharmas of Samskrita and Asamskrita have a relative existence. All things are Sunyata. The transcendental truth can not be expressed by any of these terms is technically called alambana Sunyata." Ref10 We can then say that Devenir = (alambana) Sunyata, "becoming cyclical" = Samskrita-Sunyata and "gradual evolution" = Asamskrita-sunyata. This triple equation shows the substantial unity of thought with the thought of Nagarjuna and Dhammadinna Buddha.
If the standpoint of Madhyamika philosophy is metaphysical and dialectical method, the point of view of philosophy can be said is Vijnanavada epistemological and psychological method (hence the alternative name of Yogacara given in this school.) There is however no fundamental differences of any kind in doctrine between the two schools. What, from the special point of view adopted by Nagarjuna and his followers appears as Sunyata, from the one adopted by the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu and his followers, and Mano, Citta or Vijnana (each of these terms has both a particular extension as a universal in their system.) The parentage of this approach pan-psychic is considered by some the famous first verse of the Dhammapada (manopubbangama dhamma, etc.) as well as other, lesser-known passages in the Pali Canon. About this hand, Citta or Vijanana, China's version of the Mahayana-sutra-sastra Alankara Ref 11 says "has a double cittám reflux. Gustar greed and similes is another set of reflexes, like faith and similes is another mirror set. The moral and immoral dharma does not exist apart from it (ie cittám) "Ref 12 Yamakami Sogen goes on to explain that pleasure and pain, good and bad behavior, ignorance and enlightenment, are simply updating potentially saved seed in the Alaya Vijnana or consciousness-tank. These seeds are those of corruption (sasrava-bija) and the purity (anasrava-bija). The first, he says, includes the first two principles of the "Four Noble Truths, namely Dukkha, and Samudaya-satya Satya, whereas the last represents the last two truths, namely Nirodha-Satya and Marga-satya . These in turn are equal to Pravritti or external circulation or movement Nivritti dharmas and inner-dharmas respectively. Yamakami Sogen summarizes the position of the school with the words "We see then that in the Alaya-Vijnana is stored a seed sprout twice that Samsara and Nirvana." Ref 13 Similarly, Dr. Beni Madhab Barua says, "If this is the correct interpretation of the position Causal Genesis philosophy of the Buddha, it can be shown consistently that Samsara and Nirvana are both possibilities in one and the same reality. "Ref 14
Asvaghosha position and your school will be sufficiently illustrated by the following two scores. In both Citta word has unfortunately been translated by the term "soul" 19 which leads to confusion because its connotation is entirely non-Buddhist. Dr. SN Dasgupta says, "He considered that the soul are two aspects to that of asiedad (Bhutatathata) and the cycle of birth and death (Samsara). The soul as life and death (Samsara) is the matrix of the Tathagata (Tathagatagarbha), the ultimate reality. But the immortal and mortal coincide with each other. Although not identical are not dual either. Thus, when the absolute soul assumes a relative by affirmation of his being is called into All-conservative mind (alayavijnana). It comprises two principles (1) Lighting (2) non-enlightenment. "Ref.15 The equivalence of these texts with those used by Buddha and Dhammadinna in one hand and those employed by Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu and the other, may be easily verified by anyone who has read carefully the two paragraphs above. This is a further illustration of the "unity in diversity" of Buddhist thought sublime.
We are then able to see close logical connection between philosophy and religion, not only in the original Buddhism of Buddha and Dhammadinna but also in Buddhism developed Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu and Asvaghosha. Religious doctrines and spiritual practices of Buddhism lie not in the stubble of blind belief or the shifting sands of idle speculation, but in the adamantine basis of philosophical truth. Buddhism as a religion is fiercely rooted in philosophy and Buddhism as a philosophy for carrying religion as more delicate fruit. But it should be noted that this view of Buddhism as being simultaneously a philosophy and religion not have been possible if we exclude admitted Nibbana Dependent Origination process, because such exclusion would necessarily Paticca Samuppada degraded from its high place as a Reality All-including, to a comparatively poor position of a mere phenomenological law. This would be equivalent to admitting, first the Buddha was not a philosopher, who was not admitted or not in front of his disciples that he Synoptic vision of existence as a whole, empirical and transcendental, phenomenal and noumenal, and second that Buddhism not a philosophy but also just a religion and a religion without foundation. If on the other hand, we accept the explanation Nibbana as merely representing the anti-termination process within Paticca Samuppada we are forced to look at the entire religious life and career as an exclusively negative. Such extreme negativism, not only disharmony with our truest spiritual needs but is in total contraction with several important passages in the Pali Canon, to say nothing of the countless texts on Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism developed. The only way to get us out of trouble, the only apartment that we have to consider Buddhism as a philosophy and a religion as a positive gospel and not a negative one, is the vision of Reality = Becoming = Paticca-Samuppada, and that the Samsara and Nibbana respectively represent the trend of the interaction between opposites and the tendency of the interaction between additions.
"If this is the correct interpretation of the Buddha's philosophical position in Genesis - causal, both Samsara and Nirvana can be displayed consistently, are included, both as possibilities in one and the same reality. From that this was the exact position can appear the fact that the completeness or religious training method was the result of personal religion of the Buddha was based on the second trend, the second line of interaction involving the procession of the good to the further good, the healthy to more healthy. The game or the fight, circle, the opposite is restricted to areas or non-jhāna karmic and non-reflective consciousness. Akusala immoral or insane reaction of the mind, has no place in the areas jhāna or reflective consciousness and religious experience that supports infinite gradations, even for scientific purposes is reduced to sixteen or seventeen successive and progressive states in the life of an aspiring "Ref 1
This appointment allows us to see that as the concept of Becoming Buddhism as a philosophy dominates the conception of the Milky Buddhism as religion dominates. is the great merit of Mrs. Rhys Davids that made that the original Buddhism is not only intelligible but noting that the founder practicable considered the spiritual life as a process of becoming a volunteer, not a process of becoming less, but becoming more. She would like to say, with its picturesque style, the Buddha saw man as traveling from one more to a maximum. But like so many others when they attacked an extreme position, she was carried away by his enthusiasm to the opposite extreme and seems to have considered the spiritual vision of life as becoming less was totally false. The truth is, as usual it does, between two extremes. Adolescence, for example, is not only a process of becoming more mature but also a process of becoming less child. Similarly, the spiritual life includes not only the growing trend of becoming Nibbana but especially the waning of the tendency of becoming samsaric. The two are really intrinsically interrelated, they are as inseparable as the front and right of a coin or the two ends of a rod. They can be distinguished in thought but can not be separated in practice. But it was so strong, and still is negative for students of Pali texts that yes an exaggeration of what was perhaps necessary to establish a fair balance between them. The Nidana
-Vagga of Sanyutta-Nikaya Sutta is found that Mrs Rhys Davis referred to as an "oasis" of the statement in arid desert of the Negative. Ref 17 The sutta clearly displays the tendency of Becoming Nibbana as a reaction in progressive order, between factors that complement each other, as essentially a process of positive growth rather as a continuous cumulative enrichment of human life in Instead of a new anti-termination process simply wrong or out of the gradual impoverishment of the continuum of human life. In this important passage, perhaps the only of its kind in the Pali Canon, the Buddha said that suffering arises depending on the faith, faith reliance on the joy arises in dependence on ecstasy, joy arises in dependence on ecstasy serenity emerges, depending on of serenity comes happiness, depending on the happiness comes concentration, concentration dependence arises the knowledge and vision of things as they really are comes the repulsion, depending on the repulsion comes dispassion, dispassion depending comes the release, depending on the release comes the knowledge of the extinction of intoxicants. Ref 18
The Buddha illustrates the process of dependent origination or causal association in Nibbana samsaric and the tendency of becoming a graphic simile
"Just like when you, brothers, in some high summit, the rain is falling in large drops, that water, moving according to the slope fills cracks and gullies and ravines and having filled these lakes are filled with filler and having these small rivers are full, having filled these large rivers are full and having filled the great river fills the sea, the ocean - and siblings is a causal association of the activities of name - and - as the result of the area six times the senses with name and form, contact with the area six times the senses, feel with the contact, longing to feel, greed with the desire of (renewed) evolution with greed, from birth to the (renewed) becoming, birth pain, of faith with the pain, joy with faith, ecstasy, the joy, serenity to ecstasy, happiness with the serenity, concentration with happiness, knowledge and vision of things as they really are the concentration, the repulsion with the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the dispassion with revulsion, the release with the dispassion of knowledge about the extinction (intoxicants) with the release. " Ref 19
Dr Barua said:
"Given these two trends in the order of becoming, as they were discovered by the Buddha, and clearly set before us as such, we have to us decide for ourselves which one to go and what not. And here lies the scope of freedom of conscience. If the Buddha would have had only Heraclitean vision of change that compels us to turn again and again in the opposite sky, the great concept of progressive way of life as it is drawn by the astamarga, better Dasamarga, which emanates Buddha-jnana, would have been impossible. "Ref.20
The above remarks are sufficient to indicate the inseparable connection between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion, and to demonstrate the continued persistence of this conception in the original Buddhism Buddha and Buddhism developed in large schools Mahayana led by Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu and Asvaghosha. They have also shown that Buddhism as a religion is based on the tendency of becoming Nibbana, and it is not, therefore, a creed entirely negative or life-denying but a positive and progressive creed which is able to satisfy the deep spiritual needs of modern man.
