The Buddha

by Trevor Oswald Ling

Book by Ling, Trevor

Genres: Buddhism

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1973

Reviews

[David Roberts · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, one of the interesting parts of being in a literary group is that one receives the "benefit" of reading books suggested by others. Over time, one notes that some folks (varying from one's own strict standards) are wont to recommend books that they themselves have yet not actually read through to completion at the time of the recommendation.

This creates an added opportunity that one my have to finish reading books, lengthy, academic, detailed books, that one would never dream of reading to completion oneself. And then, if one's character-building opportunities were not already sufficiently maximized, one has the opportunity to attend said literary group and learn that said book recommender had not possessed the tenacity to finish the book his or herself!

OK, I feel better now.

Moving on, The Buddha by Trevor Ling is not actually about the Buddha, save a short introduction. The author makes two very interesting and compelling assertions, which are summarized below and may save others in a situation similar to mine from actually having to read the book in its entirety.

1) Religions don't usually start off as religions. They start off as new ways of organizing societies, a hope for a better way of life for a community. Then, as time passes, and the basic structure of events that created the original community changes, what gets distilled out of the original "plan" is more a religion than a philosophy. Such was the case with Buddhism, Ling argues. The last thing the Buddha would have wanted to do is start a religion, he notes. "...When an ideology for restructuring of human nature and society becomes a religious cult, it gradually loses some of its spirit of rationality and political relevance, and its professional representatives or bearers degenerate into a merely religious organization; that it is impossible for a psycho-social philosophy, once it becomes a religious cult, to maintain its effectiveness." (page 270.)

2) The success of Buddhism depends three interacting factors:
a) the Sangha, or religious community living a more monastic life, keeper of the values
b) the King, who must support the Sangha and ensure that Buddhist values permeate society and the country's way of life, and
c) the community, the rest of society not living within the Sangha, who supports the Sangha as well and welcomes permeation of these values

OK, that's it! Meanwhile, for those interested, which apparently is NOT anyone else in my literary group, there are 276 pages of detailed info on why Buddhism failed in India (despite the noble efforts of King Ashoka) and yet was somehow preserved in Sri Lanka. I should add that this scholarly book is quite well written.

There you have it!

I'm thinking about recommending the telephone book (if they still have those in Albuquerque) the next time it is my turn to pock a reading, with no intention of reading it myself (except, perhaps, to check my own entry.)

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A ‘COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS’ PROFESSOR LOOKS AT THE BUDDHA AND BUDDHISM

Trevor Ling (d. 1995) was a professor of Comparative Religion at Manchester University until 1982, and before that taught at Leeds University.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1973 book, “To say that Gotama the Buddha founded a religion is to prejudice our understanding of his far-reaching influence. For in modern usage the word ‘religion’ denotes merely one department of human activity… and belonging almost entirely to the realm of men’s private affairs. But whatever else Buddhism is or is not, in Asia it is a great social and cultural tradition.” (Pg. 15)

He adds, “It is clear that in entering the world of the Buddha we are confronted by something more than a religion, if by religion is meant a system of PERSONAL salvation. The question … often has been raised as to whether Buddhism is a religion at all. It is possible from the historical perspective to answer both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to this question... when one asks, ‘What is religion?’ the definition will frequently be found to include reference to belief in a god or gods… Emile Durkheim ran into this difficulty in his attempts to define religion… Durkheim’s argument is that Buddhism is in essence a non-theistic religion...” (Pg. 16-17)

He continues, “What distinguished such belief systems, said Durkheim, was a sense of the SACRED which each of them manifested… the source of this sense of the sacred was to be found … in the human individual’s awareness of his own dependence on the values and the collective life of the society to which he belonged… One might say that that which totally sanctions the life of the individual is the ‘sanctus,’ the sacred.” (Pg. 18) He goes on, “It was this, rather than belief in a spiritual, superhuman being or beings… which was the dominant strand in ‘religion.’ This very useful distinction will be taken up later, in connection with the Buddhism of Ceylon, where the classical Theravada form exists in association with local beliefs in gods and spirits. The answer to the question whether Buddhism is a religion is thus both Yes and No. It is not necessary to regard it as a religion if that that is meant a a system of beliefs focusing in ... a god or gods…. The common element which it shares with the Theravada … is the sense of the sacred.” (Pg. 19)

He explains, “The Mahayanists became more concerned with devotions to the heavenly beings… and less with the nature of the civilization in which they lived. On the other hand the hard core of Buddhist tradition… was for sustained moral effort and mental discipline… In the areas where Theravada has been influential there has been a strongly developed sense of the need for a Buddhist state.” (Pg. 20)

He reports, “what is known of urban society in the early Buddhist period... there was … a considerable degree of what Durkheim called ‘anomie,’ or moral and social dislocation… the transition … from the … old tribal republics to the … new, monarchial state, was accompanied by a … heightened sense of dissatisfaction with life… It was this malaise which the Buddha was to take as the starting-point of his analysis of the human condition, calling it ‘dukkha’ [suffering].” (Pg. 75)

He asserts, “It is meaningless to say, as some have done, that the Buddha… was heir to the Hindu religious tradition… it is difficult to see how the Buddha can be described as an heir to the brahman tradition … [as] One who did not believe in God, not in theories of creation, and who did not accept the authority of the Vedas." (Pg. 111)

He notes, “Towards contemporary forms of religion, it is clear that the Buddha adopted a generally tolerant attitude, with the exception of his criticism of the brahman hereditary priesthood and sacrificial system. Towards folk beliefs and customs, except for those which came within the scope of priestly magic, he showed the urbane man’s understanding of the proper place which mythology and ritual hold in the lives of unsophisticated people… The Buddha’s insight … is both logical and psychological; its appeal is in its self-authenticating quality. Urbanity of manner and speech were wholly consistent with the rationality of what was expressed.” (Pg. 129)

He observes that “the idea of a Buddhist society coterminous with the political state IS implied in the discourses of the Buddha… some modern Buddhists, in their desire to expound Buddhism in terms the West will understand, have tended to assimilate Buddhism to the other ‘isms’ which are lumped together under the general title of ‘religions’ and of these it is particularly Protestantism (known in Ceylon since… the 17th century) which seems to provide [their] model of what a religion should be. For, among the variety of Western religion, it is Protestantism … which has been proud of its individualism over against all collectivism, of its dislike of constitutional links between church and state… and its insistence that in the end all that matters is the destiny of the individual’s indestructible soul, that is, either eternal salvation of eternal damnation.” (Pg. 223-224)

He reports, “Buddhist civilization was short-lived in India… its two principal characteristics were opposed by two perennially powerful factors in the Indian situation. These two characteristics were Buddhism’s humanistic stance, and its political-ethical implications… Not only did Buddhism cease to be a civilization after [Emperor] Ashoka… it suffered also a transformation of its original humanistic character: it became a theistic religion.” (Pg. 240)

He suggests, “It will be seen that the difference between the Theravada and the Mahayana is ultimately a difference about Buddhism itself---whether, as in the tradition of the Theravada countries, it is to be regarded as a way of life of a culture, nourishing a civilization by means of which certain distinctive values are given political, social and economic expression in the life of the people; or whether it is to be regarded as a purely metaphysical or theosophical system.” (Pg. 245-246)

He recounts, “From 1918 onwards the speed of Westernization of Ceylon was accelerated… Monastic education declined correspondingly in importance and in quality. To some extent, however, this was a stimulus to Buddhism. It could be seen that all depended now on the Sangha [monastic order]. The role of the bhikkhus [Buddhist monks] as the voice of Buddhism … was now greatly enhanced. It was this reaction to the enslavement of the traditional way of life to Western values during the British colonial period which first drew bhikkhus into direct political activity in Ceylon… It managed to survive the 130 years of British rule…” (Pg. 266)

He observes, “During the latter half of this period it benefited from the encouragement and help which had now begun to come from Western sympathizers, notably the American Colonel H.S. Olcott, and from Madame Blavatsky and Mrs. Annie Besant who came from England… The Buddhist response to Christian missionary activity … [was that] ‘it had perforce to express itself in forms decided for it by Christian missionary activity… the battle joined had to be fought with weapons similar to those used by the Christian missionary; hence such things as Buddhist Sunday Schools and even Buddhist carols.’” (Pg. 266)

He summarizes, “Certainly Buddhism has BECOME a religion, and began to move in that direction within 500 years from the time of the Buddha’s death. But the intention here has been to demonstrate that, in origin, it was the ethos and the philosophy of a civilization. The Buddha was an ‘analyst,’ not a propounder of dogmatic truth, and early Buddhism was characterized essentially by its rationalism.” (Pg. 294)

This book is primarily a ‘social/historical’ rather than a ‘spiritual’ portrayal of Buddhism; it will be of keen interest to those seeking such a treatment.