[Buddha-l] Buddhism as a 'Selfish' Religion

[Richard Hayes]

On Tue Feb 3 11:17:23 MST, Warner Belanger asked:

> Does anyone have any suggestions to advance the discussion either to
> disprove or agree with the statement that the goal of nirvana in Buddhism is
> inherently selfish?

That the goal of nirvāṇa is inherently selfish is one of those
accusations that comes up regularly. It started off, I think, as a bit
of polemical Mahāyāna mischief, and has been perpetuated by people who
teach Buddhism for two weeks in religions of the world classes and
dutifully report to their students, as if it were fact, the triumphalist
claim that there are two kinds of Buddhism: Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.
Started as a bit of Mahāyāna triumphalism, it has come to be used by
Christians (and, more recently, self-proclaimed Benists) to diminish
Buddhism as a whole.

There are at least two standard antidotes to the claim that come quickly
to mind. The first antidote is the teaching, accepted by all Buddhists
that I know of, that an attribute is a virtue only if it is both
beneficial to oneself (svārtha) and beneficial to others (parārtha). To
pursue what is good for oneself without taking into consideration what
benefits others is vicious, and to pursue what is good for others
without consideration of what conduces to one's own well-being is
foolish. The Buddhist position on virtue is quite similar to
Aristotle's: virtue is a mean between excess and deficiency.

Nirvāṇa, of course, is said to be the most beneficial (paramārtha)
pursuit of all, and is accordingly described as that which is of
greatest benefit to those who attain it and to all others as well. It is
supremely beneficial to oneself (paramasvārtha) and and supremely
beneficial to others (paramaparārtha). By attaining nirvāṇa, a person
reportedly becomes harmless and therefore takes everyone with whom she
deals out of harm's way. It is difficult to see how anyone could regard
that as selfish.

A second antidote is the teaching of the Buddha, found in the Pāli canon
(references supplied on demand) to the effect that if a person is
floundering in quicksand, the only person who is in a position to rescue
him is someone who is on solid ground. A person mired in quicksand
cannot do much to help another in the same circumstances. Quicksand, of
course is a symbol of the world of rebirth. Solid ground is a symbol of
nirvāṇa. What this text suggests is that the only way to be effectively
beneficial to others (and hence utterly unselfish) is to attain nirvāṇa.

It is worth pointing out that there is no form of Buddhism anywhere that
does not promote nirvāṇa as the ultimate goal. The bodhisattva project
is one of leading all sentient beings to nirvāṇa, and the most effective
way to do that is said to be to first attain nirvāṇa oneself. (That is
even more important than acquiring the silly affectation of avoiding
split infinitives.) So-called Pure Land Buddhism has as its immediate
project being reborn in a happy land (sukhavatī bhūmi), but the reason
to do that is to be in a place where the conditions are ideal to attain
nirvāṇa. So when a survey of all Buddhist sectarian positions is taken,
it turns out that in the final analysis everyone agrees that achieving
nirvāṇa is the supremely selfless act. (Indeed, realizing that one is,
and always has been, selfless, is exactly what nirvāṇa consists in.)

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico