Comparing Buddhism with Other Philosophies Is Beneficial for Understanding and Practicing the Ultimate Aim
When it comes to Buddhist philosophy and other philosophies, only through comparison can we truly understand their differences and learn how to make proper choices. People often say that comparison between individuals leads to harm, but philosophical comparison causes no harm at all; on the contrary, it teaches us discernment and selection.
The Jātaka or the White Lotus recount stories of the Buddha’s previous lives as a Bodhisattva, such as cutting flesh to feed an eagle, sacrificing his body to feed a tiger, leaping from a rooftop, and even allowing himself to be pierced by a thousand nails in pursuit of the Dharma. In these Jātaka stories, the Buddha recounts that in one of his past lives he encountered a Buddha and was overwhelmed with awe, feeling it to be supremely extraordinary. He then joined his palms, stood on one leg, and remained thus for seven days, reciting a verse in praise of the Buddha:
“Above and below the heavens, none is like the Buddha;
Throughout the ten directions, none can compare.
Of all that exists in the world that I have seen,
None whatsoever is equal to the Buddha.”
This verse means that no matter where, and no matter who, nothing is as supreme as the Buddha—hence the line, “Of all that exists in the world that I have seen, none is equal to the Buddha.” Although every Buddhist recites these words, venerates the Buddha, and regards him as extraordinary, do we truly know why? When Śākyamuni Buddha was just born, he took seven steps in each of the four directions; with every step, a lotus flower blossomed.
Then, pointing one hand to the sky and the other to the earth, he declared: “Above heaven and below heaven, I alone am the Honored One.” Upon hearing the phrase “I alone am the Honored One,” we immediately think of emperors, kings, or extremely arrogant individuals. Yet the “I” in Śākyamuni Buddha’s statement does not refer to a personal self; it refers to dharmatā—the nature of reality. Above and below heaven, there is only one thing: dharmatā, that is, emptiness (śūnyatā).
“In the ten directions, none is equal to the Buddha” does not refer to the Buddha’s external appearance. Although, compared with ordinary people, the Buddha’s form was indeed magnificent—his manifested body possessing the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor characteristics—it still had to pass away. Moreover, for non-Buddhists or adherents of other paths, the Buddha they perceived did not necessarily appear with those thirty-two marks.
For example, in Rājagṛha, many non-Buddhists went to see the Buddha and later remarked, “They say the Buddha is so extraordinary, a great awakened one, yet he looks like an old bhikṣu with nine ugly features.” Thus it is said: if there is a Buddha in one’s mind, everything one sees is Buddha; if one’s mind is filled with filth, everything one sees is filth; if the mind is ugly, then even the Buddha appears ugly. In other words, the ‘Buddha’ spoken of here does not refer to outward appearance, but to dharmatā.
The “Buddha” referred to in the line “none whatsoever is equal to the Buddha” also points to dharmatā. So what, ultimately, is the true Buddha—this dharmatā? This is the fundamental reality sought by all non-Buddhist paths, including other Eastern and Western philosophies. By “Eastern philosophy” here, we mean the philosophical views held by Daoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and others apart from Buddhism. What Buddhists call “dharmatā” is, in fact, Buddhism’s fundamental cognition of the world—that is, its understanding of the world’s ultimate aim and ultimate nature.
Therefore, the “Buddha” referred to in the phrase “Above and below heaven, none is like the Buddha” does not point to an external appearance. If it were merely an appearance, the statement would not hold, because it might be true for Buddhists but not for others. Why is this so? When people view outward forms, what operates is not philosophical truth but subjective discrimination: some see things one way, others see them another way. From a philosophical standpoint, however, the ultimate foundation of the world must be valid for everyone.
“Above and below heaven, none is like the Buddha” means that the Buddhist view is the highest, and that only the Buddha represents the true fundamental purpose of the world. To arrive at such a conclusion, comparison is indispensable.
If we do not compare, and simply assert this claim from the outset, on what grounds could it be justified? Through comparison between Buddhist philosophy and other philosophies, we come to see the excellence of the Buddhadharma. We are able to discern the flaws and shortcomings of non-Buddhist systems, to see where they lack completeness and internal coherence—problems that do not exist in Buddhism. This is the first reason for comparing Buddhist philosophy with other philosophical traditions.
What, then, is the second reason? Through such comparison, we are able to identify the core purpose of Buddhism and understand precisely where its excellence lies. In the process of comparison, we discover where Western philosophy falls short, and where other Eastern philosophies differ from Buddhism. As a result, our understanding of the Buddha’s ultimate intent—emptiness and tathāgatagarbha—becomes deeper and more precise. This is extremely beneficial for practice and for attaining the most fundamental wisdom, namely ultimate wisdom.
If one’s understanding is mistaken, it is impossible to establish an accurately realized view; and without such a view, enlightenment is obviously unlikely. Of course, there are indeed some people who have attained awakening, yet their expression of ultimate reality may not be entirely complete. Why is this so? Because their awakening did not arise through studying doctrine or cultivating one-sided emptiness step by step; rather, it may have occurred through reliance on a teacher who was genuinely accomplished.
Due to their deep faith in the teacher—and the teacher’s exceptional skill in instruction—the disciple was led, through special methods, to directly recognize ultimate reality, the true nature of mind. After awakening, however, since they never studied doctrine, they are unable to articulate what they realized using doctrinal language, and can only explain it in their own words. As a result, those who have studied Buddhist teachings may feel that something sounds off, though in truth this is merely a problem of expression.
Therefore, some individuals are genuine realized beings, yet they are unable to teach in a broad sense because they possess realization without doctrine; teaching and realization are not complete together. In other words, the corresponding realization has arisen in them, but they have not mastered the doctrinal frameworks, terminology, and characteristics needed to explain these realizations—that is, the system required to communicate with ordinary people.
Consequently, they are unable to engage in extensive philosophical debate. This does not prevent them from teaching their own disciples in their own way, but it does mean that such realized teachers usually do not have many disciples. Since they must communicate in a highly personal manner, it would be impossible to address a large number of students one by one. To teach on a large scale, however, one must thoroughly understand doctrine; otherwise, those who have studied doctrine will not be convinced.
In any case, comparing the Buddhist philosophy we study with other religious and philosophical systems brings tremendous benefits to both our understanding of the ultimate aim and our spiritual practice.
—Excerpted and edited from Buddhadharma and Eastern–Western Philosophy (Part One)
This article is a preliminary translation draft and has not yet been reviewed or proofread by the speaker.
