A few Westerners’ misconceptions about Buddhism: An encapsulated commentary
Posted_Date
Image
Body
Vesak Day 2026 has been commemorated mainly in Buddhist-majority countries in recent days.
This article deals with a few misunderstandings and misconceptions of certain basic doctrines of Buddhism made by a few Western personages.
Father Sangermano’s Misunderstanding
Father Vincenzo Sangermano (22 April 1758-28 July 1819) was a Catholic priest who lived in what was then the Kingdom of Burma from 1783 to 1806. His book A Description of the Burmese Empire was published posthumously in Italian and later translated into English. The revised English translation was published in 1883.
There are quite a few comments made by Sangermano about Buddhist doctrine. I will mention only a few misstatements that the Barnaby priest made.
The first statement Sangermano made was that Gautama Buddha was a ‘God’ (or at least the Burmese Buddhist considered the Buddha as a ‘God’). That is incorrect. In canonical Buddhism, the concept of Creator/God is rejected. Ancient India of 2,500 years ago had religious sects or doctrines which postulated the concept of a Creator. Hinduism also has the Concept of Creator, Preserver and Destroyer.
Canonical Buddhism had no such doctrine. The ancient Indian concept of Creator significantly, if not radically, differed from those of the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam, with its ‘only begotten Son’ (Christianity) and ‘Prophet/Prophets’ (Islam as well as aspects of Christianity). The (mis) attribution of the (Abrahamic) concept of ‘God’ in that the Buddhists considered Gautama Buddha as a ‘God’ was a categorical mistake of Sangermano.
Sangermano also misstated that Gautama Buddha, after his (His) meditative practices, obtained ‘divinity’. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (9th edition) defines ‘divinity’ (among others) as ‘the quality of being a God or like God: the divinity of Christ’. After six years of ascetic and meditative practice, Gautama Buddha achieved ‘enlightenment’, not ‘divinity’ as stated by Sangermano.
Sangermano also wrote that according to the Burmese Doctors (Sangermano’s words: he apparently meant Burmese learned religious scholars of his time in the late 18th and early 19th century), the Buddha went through 410,000 world systems before obtaining enlightenment. Here Sangermano may have underestimated the numerous lives Gautama Buddha or other Buddhas have to go through and the efforts the embryo Buddhas had to make before obtaining enlightenment.
The transliterated Burmese phrase lay thin chay hnint kabar ta thein proximately (so to speak) is about four trillion and one hundred thousand world systems. An anthropologist and Burma scholar, Melford Spiro (26 April 1920-14 October 2014) wrote in his book Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes that a world system, according to Buddhist metaphysics, lasts much longer than the sun’s death in modern astronomy (about five billion years from the current time)!
Sangermano’s statement that the Buddha was a ‘God’ and that the Buddha obtained ‘divinity’ can be described as his misunderstanding of canonical, doctrinal Buddhist doctrines. The 410,000 (sic, as stated by Sangermano) world systems as well as the four trillion and 100,000 world systems (sic), I opine, belong to supposed Buddhist metaphysics and Buddhist folklore.
Two critiques (rather than full misstatements) on Buddhism by Lin Yu Tang and Somerset Maugham
In his best seller, but to yours truly overrated, The Importance of Living (first published 1938) the author Lin Yutang (10 October 1895- 26 March 1976) in one of his comments wrote thus:
QUOTE
There are several views of mankind: the traditional Christian theological view, the Greek pagan view, and the Chinese-Taoist Confucianist view. (I do not include the Buddhist view because it is so sad.)
UNQUOTE
Though arguably based on or even if Lin Yutang’s view of the ‘sad Buddhist view’ is a misstatement, it is not as wrong or misconceived as those made by Sangermano. It can perhaps be stated (with some indulgence) that Yutang is entitled to his opinion. With that, I will dismiss Yutang’s dismissive opinion of Buddhism.
William Somerset Maugham (25 January 1874-16 December 1965) published The Gentleman in the Parlour: A Record of a Journey from Rangoon to Haiphong in 1930. He had a few comments on Buddhism as well. I do not have a copy of the book currently. From my firm memory, he commented to the effect that ‘just because a rose, in due course, wilts and dies’, why shouldn’t people enjoy the beauty of the rose while it blooms. The implication was: it is true that people (or some people) aged, got sick, and all eventually die, why should they not enjoy the ordinary pleasures of life before sickness, old age, disease and eventually, inevitably death takes place? This, I recall, was Maugham’s critique of (in essence) the Buddhist concept of Dukkha (Pali language: roughly, ‘suffering’, being awry, see below). Again, one should grant that Maugham was entitled to his opinion.
Pope John Paul II’s misunderstanding (if not distortion): the statement that Buddhism considers the world as ‘evil’
In his Crossing the Threshold of Hope (first published 1994), Pope John Paul II (as he then was, later ‘Saint John Paul II’) (18 May 1920-2 April 2005) stated that ‘Buddhism considers the world as evil’. Like his common co-religionist Sangermano’s remarks of 180 years ago, the Pope was, if not ingloriously wrong then greatly mistaken.
Perhaps the misinformed Pope mistook, misinterpreted or perhaps distorted the Pali word Dukkha as ‘evil’. Dukkha has been ‘proximately’ translated as ‘suffering’, and all the English translations use the word ‘suffering’ to connote Dukkha. A former Catholic nun and author, Karen Armstrong (born 14 November 1944), stated in one of her books that Dukkha can also be translated as the state of being ‘awry’. That definition or exposition may also not fully capture the essence of Dukkha.
In the first of Four Noble Truths of Buddhism the following sentence (in translation and elaboration) appears: ‘One could wish that the suffering of birth, the suffering of old age, the suffering of physical and mental pain and sickness, the suffering arising from having to part from loved ones, the suffering of having to deal, to stay with unloved, hateful persons should not happen to me but that wish cannot, ought not be fulfilled is also suffering’.
In his novel Creation (first published 1981), Gore Vidal (3 October 1925-31 2012), using one of his characters in the historical novel, explained the above exposition by saying ‘Not getting what you want is suffering, getting what you want is also suffering’. Vidal, I submit, perceived an aspect of Buddhism better than Pope John Paul II did.
Is Buddhism the ‘search for
the good’?
All the above comments from Sangermano (early 19th century), Maugham (1930), Lin Yutang (1938), and Pope John Paul II (1994) were written records.
In 1982, a Michigan Law School classmate (we were in the same class in one subject), now a distinguished scholar and law Professor in the United States, mentioned to me that ‘Buddhism (in his opinion) is a search for the good’. Compared with Pope John Paul II’s comment that ‘Buddhism considers the world as evil’, it is somewhat more satisfying.
Still, can Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam also be designated in the generic rather than the philosophical, theological sense of the word as ‘search for the good’? Partly yes and partly ‘no’? The definition of what is ‘good’ or ‘the highest good’, summum bonum, may be different among different religions, perhaps even among various sects of the same religion.
In the third Noble Truth of Buddhism, Nibbana (Pali), Nirvana (Sanskrit), is the summum bonum of Buddhism. Without defining or elaborating on this highest good in Buddhism, the fourth Noble Truth laid down the eight-fold noble path to reach that goal. They are: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Buddhism may be the search for the good both intra- religiously and generically. Concomitantly, it also stipulates, exhorts, recommends rather than commands (contra the Ten Commandments) that Buddhists try to practice them not only in the ‘search for the good’ but to obtain the ‘good’ which in the Buddhist context is Nibbana.
Among the personages (so to speak) who had commented on Buddhism publicly in writing, only Lin Yutang, who was born in China, can be described (in part) as a non- Westerner. But Lin Yutang was largely trained in the West. He indeed had introduced Chinese philosophical thought and Chinese literature to the West. But his dismissive comment that he would not include the Buddhist view of mankind because it is so sad cannot be discerned in other more (shall we say) understanding Westerners like Maugham, Vidal, especially Karen Armstrong and my anonymous former classmate.
In his 1966 book Social Dimensions of Law and Justice, jurist Julius Stone (7 July 1907-3 September 1985), writing as a bourgeois social scientist, stated that in observing Marxist and Soviet legal theory as an outsider, ‘the doors of cognition could forever be barred’. Resorting to legal Latin a fortiori (‘all the more so’), the doors of cognition in matters of religious concepts, especially to those who wear or have blinkers (like Father Sangermano and Pope John Paul II), may be ‘forever barred’. For those who are more open-minded, cognition, even some understanding, perhaps somewhat better than ‘through a glass darkly’ (1 Corinthians 13:12) can be achieved in cross-cultural and cross-religious discourse.
gnlm
