Donate

Font chữ: + A   + A   + A   + A  

Translated by Nguyên Túc
The ideals of education and methods to realize these ideals have a long history in Buddhism. Its activities are not limited to scripture halls or the dharma halls of monasteries but also to courts, public forums, and anywhere people can gather, even if it is just two people, in all human activities. Additionally, through changes over the ages and differences among nations, all are embodied in a substantial Buddhist history concerning education. However, today, this issue remains a relatively new topic for Buddhist scholars. The collision between Eastern and Western civilizations, compared to the interaction between Chinese and Indian cultures from the 1st to the 11th or 12th century, characterized by the Tang and Song dynasties and an effort spanning over ten centuries, is insignificant to the collision we witness today. Our current main difficulty is not a matter of method, as many mistakenly believe.

The contributions of Buddhist scholars in the field of European languages have proven this. The preconceptions of Buddhism’s philosophical and literary systems are no longer an impenetrable “magic spell.” In the past, how did the Chinese immediately grasp the “undercurrent” of Buddhism to implement it according to their national identity and literary and philosophical traditions? That is a vibrant experience. Despite the vast desert between Central Asia and the cold Tongling mountain range separating these two countries, with this natural and treacherous border, the average human ability could hardly overcome it on foot. Yet, these two nations managed to “sympathize” with each other. Our East and West, without such unfortunate borders, why is “sympathy” so difficult? This means that Buddhism’s difficulties, especially in education, are not due to “scientific technology” or “spiritual tradition” between the East and the West. However, if we ignore these issues, we might be prone to stepping into “metaphysics,” like a story from Zhuangzi: “You are not a fish; how do you know if the fish is happy?”

In Asian university discussions, people often mention “Western scientific techniques” and “Eastern spiritual traditions.” Then, these are taken as a mission that Asian universities must strive to demonstrate in “all the best ways.” In terms of content and intention, this point is merely a slogan, nothing more. We will not intentionally examine the effectiveness of this slogan.

We must accept that scientific technology is a unique and almost exclusive product of the West. Western philosophers of this century understand the nature of scientific technology exceptionally delicately. Suppose we fully understand one of the key propositions of Existentialism, according to which existence precedes essence. From this, we can infer that the profound nature of a particular phenomenon is immediately expressed in the means or style of reality as its particularity. This is just a general assessment. Let’s take typical examples from some philosophers about their contributions to the subject of language in modern Western philosophy. We will see what constitutes the nature of “scientific technology” and the essence of “spiritual tradition.”

Wittgenstein is a unique example; the guiding idea recorded in Tractatus is that language is the form of the world. Hence, our language’s limit is the limit of our world. This idea means that all our language methods form a particular universe or view of life. Any “unimaginable” discovery in a philosopher is not due to the unimaginable nature of his thoughts. However, his language and method of using language have enclosed him in the ivory tower of unimaginable thinking. Language is no longer an external and common entity that anyone can use at will to express what is hidden in their heart. Usually, with the question “What is this?”, we have the impression that if the word “what” is satisfied, the problem can be solved according to the general criterion of language (x,y) or E (x,y).

The problem is only satisfied by applying appropriate rules to the variables, depending on the relationship between general and specific quantities. However, when these quantities are examined in detail, they immediately reveal their “fictitious” nature, and in the end, the general criterion of language turns out to be a hypothetical proposition. Such analysis creates a feeling of disappointment with all the rules of language considered “serious” or “accurate,” and people only trust the language of poetry. Although it is not as severe and accurate as “scientific technology,” its ability to interpret reality is vibrant. Therefore, logical experimentalists in modern Western philosophy only listen to the language of music more than any philosophical or scientific proposition.

Here, we also must remember the contributions of Michel Foucault to modern linguistic philosophy. The order of language is the order of the world. That’s the main point. He named his contribution Archaeology. The diversity of thought systems can be discovered here because one can find traces of human civilization history through the ages in the history of literary development. For example, one of the difficulties philosophy professors in Vietnam today have faced when presenting the concept of L’ être or Being or Sein. Therefore, philosophy students are perplexed when Vietnamese terms do not contain these words.

Existence, beings, nature, and then natural characteristics. Because the structure of the Vietnamese language does not have these opuses, European languages have been powerless about L’ être et le temps, so with the structure of the Vietnamese language alone, we cannot understand the limit of this powerlessness. When a philosopher says: “The question of nature is the most general and most vacuous question of all questions, but at the same time, it can also be concretized and clarified in any particular nature.” This is very alien to the structure of the Vietnamese language. “Nature is the most general question…”; indeed, l’ être or être is “general” in French, not nature. The most painful thing for people is that nature cannot replace être. So, when someone says that today’s Vietnamese national disaster is deeply marked with blood and tears on “the question of nature,” it bitterly exposes the unfortunate fate of this nation haunted by the slogan “develop Western scientific technology and maintain Eastern spiritual tradition.” Such development only means transformation and self-destruction, not maintaining anything.

However, as mentioned, it is not because of trying to smoothly resolve this slogan that the activities of Buddhist thought in the field of education have faced countless difficulties. In the past, Buddhism had abandoned the characteristics of the monastic regime that had to hide in deep mountains and forests to go to places where blood and tears were shed for human life and also abandoned its Indian color to go to where life and the desire for enlightenment about the meaning of life exist. Yet, the Buddha was still a flesh-and-blood person, not a sublime deity. Therefore, developing or maintaining a cultural product is not a significant issue that can be interpreted as a slogan or a brand. It is fire; one can only put a sign far away, not right in the heart. That fire, once kindled, illuminates the deepest desires in man’s heart so that one can clearly see what one wants in this life.

Anyway, no one can ignore the achievements of Western scientific technology, with its pragmatic nature for the essential needs of life, which has dramatically impacted all areas of the modern world. Specifically, the organizational structure of society, even in Vietnam, in recent years, the Buddhist Church has faced severe crises. The main reason must be acknowledged as the intractable problem between the principles of social, organizational structure, and spiritual tradition. That is, we still have to be heavily pressured by the slogan of development and maintenance, balancing scientific technology and spiritual practice. This tradition has undoubtedly been fundamentally transformed when incorporated into the organizational principles originating from the Western worldview and perspective on life or, more clearly, of science and the pragmatic nature of science. Some Western Buddhist scholars researching the organization of the Buddhist monastic community have expressed surprise. By some principle, the monastic community has overcome the crises that should have divided it, as the problem occurred and resulted in more than twenty Buddhist sects. Then, when Mahayana Buddhism emerged, the ideological conflict became even more evident. However, one still sees one thing: the monastic community’s life was not divided; the church still followed a single form known as original. There is Mahayana thought, but there has never been a Mahayana church; the monastics still had to live according to the original pure precepts.

Some details were modified due to geographical or temporal circumstances. For example, in cold climates like China, the practice of alms begging is challenging to implement according to the original, or it is impossible to ban food storage overnight wholly. Today, the organization of the Church in Vietnam no longer takes the original pure precepts as a guiding principle but is based on the Western division of powers. This form is transforming the “spiritual tradition” in some aspects. For example, the four parajikas, considered the life of the monastic structure, are gradually losing their importance. Some monks, influenced by analytical thinking, explained the parajikas somewhat strangely in the past. This situation is becoming a reality, and people can only “legitimize” the “after the fact” events. The internal situation is much more complicated than our current ability, so we cannot go into details.

Above all, the achievements of Western scientific techniques, with their pragmatic nature towards the essential needs of life, have cast a heavy shadow on the minds of those striving to maintain the ‘effectiveness’ of spiritual traditions. Consequently, people also demand that methods such as meditation, for example, be effective like any other scientific outcome.

Thus, if science can reduce or eliminate certain calamities of everyday life, people also expect meditation to have at least equivalent if not superior, efficacy. In the past, when someone pursued meditation, the teacher demanded they abandon any ‘practical’ desires in meditation. If everyday life is improved through contemplation, avoiding some misfortunes like illnesses, it should be considered a ‘natural’ result, a dependent aspect, not the purpose. One was not allowed to learn meditation to survive through the days, to live a life without misfortune. Suddenly, this notion is deemed unrealistic.

An interesting anecdote recounts that when the Buddha was preparing to cross a river by ferry, he met a hermit who challenged him, with the efficacy of his meditation practice, to cross the river without a ferry; only then would it prove spiritual progress. The Buddha said he only needed a few small, easily obtained coins to cross the river, so why waste a part of his meditation life? Indeed, assessing spiritual energy based on practical efficacy creates an illusion beyond all illusions, yet this is still considered attractive!

This is our difficulty. Whether today or in the past, people have always demanded that truth be tested by practical efficacy. Therefore, a perfect education system must demonstrate its effectiveness to satisfy the learners’ needs. Instead of opening paths into a vibrant spiritual world, people have turned back to meet the lower needs of the learners. They sow seeds of insecurity and fear before a certain future. Terms like “survival,” “extinction,” etc., are hypothetical propositions that increase fear. But they also have a tremendous motivating power, outlining paths to follow. Just like a political candidate was threatening voters with dark visions of tomorrow if not chosen.

Similarly, an educational path is chosen to be progressive and preserving, advancing yet not losing its roots. In extreme cases, Buddhism has always chosen the former approach, whether progress or preservation. The root of humanity lies in the human heart, so no matter how far it progresses with one’s soul, there is nothing called loss. Familiar sayings like “lay down the butcher’s knife, become a Buddha on the spot” or “the sea of suffering is boundless, turn back and see the shore”.

The above only refers to a few ideas, called peripheral. Because the focus of the four words Duy Tuệ Thị Nghiệp (Solely Wisdom Is the Profession) has been distorted so that Tuệ here means academic knowledge, including “techniques,” “methods,” indicates the slogan developing scientific techniques and maintaining spiritual traditions.

    « Xem chương trước «      « Sách này có 4 chương »

_______________

MUA THỈNH KINH SÁCH PHẬT HỌC

DO NXB LIÊN PHẬT HỘI PHÁT HÀNH

Donate

Thành viên đang online:
Viên Hiếu Thành Huệ Lộc 1959 Bữu Phước Chúc Huy Minh Pháp Tự minh hung thich Diệu Âm Phúc Thành Phan Huy Triều Phạm Thiên Trương Quang Quý Johny Dinhvinh1964 Pascal Bui Vạn Phúc Giác Quý Trần Thị Huyền Chanhniem Forever NGUYỄN TRỌNG TÀI KỲ Dương Ngọc Cường Mr. Device Tri Huynh Thích Nguyên Mạnh Thích Quảng Ba T TH Tam Thien Tam Nguyễn Sĩ Long caokiem hoangquycong Lãn Tử Ton That Nguyen ngtieudao Lê Quốc Việt Du Miên Quang-Tu Vu phamthanh210 An Khang 63 zeus7777 Trương Ngọc Trân Diệu Tiến ... ...

Việt Nam (251 lượt xem) - Hoa Kỳ (16 lượt xem) - Senegal (13 lượt xem) - Đức quốc (3 lượt xem) - Saudi Arabia (3 lượt xem) - Nga (2 lượt xem) - Hungary (1 lượt xem) - ... ...