Sam Forbes
19033 22nd Ave NW
Shoreline, WA 98177
sforbes@u.washington.edu
Emanuel Swedenborg’s Divine Providence:
A Buddhist’s Perspective
The Christian theologian, Emanuel Swedenborg, wrote Divine Providence in 1764. As I read his work, I thought something was amiss. His ideas seemed oddly familiar. As I poured through several books on the shelf in my apartment, my suspicions were confirmed. No doubt he would have been astonished, as I was, to see his ideas clearly established about 700 years earlier – in Buddhist Tibet. In a section titled “Providence and Human Prudence,” Swedenborg writes on the idea of what he calls “self-love”: “Self-love by nature regards self only and others as cheap or of no account,” (Swedenborg, 206.1). Swedenborg goes on to explain why this is the cause of much, if not all evil in the world. It is clear to Swedenborg that with self-love comes greed, selfishness, and jealousy along with the harmful actions these produce. Although on the surface the concept of self-love may seem theoretical or purely religious, it is not. It has real-world consequences and creates tremendous injustice and suffering.
In the 11th century, Atisha (982 – 1054), an Indian Buddhist master who traveled to Tibet, founded a lineage of teachings there on training the mind, known in Tibetan as “Lojong.” At their very core, these teachings are about abandoning completely what Swedenborg would have called “self-love.” Often translated as “self-cherishing” when rendered in English, many, many texts over hundreds of years in Tibet analyzed and developed meditations designed to identify and completely destroy this “demon” within the mind. Such meditations include taking and giving, equalizing and exchanging self with others, wishing love, great compassion, and the emptiness of persons. By doing so, Tibetan meditation masters in the past and present have been able to develop incredibly altruistic and compassionate states of consciousness – what Swedenborg would have called “neighborly love” as mentioned in his text – because they no longer “regard others as cheap or of no account,” in Swedenborg’s words. In fact, this effect is precisely what Swedenborg describes: “On the removal of self-love the Lord enters with the affections of neighborly love…” (Swedenborg, 207).
In his modern commentary to Geshe Chekawa’s (1102 – 1176) famous Lojong text, “Training the Mind in Seven Points”, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso writes,
“all sufferings and difficulties can be traced back to one source, the self-cherishing mind… it is this mind alone that we should blame for all our troubles. Because we cherish ourself we naturally want all the good things in life, and to obtain them we engage in selfish actions… there is not a single fault that is not caused by self-cherishing,” (Gyatso,
17).
In another modern commentary to the same root text by Geshe Chekawa, Geshe Rabten writes:
“We must recognize that all our faults and problems are actually within us. The principle cause of them is the ignorant self-cherishing attitude that narrows our attention to only one person: our own self… our self-cherishing attitude – the enemy – allows us time for only brief and comparatively unsympathetic thoughts for the numberless beings who
have greater misfortunes than we,” (Rabten, 57)
The parallels with Swedenborg’s later observations are incredible. He writes that “A devil is such, for he is self-love itself…” In a Tibetan offering ceremony, or “puja” known as “Lama Chopa,” (translated as “Offering to the Spiritual Guide” in English) one verse reads,
“Seeing that this chronic disease of cherishing myself
Is the cause that leads to unwanted suffering,
I seek your blessings to destroy this great demon of selfishness
By resenting it as the object of blame.” (Gyatso, 21) (emphasis added)
We can see here that both Swedenborg and the Buddhists of Tibet see self-love or self-cherishing as a great evil, a demon or devil that harms us internally. However, there are key differences.
One of these essential differences is the notion of guilt and blame. In Swedenborg’s text, there appears to be a clear idea that self-love is one’s own fault; it is an error made through the conscious choice to stray from the will of God. Because this path is chosen freely, it is one’s own fault. For Tibetan Lojong practitioners, self-cherishing is not viewed as one’s fault. In fact, there is no notion of guilt in Tibetan Buddhism. Instead, self-cherishing is viewed as a bad habit of sorts that continually harms sentient beings from the inside out. Self-cherishing is likened to a disease of the mind. Just as it is not one’s fault to suffer from a flu when the virus has entered the body, so when someone suffers from attachment, hatred, jealousy, ignorance and so forth, it is not their fault, it is the fault of their internal virus of self-cherishing. What is most important is not to blame oneself or others, but rather to cure the disease. Thus, when Buddhists say that self-cherishing is the object of blame, they are blaming the disease, not the person.
In Swedenborg’s text he also writes of the evils created by self-cherishing, or self-love. For example, he writes that one who is riddled with self-love, “adores himself and favors no one unless he also adores him; another devil like himself he hates, because he in turn wants alone to be adored.” What Swedenborg is saying in this instance is that self-love, or selfishness, is the direct cause of jealousy. This jealousy can cause great harm when this mind is acted on. Similarly, in Tibetan Lojong texts, jealousy along with many other delusions, or mental afflictions arise from self-cherishing. In some texts, six root and twenty secondary delusions are listed, although this is a limited list. In some ceremonies the number four-hundred and four is mentioned. Finally, it is sometimes said that each and every one of Buddha Shakyamuni’s 84,000 teachings is a cure to a specific mental poison.
So, some questions may arise. We may wonder: “How is this knowledge practical? How does it relate to justice? Why does it matter?” If we simply go along with what Swedenborg and the Tibetan geshes claim, we can understand that self-love or self-cherishing leads to horrible injustice, conflict, and pain in our world. It could be argued, without difficulty, that every injustice we see in our world has, as its root, self-cherishing, selfishness. Now, this is quite a claim, but with some reflection on our own mind and the minds we see in the world, essentially on our day to day experience, what we read in the newspaper and so forth, this destructive force will appear all around us. It will appear, not because it is something new, but rather because we have not noticed it until now.
In the other texts we have read in this class, for example Oedipus Rex, we can see very clearly this mind of selfishness at work. From the very beginning of the storyline, self-cherishing causes untold problems. After hearing the prophecy of the Delphic oracle, Oedipus’ parents’ first reaction is to kill the baby. Why? Because they cherish themselves, because they value their own lives over the life of the innocent baby, “fixing” the problem by piercing the ankles of the child and leaving him on a mountainside makes perfect sense. As implied earlier, this action is not the fault of the parents, it is the fault of their disease of self-cherishing.
When Oedipus is run off the road and decides that the best course of action is to kill all those present, again, it is the fault of his self-cherishing. After being struck by the goad, he becomes angry. Why? Although becoming angry may seem like a natural reaction when attacked, in reality it is not. In Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, the Buddhist master Shantideva gives a logical argument why this is so. According to Shantideva, it is appropriate only to become angry with the anger within the attacker’s mind, not the attacker himself. This is because the assailant was wielded by this poison within his mind. He was not in control of his mind and thus not in control of his actions. It is only because Oedipus cherishes and seeks to protect his own self, or I, that he becomes angered. He feels that “I am being harmed! They are hurting me!” As will be explained later, this view is unrealistic, as the self or I, according to Buddhists at least, does not exist in the way we perceive it. When Oedipus kills, it is because he grasps at the selves of his “attackers” as inherently existent, as somehow separate from himself, different from himself. In Buddhism, anger is defined as a mind that “observes a contaminated object, exaggerates its bad qualities, feels the object to be unpleasant, and wishes to harm it,” (Gyatso). Clearly Oedipus is exhibiting these symptoms; his mind is doing this. He views his attackers as inherently existent, inherently bad or evil and wishes to harm them, which he does. This is also very clearly linked to the Delphic oracle’s sign “Know Thyself.” Oedipus does not know himself. Actually, to be more accurate, he does not know, he does not understand his own mind. He cannot see that his mind, like all our minds at present, is diseased.
What are some modern examples of injustice? Well, the examples are endless, but let us take some of the most horrific that have manifested recently. Genocide, for example, has as it’s root self-cherishing. How? Because people cherish themselves, their own welfare, and their own interests, they are able to slaughter thousands of people as we saw in Rwanda, for example. Only a mind with no concern for others can cause one to cut the limb off another. Because self-cherishing leads to disregard for the welfare of others, whoever gets in the way, has a slightly different colour to their skin, or has different religious views will be considered somehow less than human, less than oneself, and so killing becomes a reasonable, if not rational choice to one who is totally enveloped in this mind of selfishness.
In all wars, we can see how the collective self-cherishing of the nations involved separate self and other, thus creating an us-vs-them scenario, which can only lead to hatred and pain. In the US, many regard Middle Eastern terrorists as evil, in the Middle East, many regard US occupation forces as evil, but in both cases we are just human beings who share this one little planet. Unfortunately, however, we also share this mind of self-cherishing. It is our self-cherishing that makes these distinctions of good and bad. It is our self-cherishing that is the real “object of blame” as Geshe Chekawa wrote, and it is our self-cherishing that is the real evil in the world, manipulating us to create horrible nightmares here on earth.
Tibetans prescribe a very exhaustive, logical and even rational remedy to rid the world of this mind, recognizing the harm it creates. This remedy, likened to a panacea in some texts, is the doctrine of emptiness. Buddhists not only see self-cherishing as a problem, it is the problem, that is, it is the main “object of abandonment,” the main mind that obstructs the attainment of enlightenment. According to Buddhism, the mind of self-cherishing arises from self-grasping, a mind that believes that the self, or I, exists inherently, from its own side and under its own power without depending on anything else. According to the Madhyamika-Prasangika school, this belief is a mistake, a huge mistake as nothing exists in this way. According to this school, everything is empty, or lacks inherent existence; in short there is no I, no self that exists from its own side. If the self or I existed within our body or mind, it could be found through a thorough investigation of our aggregates, but if one conducts such an investigation, the self cannot and will never be found. Self-cherishing is foolish because it cherishes a non-existent, kind of like taking great care to provide for and defend an imaginary friend! Instead, things exist as mere names imputed upon collections of causes and conditions. Thus, our self-cherishing is not only destructive, it does not accord with reality.
Tibetan geshes of the past and present prescribe other methods, or meditations, to rid the spiritual aspirant of this mind. Many, many methods are described, all falling within the realm of Lojong. The main meditations within this practice include: equalizing and exchanging self with others, great compassion, wishing love, taking and giving, and the correct view of the emptiness of persons (as was already described). These meditations not only rid the mind of selfishness, they also direct the mind outward, totally outward so that eventually the aspirant loses all self-concern and is only concerned with others.
The first meditation, equalizing and exchanging self with others begins with contemplating the equality of self and others. We are all equal in the sense that all of us desire happiness and freedom from suffering. Intuitively this makes sense, but instinctively it does not. We instinctively feel that we are somehow more important than others, although we would probably never declare this to be so. Again, this is directly related to self-cherishing. Because we instinctively feel we are more precious than others, and because this mind causes so many problems, the first step is to convince ourselves, deep down, that everyone is as important and precious as we are. Exchanging self with others takes this a step further and actually places more value on others than on ourself. This is much more difficult and seems to go against our sense of equality. However, this is an important step to abandoning self-cherishing because, as was explained, this self that we cling to doesn’t exist. Also, this is again a logical step, as there are countless other sentient beings, whereas we ourself are only one person. If we create a mental scale, we can see that the importance or “weight” of countless living beings is much greater than the value of our own self.
This meditation, or even this knowledge would have been of great use to Oedipus in Oedipus Rex. Part of the reason that he is so compelled to find the truth regarding his own origins, despite warnings again and again from his companions is because his “value scale” is out of whack. He places much higher value on himself, the truth of his origins and his own knowledge than on the lives of his family. Because of his unbridled search for his own origins, his mother commits suicide and his children begotten by her are doomed to a life of shame. We should feel empathy for Oedipus and may even feel that he was right to pursue the truth about his past, however it is important to see that his search had some unfortunate, even tragic consequences.
The Buddhist idea of actions and their consequences, or effects, is known as “karman” in Sanskrit (often referred to simply as “karma”). Buddhist ideas on karma might have been seen as heretical in the eyes of Swedenborg. Swedenborg emphasized that a person could not possibly rely on himself or herself, writing, “Those who have acknowledged nature alone and human prudence alone make up hell…” (Swedenborg 205). By this, Swedenborg means that one must acknowledge God in order to make correct judgments, “If they were judges, they pervert judgment and exercise power over the laws. If there were learned, they apply scientific information to confirm nature and man’s proprium.” Upon his death, or parinirvana, Buddha Shakyamuni said that his disciples must rely on themselves to attain enlightenment. In his teachings on karma, he taught that every action we perform, and every intention we create, produces effects. This is very much like a science; Buddhism is even referred to as “the science of the mind.” Finally, in one sutra, Buddha warned that one should not accept any of his teachings blindly, but rather that they must conform to one’s experience of the world. There is no “blind faith” in Buddhism. So in these instances regarding the ability of a person to govern himself or herself, his or her actions and his or her own destiny, we see many contradictions.
It may be impossible to reconcile these contradictions, that is, it may not be possible to connect the two schools of thought on this subject. Although there are many, many similarities between Swedenborg’s ideas and those of the Tibetan geshes, some differences will require strenuous, if not questionable effort to make connections between the schools on the matter of choice and the ability to govern oneself, if such a reconciliation is even desirable. In fact, such a connection may not be desirable, as it may stretch the message and truths of these religions beyond their intended meaning. Part of what adds to the cultural flavor of religions and people are these different ways of looking at the world.
Nevertheless, I feel it still holds that there are fascinating and undeniable similarities between Swedenborg’s thought and the teachings of Lojong, training the mind. The idea that self-love or self-cherishing leads to suffering, for me, is an obvious truth that we can see clearly when our eyes open to its meaning and how it is intertwined, almost inseparably with our world. These theories are not simply religious speculation but are clearly developed in both the writings we have dealt with in this class, as well as in the rest of the world. Self-cherishing is a deeply rooted problem in the mind. If we can come to understand this, we can make true meaning of the words “Know Thyself.”
