Recently, at a friend's recommendation, I began reading the international best seller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. This monumental work compactly summarizes the special features of each era of human history since the emergence of Homo sapiens. I was overwhelmed by the author's clarity and erudition.

But his discussion of Buddhism set me thinking, and I stopped reading. I was perplexed by the feeling that, when the author reached Buddhism, the depth and breadth of his knowledge and the lucidity of his argument came to an abrupt stop.

Harari misunderstands Buddhism. But before discussing what it is about Buddhism that he misunderstands, let me summarize the author's thoughts on religion.

Harari describes religion as "the third great unifier of humankind, alongside money and empires." He then defines religion as "a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order," and claims this involves two distinct criteria:

• 1. "Religions hold that there is a superhuman order."
• 2. "Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers binding." He goes on to state, "In order to unite under its aegis a large expanse of territory inhabited by disparate groups of human groups, a religion... must be universal and missionary."

Based on the above statements, Harari divides religions into two types: religions centered on gods and other supernatural entities, and religions without gods based on natural laws.

The former includes animism, polytheism, dualistic religions centered on the opposition of good and evil or God and the Devil, and the monotheism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Monotheism, however, has become a world religion under the guise of syncretism, accepting elements of both polytheism and dualism and combining some of their rituals and practices. In that sense, Harari says, "Syncretism might, in fact, be the single great world religion."

Buddhism is a prime example of a religion that disregards gods and adheres to the law of nature. The author explains Buddhism as follows: "He [Gautama, the Buddha] encapsulated his teachings in a single law: suffering arises from craving; the only way to be fully liberated from suffering is to be fully liberated from craving; and the only way to be liberated from craving is to train the mind to experience reality as it is. " Since "that 'suffering arises from craving' is always and everywhere true,... if the mind of a person is free of all craving, no god can make him miserable. Conversely, once craving arises in a person's mind, all the gods in the universe cannot save him from suffering. " The only way to be saved is the "set of meditation techniques that train the mind" developed by Gautama.

The author concludes that Gautama's enlightenment resides in a method of discovering and overcoming cravings, the intense thirst-like impulses that govern the workings of the mind.

As mentioned earlier, Harari defined religion as "a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order" and classified it into theist religions and natural-law religions. In addition, he claims that although modern liberalism, Communism, capitalism, democracy, and Nazism "refer to themselves as ideologies,... this is just a semantic exercise" and these are "new natural-law religions."

"Soviet Communism was a fanatical and missionary religion. A devout Communist could not be a Christian or a Buddhist, and was expected to spread the gospel of Marx and Lenin even at the price of his or her life." In other words, its doctrines were universal and powerfully proselytized.

Thus, "Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam." But "Islam sees the superhuman order governing the world as the edict of an omnipotent creator god, whereas Soviet Communism did not believe in gods." Buddhism is classified as a religion even though it disregards gods. Communists, then, like Buddhists, believe in a superhuman order-namely, the immutable laws of nature that should guide human behavior. For that reason, Harari classifies and discusses Communism and Buddhism as similar religions or ideologies.

The author adds that "some readers may feel very uncomfortable with this line of reasoning"; I am one of those readers.

One reason I feel uncomfortable is that Harari limits the essence of the Buddha's enlightenment to the role of "cravings," a form of mental behavior dominated by an impulse that

resembles intense thirst. As we will see later in more detail, the essence of enlightenment is not an understanding of cravings nor is it limited to a form of mental behavior.

My second source of discomfort is that Harari makes no reference whatsoever to the particulars of Buddhist controversies from a historical perspective. Both monotheism and Communism have an inhumane history of constantly slaughtering tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people over doctrinal or exegetical differences. Buddhism, too, has had hundreds of years of disputes over doctrinal differences, but Sapiens does not mention the fact that there is not a single instance of Buddhists ever killing each other over them. The author lacks fairness in this matter.

In what follows I will discuss in detail the first source of my discomfort, that of limiting the Buddha's enlightenment to overcoming the workings of the mind-namely, cravings.

The essence of the Buddha's enlightenment has been the subject of controversy among Buddhist sects for hundreds of years. Cravings are a strong instinctive attachment to or longing for an object and were likened to "thirst" from the meaning of the original Sanskrit word. In early Buddhist scriptures, craving is considered to be the source of suffering, and one such scripture, the Samyutta nikaya [Connected discourses], contains the phrase that nirvana is attained by abandoning cravings, according to a Buddhist dictionary.

Although this idea relates to the Buddha's important teachings, it is not his enlightenment itself. The Buddha talked about the intense workings of the mind as one of the major causes of suffering, but it is just one conclusion by one Buddhist sect about the meaning of enlightenment. And it is the wrong conclusion.

The enlightenment that the Buddha achieved is the doctrine of dependent arising. Dependent arising means "to arise through a dependence on causal conditions"-in other words, that everything that comes into being is dependent on certain causes or conditions to do so, and thus the sufferings of existence repeatedly arise, change, and cease to be as a result of such dependence. The Buddha did not preach this as a truth that pertains only of the human heart. He preached it as an absolute truth that pervades the whole of creation and all vital phenomena that exist in this world.

A parable known as "the fire metaphor" is attributed to the Buddha. The following is a translation of Ku no shiso: Bukkyo ni okeru kotoba to chinmoku [The idea of emptiness: language and silence in Buddhism] authored by Yuichi Kajiyama (Kyoto: Jimbun Shoin, 1983):

The Venerable Malunkya asked the Buddha metaphysical questions: Is the world permanent or impermanent? Is the world finite or infinite? Are the soul and body the same or different? Will a tathagata live on after death or not?

Vacchagotta also asked about similar issues and was discouraged when the Buddha did not state his opinions and lost confidence in him.

Then, the Buddha responded to Vacchagotta with the fire metaphor.

　

• ＜ Buddha ＞
• Suppose there is a fire burning in front of you. If someone asked what this fire is dependent on in order to burn, how would you answer?

• ＜ Vacchagotta ＞
• I'd say that this fire is burning because of grass and firewood.

• ＜ Buddha ＞
• And if the fire went out, where did it go? East? West? North? Or South?

• ＜ Vacchagotta ＞
• I couldn't say. Actually, since the fire is burning because of grass and firewood, it only went out due to lack of fuel, because more grass or firewood wasn't added to it.

• ＜ Buddha ＞
• Since a tathagata has been liberated both materially and spiritually, he does and does not go anywhere after death. Like the palm tree whose roots have been cut and whose trunk has been pulled up, he will only be returned to nonexistence and will not exist.

The Buddha's response to Vacchagotta with the fire metaphor in regard to tathagatas-namely, practitioners of Buddhism who have attained enlightenment-was, "They will only be returned to nonexistence and will not exist."

This does not mean that he was speaking only about those who attain Buddhahood. Although the Buddha happens to be talking about them in the fire metaphor, this metaphor is a truth that applies to all beings in this world.

A person's emotions arise, change, and cease to be, depending on the causes and conditions that cause those emotions to arise in that person's heart.

Vital phenomena such as human beings, animals, and plants also exist depending on the causes and conditions peculiar to them. The same is true for all extraordinary natural occurrences. As the bodhisattva Nagarjuna preaches, there is nothing in this world that meets the three requirements of reality: is not dependent on something else in this world (self-reliant), is absolutely unchanging (permanent and immutable), and is singular.

The Avatamsaka Sutra [Flower garland sutra] is one of the classic scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism.

The doctrine that is repeatedly preached in this sutra is that the one is the same as the all (ichisoku issai), which means that one is everything as it is, and everything is one as it is. This famous teaching also finds expression in the idea that the whole universe resides in a single speck of dust, and all eternity in a single moment.

This is a truly mysterious doctrine that is completely different from our sense of daily life. And yet, one is struck by the feeling that it is not so strange after all if one considers the logic behind dependent arising, the enlightenment that the Buddha attained, or the logic behind Nagarjuna's concept of sunyata [emptiness] which clarified the interdependence latent in the term "dependent arising."

Nagarjuna first defines "reality" as having the following three requirements: Because that which really exists does not depend on others, it is self-reliant. Because that which really exists absolutely does not change, it is permanent and immutable. Because that which really exists cannot be plural, it is singular. There is nothing in this world that is self-reliant, permanent and immutable, and singular. If there were, it would exist only in the world of words.

Everything in this world that exists is dependent on other things and merely repeats the cycle of arising, changing, and ceasing to be, in a series of interdependent relationships. This is the one and only principle that pervades all things such as animals and plants and other vital phenomena including human emotions, as well as nature itself including space and celestial bodies.

The doctrine of "the one is the same as the all" can be explained logically and clearly through a knowledge of modern physics.

Physics makes it clear that what we see is composed of a hierarchy of matter, molecules, atoms, elementary particles, and quarks. If that is the case, is the quark, which has been empirically observed and confirmed by physics, the smallest unit of matter in this world?

In the world of quantum mechanics, units of length range from 10-10 meters, which is the approximate diameter of an atom, to 10-35 meters, which is known as the Planck length. This means that even within the same micron unit, there is a 25-digit difference between atoms and the Planck length. On the other hand, these 25 digits are larger than the computational difference of 19 digits between the earth's diameter, which is 12,800 kilometers (1.28 x 107 meters), and the diameter of the so-called observable universe, which is 20 billion light-years (2 x 1023 kilometers).

The space of an atom is far more vast than the universe that it is possible for us to know. This precisely is the reality of "the one is the same as the all."

Moreover, even though the Planck length of 10-35 meters is the smallest unit of length in the world of quantum mechanics, it is only theoretically assumed on the basis of calculations and not the actual ultimate unit. Since, according to the concept of sunyata, a reality that does not depend on others, is permanent and immutable, and is singular is inconceivable, the unit of smallness is infinitesimal because interdependent relationships continue beyond infinity.

If the diameter of the observable universe is 20 billion light-years, that is the limit of the universe's observability. If a universe 20 billion light-years in diameter is regarded as one universe, this means that universes that cannot be observed by modern technology spread out in all directions around it. And if it were possible to command a godlike view over the entire universe, our 20 billion light-year universe would be like a single constellation in the starry sky that we are now looking at. Consequently, outer space must continue infinitely with countless more constellations scattered outside this one 20 billion light-year constellation of ours.

The Big Bang is the theory that today's universe was born as the result an enormous explosion that created the heavens and the earth. According to the calculations of physics, the time it would have taken the universe to arise as a result of the Big Bang was tens of millionths of a second. Our 20 billion light-year universe was literally born in an instant. This has probably been, and probably will be, repeated continuously countless numbers of times from the beginningless past to the endless future.

This is literally the Avatamsaka Sutra's "the one is the same as the all," namely, "all eternity in a single moment." Perhaps the mystical practitioner who preached this sutra vividly saw this event during deep meditation. Modern physicists have mathematically verified part of it.

Thus, the Buddha's enlightenment about sunyata means that the world is infinitely large and infinitesimally small in terms of space, and without beginning or end in terms of time. Within such a principle, people interact with one another emotionally, and the endless cycle of life and death and suffering repeats itself in nature including plants and animals.

The Buddha preaches deliverance from such a world of endless interdependence through meditation that leads to the perfection of wisdom, or prajnaparamita.

But even if one understands that the word "emptiness" signifies a world that has no beginning and no end and is both infinitely large and infinitesimally small, it is a world that is impossible to understand through the senses. Not only that, I recently learned of an even more mysterious phenomenon. In 2018 when the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, visited Japan, I had the opportunity to meet with a representative of the organization that invited him.

As the conversation bounced around from topic to topic, I asked the following question: "Is it true that in Tibet and Southeast Asian Buddhist countries, there are quite a few practitioners who, through the meditation techniques that the Buddha taught, have achieved prajnaparamita, the perfection of wisdom, and have been delivered from worldly attachments?" The answer was strange. "Yes, the bodies of some people who died while practicing zazen do not decay, and so their bodies are adorned with a special paint and placed in temples as Buddhist statues. And there are also some who, when they die, their bodies gradually shrink and eventually disappear."

The conversation reminded me of a legend about the bodhisattva Nagarjuna. In his first book, the Mulamadhyamakakarika [Fundamentals of the middle way], Nagarjuna clearly declared that the Buddha was the source of these teaching, preached emptiness, laid the foundations for Mahayana Buddhism, and is called the founding father of the Eight Schools of early Japanese Buddhism.

There is a famous legend that, when Nagarjuna died, he disappeared leaving his clothes behind, just like a cicada leaving its shell and flying away.

Is the disappearance, body and all, of such persons a phenomenon that has continued from thousands of years ago to the present day? If the legend of Nagarjuna really exists as an actual phenomenon, do we live in a mysterious world that cannot be explained by human logic or even by modern science and technology that is the most advanced in human history?