In view of the urgent problems associated with the environmental crisis, spiritual degradation, and information overload. Paying attention to the processes taking place in the modern world, one may come to the conclusion that the cause of the conflicts taking place in it comes from the contradictions that arise within a person. In this regard, it becomes necessary to rethink the spiritual and moral values and ideas that influence the formation of people and attitudes towards the world around them. This, in turn, implies an inevitable return to the spiritual and moral values of the past, in which the harmonious coexistence of man and the surrounding world was dominant. Therefore, today’s interest in Buddhism is not surprising since modern problems are also reflected in its main provisions and principles, both philosophical and psychological and spiritual and practical.
The culture of Buddhism, which originated more than 2500 years ago in India and became the dominant ideology in many parts of Asia for many centuries, influenced the culture of other countries and peoples. This religion can be considered not only as a philosophy of life but also as a worldview, culture, and way of life. This work is intended to assess the cultural and ideological foundations of Buddhism, to identify its influence as a world religion on culture, in particular, from the perspective of its role in art, and to draw key conclusions about the spread of religion in the modern world. In the era of globalization, Buddhism has become much more accessible, and the ideas of the theological doctrine have spread globally, influencing world culture and shaping the worldviews of many peoples.
Cultural and Ideological Foundations of Buddhism: Origin of Buddhism
The emergence of Buddhism is one of the topics studied in detail in this religion. It originated in the northeastern part of India, where the ancient states of Magadha, Kosala, and Lichchhavi were located, in the middle of the 1st millennium BC (McGovern, 2018). In the country, the middle of the 1st millennium BC was the time of the crisis of the ancient Vedic religion, whose guardians and zealots were the Brahmins (McGovern, 2018). The state of northeast India became the support and citadel of alternative religious movements to which Buddhism belonged. The emergence of these alternative teachings, in turn, was closely connected with the disappointment of a part of ancient Indian society in the Vedic religion with its ritualism and formal piety (McGovern, 2018). The contradictions and conflicts between the Brahmins (priesthood) and Kshatriyas (embodied the beginnings of the secular power of ancient Indian kings) were the critical prerequisites for social conflict. Thus, existing norms and values were vulnerable due to the dissatisfaction of a large number of people with outdated laws.
The old Vedic religion of sacrifices and rituals was going through an acute crisis, which was reflected in the emergence of new unorthodox ascetic movements of the shramans and ascetics. They were wandering philosophers who rejected the authorities and set as their goal an independent search for truth through philosophy and yoga. One of these shramans was Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical founder of Buddhism. As Batchelor (2017) notes, at birth, the Buddha was given the name Siddhartha, which means “the one who has realized his goal” (p. 14). Although the boy grew up in the palace and had access to wealth and luxury, he could not leave the confines of his residence. After he accidentally saw hunger and poverty outside his home, he became a hermit and began to study the sacred texts. As a result of deep reflection, he achieved what he wanted: he found the path to the final salvation and learned the four noble truths (Batchelor, 2017). These truths are considered the foundation of Buddhist teachings.
Worldview Foundations of Buddhism
The wanderings of the Buddha are usually considered in the context of the path to enlightenment as an integral component of Buddhism. Having discovered his path, the Buddha began preaching and spent 40 years in this way (Paul, 2020). He had many disciples and loyal followers all over India. Buddhism fully accepts such ideas of Brahmanism as reincarnation, samsara, and karma. However, samsara is not seen as an eternal wheel of rebirth, and the goal of Buddhism is to get out of samsara (Paul, 2020). The highest form of rebirth is the birth of a person since only from this state is a transition to the state of nirvana possible. Nirvana in Buddhism is understood as a state beyond life and beyond death, a state of deliverance from suffering (Wu, 2017). A person can only get rid of the painful samsara and come to nirvana on one’s own, and even the gods, who themselves are subject to the law of samsara, cannot help one in this.
The Buddha, as a person who has achieved enlightenment, turns out to be higher than the gods, but he himself does not save but only points out the right path. According to Buddhism, anyone can achieve nirvana, regardless of their social origin and caste (Wu, 2017). As a theological doctrine, Buddhism is sometimes called a religion without a god, and there is some truth in this. The Buddha did not deny the existence of the gods of Brahmanism, but he believed that they were unable to help a person.
The wide expansion of Buddhism, especially outside India, and its transformation into the dominant religion led to significant changes in the content of the teaching. These shifts took place both spontaneously and in an organized manner in the form of the decisions of the Buddhist councils (Batchelor, 2017). Changes in the Buddhist doctrine went in two directions; on the one hand, in intellectual circles and among the leaders of monastic communities, there was a complication and further development of Buddhist metaphysics (Batchelor, 2017). On the other hand, as Buddhism spread among the broad masses, especially outside India, the teaching adapted to local traditions, to the primitive beliefs of the peoples of different countries (Batchelor, 2017). However, both of these processes, seemingly opposite, influenced each other. Over the next 400 years, the followers of the Buddha formed many different teachings – the schools of early Buddhism (Nikaya), from which the Theravada teaching and numerous branches of the Mahayana have been preserved (Batchelor, 2017). As a result, one may observe that in a relatively short period, the theological doctrine has been transformed in accordance with distinctive social interests.
Influence of Buddhism as a World Religion: Spread of Buddhism in the World
Although there was never a missionary movement in Buddhism, the teachings of the Buddha spread widely throughout Hindustan and from there throughout Asia. In each new culture, the methods and styles of Buddhism have changed in accordance with the local mentality, but the basic principles of wisdom and compassion have remained unchanged. However, in Buddhism, there was no common hierarchy of religious authorities with a single supreme head (Batchelor, 2017). Each country where Buddhism penetrated developed its own form, religious structure, and spiritual leader.
Traditionally, there are two main branches of Buddhism. One is the Hinayana, or Moderate Vehicle (Little Vehicle), which focuses on personal liberation, and the other is the Mahayana, or Extensive Vehicle (Great Vehicle), which focuses on attaining the state of a fully enlightened Buddha so that the best way to help others (Roy & Narula, 2017). Each of these branches of Buddhism has its own currents. There are currently three main forms that have survived: one form of Hinayana known as Theravada, prevalent in Southeast Asia, and two forms of Mahayana, represented by the Tibetan and Chinese traditions (Roy & Narula, 2017). Accordingly, one may observe that the distinctive aspects of these destinations are due to regional factors.
The spread of Buddhism throughout most of Asia was peaceful and took place in several ways. Primarily a teacher, the Buddha traveled to neighboring kingdoms to share his insights with those who were receptive and interested (Shulman, 2017). Moreover, he instructed his monks to go through the world and expound its teachings. He did not ask others to condemn or abandon their own religion and convert to a new one, as he did not seek to found his own religion. He was only trying to help others overcome the unhappiness and suffering they themselves had created due to their lack of understanding (Shulman, 2017). Later generations of followers were inspired by the example of the Buddha and shared with others those methods of his that they themselves found useful in their lives. In this way, Buddhism, in its common form, spread everywhere.
Sometimes this process developed naturally, for instance, when Buddhist traders settled in new places or simply visited them, some of the local residents showed a natural interest in the beliefs of foreigners, as happened with the penetration of Islam into Indonesia and Malaysia. According to Winter (2020), such a process of spreading Buddhism took place over two centuries BC in countries located along the Silk Road. While learning more about this Indian religion, the local rulers and the population began to invite monks as advisers and teachers from those regions the traders came from and thus eventually adopted the Buddhist faith.
Another natural way was the slow cultural absorption of the conquered people. Such an outcome was observed in the case of the Greeks, whose assimilation into the Buddhist community of Gandhara, located in what is now central Pakistan, took place over the centuries after the 2nd century BC (Winter, 2020). However, most often, the spread was mainly due to the influence of a powerful ruler who personally adopted and supported Buddhism. In the middle of the 3rd century BC, for instance, Buddhism spread throughout northern India due to the personal support of King Ashoka (Van, 2019). This great founder of the empire did not force his subjects to adopt the Buddhist faith. Nonetheless, his decrees, carved on iron columns and installed throughout the country, encouraged his subjects to lead an ethical lifestyle (Van, 2019). The king himself followed these principles and thereby inspired others to adopt the teachings of the Buddha.
In addition, King Ashoka actively contributed to the spread of Buddhism outside his kingdom by sending missions to remote areas. In some cases, he did this in response to the invitation of foreign rulers, such as King Tishya of Sri Lanka, and sometimes, on his own initiative, he sent monks as diplomatic representatives (Van, 2019). These monks did not pressure others to convert to Buddhism but only made the Buddha’s teachings available, allowing people to choose for themselves. This is supported by the fact that Buddhism soon took root in such areas as South India and Burma, while there is no evidence of any immediate effect in other areas, such as the Greek colonies in Central Asia.
Other religious rulers, such as the 16th-century Mongol ruler Altan Khan, invited Buddhist teachers to their domains and proclaimed Buddhism the state religion to unite their people and strengthen their power. At the same time, they could prohibit some practices of non-Buddhists and local religions and even persecute those who followed them (Batchelor, 2017). However, these despotic and uncompromising measures were mainly politically motivated. Such ambitious rulers never forced their subjects to adopt Buddhist forms of faith or worship because such an approach was not characteristic of the Buddhist religion.
Specificity and Stereotypes
The specificity of Buddhism is that it contains the features of the world religion as an open system, as well as features of national religions, or closed systems. This is due historically because two processes went in parallel in Buddhism: the spread in different countries of great traditions (Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana), common to Buddhists all over the world, on the one hand, and the emergence of national forms of everyday religiosity, on the other hand (Van, 2019). State and national forms of Buddhism often became critical factors in people’s ethnic self-identification. Therefore, when speaking about the specificity of this doctrine, one can note that the teaching was not initially characterized by rigid frameworks and restrictions and allowed for combination with local beliefs.
There is a stereotype of Buddhism as an absolutely conflict-free and pacifist religion. This stereotype was created by Western liberals in opposition to the Abrahamic religions, whose history, conversely, was full of examples of the legitimization of violence (Wu, 2017). There is also a stereotype of Buddhist detachment, non-worldliness, and hence non-involvement in political life. Nevertheless, as history shows, these stereotypes can be refuted, given the true essence of Buddhism, which is to prevent harm to each other.
Rise of Buddhism
The main region where the Mahayana teaching flourished most luxuriantly was Tibet. This doctrine was first brought here in the 7th century for purely political reasons. The region was then going through a transition to a class social system, and the ruler of Tibet needed to establish diplomatic relations with neighboring countries – India (Nepal) and China (Van, 2019). However, Buddhism first entered Tibet in the form of Hinayana and for a long time was alien to the people, who adhered to their ancient shamanic and tribal cults, remaining the religion of court circles only. In the 9th century, Buddhism began to spread among the people, but already in the Mahayana form (Van, 2019). Tantrism became the main current of this doctrine, which was firmly rooted in Tibet.
In the depths of tradition, the religious feat of a Buddhist hermit and righteous man has always resonated with warlike metaphors and has firmly grown together with openly militarized phenomena. Nonetheless, the concept of holy war in the same sense that occurs in the history of the Abrahamic religions, that is, active violence to destroy the infidels and establish a religious monopoly associated with militant missionary work, is absent in Buddhism (Van, 2019). It is for these reasons that one can argue that there are no pathological anti-modernist tears in the Buddhist world. Similarly, in Buddhism, there is no organized rigid anti-globalism institutionally supported by the authority of religious leaders (Winter, 2020). Unlike Islam, Buddhism is more local and diffuse and has never been closely associated with secular power. Therefore, its anti-globalization response is not structured, does not take rigid organizational forms, and cannot serve as the basis for transnational armed groups.
Manifestations of Buddhist Culture
With the adoption of Buddhism as the official religion in India, widespread construction began. In Northern India and Nepal, where the Buddha was born and preached, the sacred relics of those times are sacredly guarded (Van, 2019). Early Buddhist art usually did not depict the face of the Buddha himself. He went beyond life and left only his mark in it. Only in the 1st century AD did they begin to depict the Buddha – in stone, in painting – especially in the northern regions of India, in Central and Central Asia. It was there that the pictorial canon was formed on the basis of folk art and under the influence of the sculpture of Greek masters, who came to Asia during the time of Alexander the Great. Three canonical images of the Buddha were developed – sitting, standing, and lying on his deathbed. The seated Buddha symbolizes the state of enlightenment, and the standing and walking Buddha carries his teachings to people. He is necessarily turned to face those who look at him, dressed in clothes with vertical folds, and has a soulful and distant face.
Since the 2nd century AD, Buddhist art in India underwent some changes. The Buddha, from a teacher who indicated the path to salvation, turned into a strict deity (Van, 2019). Large temples were built for him, the mightiest of gods. The significance of the ritual side of the cult was growing, and ceremonies and processions became magnificent. The immediacy and brilliance of the early Buddhist cult would never be repeated. However, gradually, Buddhism penetrated into China, Japan, Indonesia, Mongolia, and other large Asian countries, and the modern trace of this teaching is manifested not only in religious beliefs but also in the architecture of these states.
Buddhism in the Modern World
In the 21st century, regions where exclusively the Buddhist teaching is persecuted are few in number. Today, Buddhism is practiced by about 6-8% of the world’s population, which is much inferior to Christianity (about 25%), Islam (about 18%), and Hinduism (about 13%) (Yew et al., 2021, p. 1098). Buddhism remains unconditionally an Asian religion: 99% of Buddhists live in Asia (Yew et al., 2021, p. 1098). There are several states that are commonly called Buddhist, but the predominance of the followers of the Buddha in the population varies greatly from country to country. For example, there are such religiously homogeneous countries as Cambodia, Myanmar, and Bhutan (Yew et al., 2021). There is also a category of states where religious statistics are fundamentally difficult due to traditional syncretism and double, if not triple, self-identification of the population, for example, Japan or China. In the USA, the number of Buddhists is small, which confirms the idea of the prevalence of this doctrine in the east (Yew et al., 2021, p. 1098). Thus, after the lapse of centuries, the distribution of the followers of Buddhism worldwide remained approximately within the same boundaries.
When assessing the perception of Buddhism in European countries and in the New World, one can assume that this religion is closely associated with traditions and cultural and political conservatism. In a few cases, this status is constitutionally enshrined; for instance, in Cambodia, Buddhism is directly proclaimed the state religion, and in Sri Lanka, this religion is given preferential status, and Buddhists react painfully to government attempts to disavow the corresponding constitutional privileges (Roy & Narula, 2017). At the same time, in India itself, Buddhism has not received further development since Hinduism remains the dominant religion in the country (Roy & Narula, 2017). As a result, the spread of the Buddhist doctrine partly changed its vector, although it remained within the Asian countries.
The status of a world religion implies the exit of a particular doctrine beyond the boundaries of the original territory; this is how Christianity and Islam have found their present position, and this is precisely why Hinduism cannot be considered a world religion. Buddhism went beyond the borders of Asia and spread throughout the world due to the penetration of Europeans into Asia and because the West was seriously interested in Asian cultures and the Asian mentality (Batchelor, 2017). This interest led to the fact that Westerners began to comprehend Eastern wisdom and tried to fit it into the global context. As a result, from a predominantly Asian teaching, Buddhism turned into a religion of universal character.
After World War II in America and Europe, the processes of discovery of Buddhist traditions accelerated sharply, and after that, interest in the Buddha’s teaching did not fade away, which led to an increase in the number of Buddhist communications in the world. The key reason why Westerners adopted Eastern spiritual practices was that Buddhism offered a system of wisdom that could inspire and morally guide, at the same time not requiring undeniable faith in theological dogmas (Batchelor, 2017). This religion is a doctrine based on human reason and personal insight, which are valuable criteria for objective spirituality for many.
The life force of Buddhism became more attached to the requirements of modern life, finding an approach to changing conditions. Moreover, as Winter (2020) remarks, the followers of Buddhism in the West saw the prospects for the evolution of the religion in its syncretism with the elements of Western spiritual culture. Some of them suggested abandoning the specific teachings of Buddhism and taking from it only what the West needed, linking the ideas and concepts of the religion with the best achievements of Western science, thereby making it completely Western (Winter, 2020). However, this approach did not bring the desired results, as evidenced by the small number of Buddhist communities outside of Asia.
This is crucial to distinguish between such concepts as global Buddhism and Buddhism in a global era because not all confessional space of the religion is included in the space of globalization. Traditional Buddhism takes on an archival form of existence or becomes a source of symbolic identity for Western Buddhist converts (Winter, 2020). At the same time, this conservative-protective tendency does not take radical expressions. Therefore, in relation to Buddhism, such a concept as fundamentalism is not applicable since the boundaries of orthodoxy and nonconformity are not rigid in the religion, and the criteria for doctrinal purity are blurred. Although there are certain anti-globalization currents in Buddhism, they are softer compared to other theological doctrines.
Recommendations to Mitigate a Radical Religious Worldview
One of the ways to solve the problems of the global dialogue of religions, cultures, and civilizations is to create a transition to new forms of universal ethics. The Buddhist model of reaction to globalization may be one of the least problematic algorithms for getting out of a situation in which the struggle for world domination and gaining authority in the international arena violates moral and ethical standards (Ardhana & Wijaya, 2017). By pursuing the ideas of the Buddha, people can find a middle ground between the modern globalization process and traditionalism, taking advantage of a united world and not sacrificing cultural diversity.
In this regard, even the idea of integrating religions is not dangerous or unacceptable. For instance, the coexistence of Christianity and Buddhism within a society can be stable and cause no complaints from followers of either doctrine. However, integration that involves creating a complex religion that combines the features of two or more teachings can hardly be successful. Having a rich cultural layer and numerous adherents, Buddhism cannot move to another plane because, in this case, its basic values and concepts will be lost (Ardhana & Wijaya, 2017). Therefore, while speaking of the possibility of mitigating a radical religious worldview, the coexistence of theological doctrines is permissible, but the absorption of one doctrine by another can become a dangerous precedent.
The existence of radical Buddhism as a movement supported by aggressive followers is unacceptable as a phenomenon since it contradicts the nature of the Buddha’s teaching. The criticism he planted has become the lifeblood of the doctrine; logical-philosophical debate serves to maintain the vital energy of Buddhism, and all issues related to determining the path of development of the Buddhist tradition are traditionally resolved through logical and philosophical rather than aggressive approaches (Van, 2019). With regard to non-believers, this religion is characterized by unparalleled tolerance, which also characterizes Buddhist supporters as peaceful people. Therefore, to exclude interfaith conflicts and prevent radicalism, this is crucial to refer to the foundations of Buddhism and take into account the basic values embedded in this doctrine. Otherwise, contradictions arise, and the teaching ceases to instruct people on the path of enlightenment, thereby transforming into an uncompromising and even extremist religion.
To prevent the distortion of Buddhist values under the influence of counter-culture and globalization, the religion should maintain its neutrality in the face of the existing social contradictions. Political conflicts in Asian countries, such as between India and China, catalyzed by ethnic disagreements, stimulate the involvement of religious leaders and promote the support of the radical masses (Ardhana & Wijaya, 2017). Nonetheless, under such conditions, Buddhism cannot exist in its traditional form because harmony and balance as its key tenets are violated. To avoid the radicalization of religious views, society should take into account the inviolability of theological teachings, including the fact that no world religion calls for open conflict and murder. Any other interpretation is a form of extremist idea and has no right to exist in the context of religious doctrines. Thus, the preservation of the foundations of Buddhism should be accompanied by the preservation of its values in the face of social imbalance and emerging political, cultural, and other disagreements.
Conclusion
Buddhism has had a significant impact on world culture, and the traditional concepts of this theological doctrine have become more flexible and blurred due to globalization. The formation of a worldview through the prism of Buddhist understanding involves following logical reasoning along the path to enlightenment. Having a centuries-old history of development, this religious doctrine has undergone changes, including in relation to the number of followers. Although today, many Asian countries practice Buddhism, its distribution has remained approximately within the same eastern borders as before. At the same time, in its spread around the globe, this doctrine has decisively crossed ethnic confessional and ethnic state boundaries, thus becoming the religion of various peoples with distinctive cultural and religious traditions. Buddhism cannot be associated with radicalism and aggression because this is contrary to its nature. The influence of this teaching on the modern world is significant, and its coexistence with other religions is possible but not in the context of a complex integration since this is fraught with the loss of the basic principles and values of Buddhism.
References
Ardhana, I. K., & Wijaya, I. N. (2017). Indian influences on Balinese culture: The role of Hinduism and Buddhism in present day Bali. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 4(1), 88-105. Web.
Batchelor, S. (2017). Secular Buddhism: Imagining the dharma in an uncertain world. Yale University Press.
McGovern, N. (2018). The Brahmins at the turn of the common era: Rethinking chronology, motivations, and external influences. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 22(3), 517-521. Web.
Paul, S. (2020). Quintessence of karma and rebirth in Bhagawat Geeta in comparison with Buddhism and Jainism. TLH Journal, 6(2), 213-216.
Roy, S., & Narula, S. (2017). Alternative views on the theory of communication: An exploration through the strands of Buddhism. Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism, 7(6), 354. Web.
Shulman, E. (2017). The early discourses of the Buddha as literature: Narrative features of the Dīgha Nikāya. The Journal of Religion, 97(3), 360-387. Web.
Van, V. H. (2019). Comparative Buddhism in India, China, Vietnam and the spirit of localization in Vietnamese Buddhism. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 10(6), 1-7. Web.
Winter, T. (2020). Silk road diplomacy: Geopolitics and histories of connectivity. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(7), 898-912. Web.
Wu, K.-M. (2017). Buddhism, Christianity, actuality. Open Journal of Philosophy, 7(02), 168-185. Web.
Yew, W. C., Awang, A. H., Selvadurai, S., Noor, M. M., & Chang, P. K. (2021). A comparative study of Islam and Buddhism: A multicultural society perspective. Religions, 12, 1098. Web.