It might seem odd to write a paper on three such different characters as Confucius, David, and Buddha. They are men from very different eras, regions, and backgrounds. There views on life are quite opposite. What one man sees as “enlightenment” the others would view as ignorance. The task would be futile if the goal were to come to a sort of consensus of truth, but fortunately for me and my sanity that is not the goal. What is the goal then? It seems as if what matters is how and why their values/ideals clash. In addition, it would be of some interest to find out how the three tried to get their points across, as well as, why they chose the particular format that they used.

In fragmented, fortune cookie style sentences, Confucius’ ideals unfold. He views his world as one in which the qualities of a gentleman are needed in order to preserve political stability. As it is he does not see this in his present society; what he sees is moral decay and the fall of his civilization because of it. He believes that a gentleman can be entrusted with a country’s government (p.36) because “if you desire what is good, the people will be good. The moral power of the gentleman is wind, the moral power of the common man is grass. Under the wind the grass must bend” (p.58). Confucius further states that “[w]hen good men have been running the country for a hundred years, cruelty can be overcome, murder extirpated” (p.62). The idea of goodness or rather what Confucius has termed humanity “leaves no room for evil” (p.14) and is what makes someone a gentleman. Humanity requires one to respect their elders (p.3). To respect one’s elders one must serve them according to the ritual when they are alive, bury them according to the ritual when they die, and sacrifice to them consistent with the ritual (p.6-7). In addition, Confucius states that a scholar’s responsibility is humanity (p.36) and he “who devotes all his energy to serving his father and mother...is an educated man” (p.4). Hence it is a circular process, in order to have one you must have the other.

The ideals of David are hard to disclose. His story is told amidst fighting and failure. The people of Israel are constantly at war, trying to keep their land and trying to conquer new lands (p.21,78,109,236). The corruption and failure of the political figures Eli and his sons (p.12,14,22), Saul (p.88-9,114,118,138-39) and David (p.251,253) are readily apparent. It seems that what was of value to David was political power and survival. The various battles are fought in an attempt to gain control. Saul’s pursuit of David reveals his desire to maintain his political power, and David’s flight reveals that he will do whatever it takes to survive; while on the run, David lies to Ahimelech the priest (p.131) and pretends to be insane (p.134).

Buddha’s ideals are perhaps the most estranged from the others. He viewed the process of life and death as a perpetual cycle; only by attaining enlightenment can there be release. The tales of Buddha’s various lives strive to teach that the ideals of patience, self-sacrifice, and non-attachment are necessary to realize this goal. The true essence of patience is captured in the tale of Kshantivadin. This Buddha was known to observe patience in all circumstances and constantly stressed it in his expositions of Dharma (p.27). One day the king’s harem came upon Kshantivadin, and he spoke to them of Dharma and answered any queries they presented (p.28). The king, upon seeing this, flew into a rage and began to cut the Buddha to pieces (p.29-30). The Buddha, in his patience remained unmoved as his body was mutilated (p.29-30). The story of the tigress aptly illustrates Buddha’s view of self-sacrifice. Three princes were walking about the park one day when they happened upon a hungry tigress with seven cubs (p.25). The tigress, exhausted to such an extreme point, was unable to capture prey for her nourishment and seemed to be journeying towards death (p.25). The three princes, dismayed at the sight, realized that in order for the tigress to remain alive some creature would have to sacrifice its life (p.25). The princes agrees that although self-sacrifice is difficult, true men are “intent on benefiting their fellow creatures, and...long to sacrifice themselves” (p.25). The prince, who later would become a Buddha, chose to sacrifice his life to help save the life of the tigress (p.25). He grabbed a piece of bamboo, slit his throat with it, and threw himself in front of the tigress (p.26). In nearly every tale, Buddha is depicted as having discovered the futility of attachment to worldly pleasures. Before sacrificing himself for the tigress he reflects, “I have served this putrid body and given it beds and clothes, food and drink, and conveyances of all kinds. Yet it is doomed to perish and fall down, and in the end it will break up and be destroyed;” (p.25) how futile! On his first visit to the forest, Buddha Shakyamuni sees an elderly man for the first time and states, “’So that is how old age destroys indiscriminately the memory, beauty, and strength of all! And yet with such a sight before it the world goes on quite unperturbed” (p.39). Similarly, on his second trip to the forest Buddha sees a diseased man and exclaims, “’This then is the calamity of disease, which afflicts the people! The world sees it, and yet it does not lose its confident ways” (p.40). Buddha views a life concerned with material gain and sensual pleasure as one “that is constantly assailed by the dust and dirt of passions, such as greed, hate, delusion, impatience, anger, self-intoxication, conceit, and niggardliness; that is apt to reduce the ability to maintain religious standards...[and] offers little scope for Dharma” (p.27). In light of this the Buddha “combated the very foundations of sensuous passion” (p.41).

These three men differ greatly in their ideals. While Confucius and David were both very concerned with political affairs, Buddha rejected these. He would say that Confucius’ endeavors were in vain as any sort of perfect government would be impermanent and therefore pointless. Similarly he would point to the many successes and failures of David as a clear-cut sign of the impermanence of any achievement. Confucius would criticize Buddha for his lack of reverence and respect for elders. By rejecting attachments, Buddha rejects what Confucius holds as one of the highest values. Confucius would denounce Buddha by saying, “A youth who does not respect his elders will achieve nothing when he grows up” (p.73). Confucius would criticize David for his lack of moral leadership. He would say, “To govern is to be straight. If you steer straight, who would dare not to go straight?” (p.58). Confucius would also criticize David for pursuing political rank when it was in conflict with his principles; “[r]iches and rank are what everyman craves; yet if the only way to obtain them goes against his principles, he should desist from such a pursuit” (p.15). David would criticize Buddha’s actions in the story of the preacher. If placed in a similar scenario, David would have used his soldier might to attack and kill the king that Buddha had let mutilate himself.

Confucius presented his ideals in short, concise sayings. When asked a question by his disciples he got to the point immediately. In every aspect Confucius preferred to speak of things in their perfect sense. His ideals were abstract and did not go into the details of how to carry them out. His teachings did not seem to have the sort of impact on society that he desired, and although his principles were widely circulated, it seems as if he was unsuccessful at reaching his people.

David, on the other hand, was quite ambiguous. His ideals are presented in the tale of a nation, its battles, and its leaders. Ideals are not expressly told, rather, they are implied and are quite difficult to pick up on. He wrote about a nation as it truly was. He spoke of the details that are involved in governing a nation. Because his ideals were embedded so deeply within the plot of the story, it is easy to see how David might not have been able to fully reach his people.

Buddha preferred to display his ideals in various forms. He began with several short stories of his lives, included a question/answer section, spoke of the doctrines involving morality, and added a few poems. His ideals are neither ambiguous nor abstract. He tells stories which include specific examples of how the Buddha became enlightened, but at the same time incorporates a sentence in each that could be easily pulled out and used as “the moral of the story.” Like Confucius, he tends to speak of his ideals in a perfect sense. By making his text easy to understand and interesting, Buddha probably did a fairly good job in reaching his people. Whether or not his people followed his ideals is hard to know, but it would seem as if they did not due to the difficulty of the doctrine. The principles of karma were probably the ones most adhered to.

If Confucius were to have read David’s story, he would have criticized it for its wordiness and eloquence (p.55,65). He also would have detested it for revealing the immorality of the leaders because Confucius valued leadership by example. Confucius would have criticized Buddha for his use of eloquent stories. David would have criticized Confucius for being so abstract and unreal in his writings about government. David would also have criticized Buddha for his failure to present scenarios in a realistic format. Buddha would have disapproved of Confucius for not giving specific examples, and he would have criticized David for not making his point clear.

As I read the three of these books, I found Buddhist Scriptures to be the most interesting. It combined interesting tales with an easy to understand message. Moreover, I found myself agreeing with it over the other two books. I have long considered the pointlessness of sensuous pleasures. Knowing that all comes to end, why indulge? Why set yourself up for a fall? I also find the Buddhist notion of self-sacrifice very interesting. My religious beliefs teach that as well but not with the same severity as does Buddhism. I think that Buddha has many things that he can teach the world I live in. Coming from western society his perspective is very uncommon and seems more apt to challenge us to analyze why we hold the perspectives that we do. Confucius and David have themes more consistent with the western school of thought and thus do not pose much of a challenge. My current society finds the pursuit of sensuous pleasures as highest of importance, and I think that Buddha would be able to teach us the value of restraint.