The Justification for a Moral Life in Buddhism

Law , Chi Lim

Introduction

Most scholars of Buddhism agree that ethics play a very important part in Buddhist soteriology[1].In fact , there is no clear distinction between religion and ethics at the time of the Buddha ------religious beliefs were, in fact, moral systems at that time (Ven Guang Xing,2007,personal communication).Early scholars like Poussin ( 927) considers that “ Buddhism is,in its essence, an ethical discipline”[2]whileWijesekara ( 1971: 49) claims boldly that “ It is universally recognized that Buddhism can claim to be the most ethical of all religio-philosophical systems of the world”. Keown ( 2001: 1) also points out that : “Buddhism is a response to what is fundamentally an ethical problem--- the perennial problem of the best kind of life for man to lead”.

However, in spite of the importance of ethics in Buddhism, many Buddhists practise diligently the moral guidelines laid down in tradition without questioning or understanding the real soteriological significance of these moral guidelines. It is the purpose of this paper to examine how the Buddha justifies these moral guidelines in his teachings to his followers.

For Want of a God

In most religions in the history of mankind, there is usually a divine entity such as an all powerful creator God. As an illustration, we shall now examine the soteriological significance of the moral rules for the Vedic tradition and the Abrahamic tradition.

Brahmanism/Hinduism[3]

In the Hindu Vedic-Upanisadic-Dharmasatric tradition, humanity was divided into four classes ( brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra ). It was a divine creation, or rather the Supreme God Brahama or Prajapati had split himself into these four segments ( Prasad, 2007:86-87). Each class could trace their present status and condition to moral acts done in their past lives----- the so called karma-phala principle. This was a totally deterministic tradition in that there was no chance of social mobility in this life. One could only perform one’s moral obligation and duties (svadharma) in preparation for the next life, or for the Brahmana, an ultimate goal of union with Brahma. In time, this soteriological scheme hadthe effect of creating inequality and injustice. In ancient times with limited access to education and information, this scheme might have had the effect of sustaining the solidarity and continuity of the Hindu society and civilization, but with human progress and the spread of knowledge, Hinduism has to change to adapt to a new humanity. In India nowadays, the caste systemofficially does not exist. But, human nature being what it is, class discriminationstill does exist.

Abrahamic tradition

For the three Abrahamic traditions(Judaism, Christianity and Islam), Man’s salvation depends entirely on divine grace from God.The Old Testament of the Judeo-Christian tradition contains the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 3-17) from God (as told by the prophet Moses to the people) which includes rules for social behaviour ( such as killing, stealing, adultery,etc) as well as commands to worship no other god then the one God. These are divine commands that must be followed for salvation. As Jesus Christ has pointed out in the Gospel according to Mark (12: 29), the most important commandment is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength”. In addition, in the Gospel according to Mathew (5:10), he says: “ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness ,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. Thus the reward for the righteous person following the moral rules as recorded in the Bible will be reaped in the after-life. In addition, Jesus Christ has spoken incessantly about the right behaviour to follow to avoid being burnt in hell on Judgment Day. In a similar vein, Islam also requires total submission to God’s commands. In fact the word Islam is derived from the root s-l-m indicating “peace” and “surrender”, the connotation of which is “the peace that comes when one’s life is surrendered to God.” (Smith, 1991: 222). The reward for such surrendering is none other than a place in the Kingdom of Heaven in one’s afterlife.

Buddhism is entirely different from the two ancient traditions mentioned above in that it considersthat Man’s salvation does not depend on divine grace[4]. As Prasad (2007: 165) points out: “Buddhism is essentially a religion of ethics without any God or divine metaphysical principle”. In Buddhism, be it the personal nibbana of the Arahat in early Buddhism or the altruism of the bodhisattva in later Buddhism, the regulative principle is always ethical. Leading a moral life is the prerequisite to the path to liberation. Man’ssalvationdependsentirely on himself. Such self-effort involves a three–pronged strategy : 1) ethical practices ( sila) , 2) contemplative attentiveness ( samadhi) to form an ethical attitude and to acquire 3) immaculate wisdom( panna) about the true nature of things. It must be noted that the latter two help to achieve excellence in the practice of the first one ( i.e. morality ). Thus morality islinked inextricably to salvation.

The Nature of Buddhist Ethics

The Mahaparinibana Sutta ( Digha-Nikaya II , p 86,1-21)[5] records the benefits of a moral life as follows : A virtuous man :

is free from remorse
enjoys a great fortune and good reputation
is welcome in any assembly
is met with an unconfused or peaceful death
will have a life in the heaven.

On the other hand, a non-virtuous man without rectitude lives in penury, his bad reputation spreads beyond the region, enters an assembly of men shyly and confused, meets a painful death and suffers in hell after death.

This, and other similar passages in the Pali Canon, have led many western scholars to conclude that Buddhist ethics is a form of Utilitarianism[6]. Thus in his Foreword to Horner’s (1950) essay The Basic Position of Sila, G .P. Malalasekera suggests that “ Buddhism has never regarded Sila as an end in itself but only as a means to an end”, while Horner(1950 :25) herself speaks of moral conduct as “ no more than the beginning , the A.B.C. of the process of development which culminates in the Highest”. The “Highest” is, of course,Nibbana , the summumon bonum[7] of Buddhism[8]. At the same time many of these scholars interpret the Parable of the Raft (Majjhama-nikaya.i.134f)[9] to mean that ethical considerations are ultimately to be transcended. Morality is to be left behind and the arahat is beyond good and evil.

However, Keown ( 2001) in his book,The Nature of Buddhist Ethics,argues eloquently ( and , in my view, convincingly) that morality( sila) is an integral part of the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, the ultimate goal is not just intellectual excellence (panna), but also moral perfection(sila). The two go hand and hand, and one would be deficient without the other. Keown ( 2001:38-39) quotes a passage from the Discourse to Sonadanda ( Digha-nikaya ,1. 123. ) which reads ;

Where there is virtue , there is understanding, and where there is

understanding, there is virtue. Those who have virtue possess

understanding and those who have understanding possess virtue.

In this connection, it would also be illuminating to hear what Walpoa Rahula, a monk of the Theravada tradition but also well-versed in the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism, has to say on this subject . He thinks that ethical conduct (sila) is based on love and compassion and that :

according to Buddhism, for man to be perfect, there are two qualities that she should develop equally : compassion ( karuna) on one side, and wisdom( panna) on the other. Here compassion represents love, charity, kindness, tolerance and such noble qualities on the emotional side, or qualities of the heart, while wisdom would stand for the intellectual side or the qualities of the mind. If one develops only the emotional neglecting the intellectual, one may become a good-hearted fool; while to develop only the intellectual side neglecting the emotional may turn one into a hard-hearted intellect without feeling for others . Therefore, to be perfect one has to develop both equally. ( Rahula, 1978 : 46).

This view of the nature of ethics of Buddhism can be compared to that of ancient Greek philosophers’. As Shundo Tachibana puts it: “Socrates …..taught the oneness of knowledge and virtue . One seeks for knowledge…. not on its own account, but that it may be put into practice. There is no break between knowing and doing; wise men are always good men”. ( Tacchibana, 1926:1). One hundred years later in Greece, Aristotle also advocates that “only the wise are virtuous and only the virtuous are wise” ( Kenny, 1979: 80). However, it must be noted that, in contrast to Buddhism, the Greek philosophers all believe in a divine entity as the giver of moral doctrines and who sits in judgment as to what is good and bad. Buddhism denies the existence of such an entity, and instead,rationalizes the value of morality with the doctrine of Karma and Rebirth as a regulating principle.

Karma in Indic thoughts

In early Brahmanism, the term karma simply had the meaning of “ritual action”. In this period of Brahmanism(pre-Buddhist and pre-Upanisadic),ritual sacrifices to please the gods for worldly gains were very important to the faithful followers. Karma at this time was neither ethical nor related to rebirth. As time went by, with

the appearance of Upanisadic literature[10] , Indic religious thinkers began to ethicize the value of karma and linked it to the concept of rebirth. Historian A.L. Basham[11] points out that karma is conspicuous by its absence in the Vedas and that only brief references are found in the early Upanishads. The first shift in the Vedic idea of karma as “ritual action” to that of ethical action in relation to rebirth appeared in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (3.212-13) which reads“A man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by badaction”

This obviously links karma to its ethical consequences and good karma includesvirtues like kindness and truthfulness.The idea that bad karma(action) could be neutralized by other ritual acts like washing is also introduced. It has been pointed out that the ethicization of karma was a result of the influence of non-Vedic religious traditions, which might be pre-Buddhist,in ancient India (Obeyesekere, 2006 :85), i.e. it may even be possible that the Buddhist idea of karma may have been a development out of these traditions. Nevertheless, it must be noted that within the Upanisadic theory of karma, there exists a self(atman) which is the “doer”(kartr) as well as the : enjoyer(bhoktr) of the consequences ( Kalupahana,1976 : 46). This is quite different from the Buddhist concept of karma as we shall see below.

Karma in Buddhism

It can be said that the Buddha’s doctrine of karma is fundamental to the whole structure of his thoughts[12]. Buddha himself has defined karma in the Pali Canon, Anguttara Nikaya(III, 415)[13] in this way : “Monks, it is intention that I call karma. By intending one performs karma through body,word or thought”. As such, the Buddha gives karma a strong psychological element--- the thought behind any act being more important than the act itself. In other words, it is the thought that counts. Not only physical actions, but also what goes through one’s mind even without any physical action, will have karmic consequences. This is in stark contrast to the early Brahmanical concept of karma as “ritual action”[14].

There are other characteristics of the Buddhist karmic theory which makes it unique in relation to other religious thoughts:

1.Karma is the natural law that governs the universe. It is more like a concept without physical form. It has been described as an energy force, an existing universal law which has no religious label, ( Dhammananda, 1993 : 95)

2There is no ‘giver’ ( ie. a higher God) of the karmic theory . It has been, is and will be there in our universe all the time. The Buddha just discovered it and propagated it.

3Not everything is due to karma , there are other forces in the universe which can result, for example, in the inequality of mankind ( Narada, 1995 :106)

4The final end result of one’s karma depends on the circumstances. Thus, pouring a glass of water into the GangesRiver will have less effect than putting the same glass into a bucket of water.

5Life is a constant changing flux. One accumulates fresh karma with every changing moment and as such, previous karmas are constantly being affected and modified[15].

6Following the central theory of Dependent Origination( paticcasamuppada) in Buddhism and the observation that everything in this universe is impermanent and changing all the time, so it followsthat there can be no permanent individual “self”(atman) to “enjoy” the consequences of one’s karma in “the next life”. However, one’s action in this life may still influence one, and others’, when one “re-becomes” another individual in the next life. This is the important doctrine of No-self( Anatta) which is generally accepted by all schools of Buddhism.

Rebirth in Buddhism

It can be seen from the above that the Buddhist rebirth eschatology is not really the same as that in other religious systems where the concept is for the dead person to come back into this world whether as a human or other life forms[16]. In these systems, rebirth signifies an uninterruptedcontinuity of the entire personality from the previous life ( Kalupahana, 1995 :105) The fact that the new person will not remember his/her past lives are often conveniently explained by various myths[17] of spirits consuming drinks which make them forget the past just prior to re-incarnation.. The Buddha, however, will have nothing of this and, instead, proposes the doctrine ofDependent Origination(Paticcasamuppada) and No-self( Annata)to explain Karmic Rebirth. As Winston King( 1994) puts it beautifully :“ every presently existing being is but one link in a chain of continuing existences in various forms from a beginningless eternity in the past on into an endless future eternity”. Lives in this universe are continuously appearing and disappearing, and everything is linked inextricably to one another.

However, it must be noted that Buddhist scriptures contain just too many description of the various aspects of rebirth which may be seen as contradictory to this concept of No-self. Thus, the Itivutakka ( 2. 31) of the Pali Canon contains this unequivocal description of the value of moral life in leading to rebirth in heaven :

Having abandoned bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, misconduct

of the mind, and whatever else counts as false,not having done what is

not skillful. Having done much that is , at the break-up of the body ,

the discerning one reappears in heaven.

Indeed, Theravada literature is full of reference to the idea of heaven and hell and the benefit of practising the Path to have a good rebirth and avoid a bad one[18]. Mahayanaliterature is no exception. Chapter 22 (p262) of theSaddharmapundarika( Lotus) Sutrastates that anyone who promulgates the sutra, even a little, will receive a favourable rebirth and be strikingly handsome. And in Pureland Buddhism, rebirth in Sukhavati, the Pureland of Amitabha, can be achieved just by diligent recitation of Amitabha’s name. It is, therefore, no wonder that most people in Sri Lanka, monks included, devote themselves to acts of merit, the aim of which is a good rebirth in heaven or on earth (Gombrich , 1971 : 322), while in Burma, the most common reasons for keeping the precepts is fear of hell and that the precepts were ordained by the Buddha ( Spiro, 1971 :449).

It can safely be said that most lay followers of Buddhism, and many monks included, may in reality harbour a view of rebirth which does not reflect a real understanding of the Buddhist doctrines of No-self and Dependent Origination. It does not help when Nagasena [19]was questioned about the nature of rebirth by King Milinda, his answer was : “ [when someone is reborn] , he is neither the same nor different”. Such an answer only makes lay followers more confused about the nature of karmic rebirth. .

However, one cannot really blame the lay Buddhist followers ( or even monks) for having a misdirectednotion of karmic rebirth. Rebirth without a self is, in reality , counter-intuitive and really hard to imagine for most people. As Prasad( 2007 : 253) points out “ the Buddhist doctrine of karma [and rebirth] as an ethical theory is radical, complex, incomprehensible, and inexplicable in the absence of soul and the supervising God”. At the same time, it is reallyhard for modern(particularly Western) scholars in Buddhism to accept karmic rebirth as a reasonable basis for justification of the moral life. The idea of karmic rebirth is often relegated to the position of an “ancient India philosophical relic let alone by the Buddha”( Kalupahana, 1995 :103) or as “a piece of cultural baggage that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age ( Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2001)[20]. Thus Winston King( 1994) argues that emphasis on karmic rebirth is unnecessary for the understanding and practice of the Buddha’s teaching. He even boldly declares that “both Buddhism and Buddhist ethics may be better off without karmic rebirth”.