Theravada Methods of Interpretation on the Buddhist Scriptures Page 1 of 29
Dr. Veerachart Nimanong
Theravada Methods of Interpretation on Buddhist Scriptures
Dr. Veerachart Nimanong
Introduction
An attempt is made in this paper to investigate the Theravada methods of Interpretation on the Buddhist scriptures. My thesis is that there is Hermeneutics in Buddhism. This Hermeneutics is called “Gradual Path” as is well known in Theravada Buddhism. The main idea of Theravada Hermeneutics is to understand all conditioned things as impermanence, un-satisfactoriness and non-self. The terms 'non-attachment', 'non-self' and, 'the middle way as the way beyond' will be intentionally discussed in here to characterize the Buddhist context. In other words, non-attachment is regarded as the 'gradual path' (anupuppamagga) and 'skillful means' (upayakosala) to cultivate the conventional self and to realize the non-self. The non-self theory is a dialogue of doctrine and religious experience, which will eventually lead to, cooperation, freedom, maximal cooperation, understanding and harmony, respectively.
1. Buddhist Hermeneutics
Introduction: Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek term “Hermes”, meaning a Greek messenger God who brings messages from superior Gods to other Gods and men. In other words, a study of the theories of interpretation is known as hermeneutics, which is the effort to squeeze out the meaning of the religious scriptures. It is a type of knowledge about the theories of meaning of meaning, which emphasizes very much on a characteristics of understanding the texts. In ancient Greek, hermeneutics is known as Philology, which is nowadays called “linguistics”. During the medieval period, the study of the Bible is made possible by using the method of exegesis. Modern hermeneutics arises as a general theory of understanding and interpretation of all texts, whose authority was given to Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who is known as the “father of modern hermeneutics”. Contemporary Hermeneutics involves both explanation and interpretation to justify the understanding of both general and religious texts. In the West, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), and Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) (Lopez, 1998, p.1: Stiver, 1996, pp.87-111) are proponent and in the East, especially in Thai Buddhist thought, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906-1993) could be included in this category of Post-modernism.
Is there any hermeneutics in Buddhism? Does Buddhism need hermeneutics? According to Lopez, there is hermeneutics in Buddhism and Buddhist hermeneutics started with the Buddha’s instruction to Venerable Ananda that “The Doctrine and the Discipline, Ananda, which I have taught and enjoined upon you is to be your teacher when I am gone”.What, exactly, was his teaching and what does it mean for the teaching to be the teacher? It was the contemplation of these questions that led to what can be called Buddhist hermeneutics. Lopez opined further that Buddhism needs hermeneutics, for “Buddhism has a vast sacred canon, a fact due both to the length of the Buddha’s teaching career and to the posthumous attribution of many discourses to him, especially by the Mahayana”(Lopez, 1998, p.1). For Lopez, “a belief common to the major schools of Buddhist thought in Asia is that the Buddha did not teach the same thing to all, but rather expediently adapted his message to meet the specific needs of his audience” (Lopez, 1998, p.5). The reasons that hermeneutics is essential and necessary for Buddhism were given further by Lopez as follows:
The tradition maintained that as a Buddha, … his teachings must be free from error and contradiction. But how is one to harmonize the statement ‘the self is one’s protector’ with the statement that ‘there is no self’? How can the advice that suffering is to be identified, its origin abandoned, its cessation actualized, and the path to that cessation cultivated be seen as compatible with the declaration that ‘there is no suffering, no origin, no cessation, no path’? How is one to interpret the statement ‘From the night that he attained Enlightenment to the night that he passed into Nirvana, the Tathagata did not utter a single word’? (Lopez, 1998, p.3)
With the above-mentioned problematic statements, Lopez has drawn his conclusion that it gave rise to the development of interpretative formulae in India, the formal beginning of Buddhist hermeneutics. It also gives rise to the different schools of Buddhism at present. Lopez is quite sure that “the Buddha was seen in some instances to provide autocommentaries in which he explained what he meant by some previous teaching, while in other instances he provided rules for the interpretation of his own statements. One guideline was that found in the Catuhpratisaranasutra, in which the Buddha provided four reliances:
Rely on the teaching, not the teacher; rely on the meaning, not the letter; rely on the precise meaning (nitartha), not the indeterminate one (neyartha); rely on wisdom (jnana), not on (ordinary) consciousness (vijnana).” (Lopez, 1998, p.3)
Such evidence is found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, where there is an interpretative principle based on advice given by the Buddha on his deathbed on how to deal with statements on the doctrine, which are disputed. As the Buddha says:
Then, monks, you should study well those (disputed) paragraphs and words, and investigate whether they occur in the discourse (sutta), and compare them with the discipline (vinaya). If having investigated the sutta and compared with the vinaya they can neither (be found) in the sutta nor (found to be) comparable with the (teachings in the) vinaya then you should reach agreement on these points that they are certainly not the words of the Bhagava (the Buddha), and that the bhikkhu in question (who made the disputed statement) has incorrectly remembered (the Buddha’s teaching). You should discard those statements completely. (S.II.1)
The principle of interpretation laid down here is that disputed statements on the doctrine should be compared with the recorded words of the Buddha, the book of discourse (sutta), and with the ethical principles recorded in the book of discipline (vinaya), to gauge whether they are accurate and in accord with Buddhist ethical principles. The Buddha gave this strict and literal interpretative method at a time when Buddhism was an oral tradition. The Buddha’s statement in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is thus meant as an injunction to monks to adhere closely to the actual teachings of the Buddha, which they had committed to memory.
1.1.Interpretative Methods and Their Practices in Tipitaka
1.1.1. The Principle of Faith as Gradual Path: This discourse is known as Kalamasutta, which illustrates how faith is connected in Buddhism to verification through actual experience. The Kalama people approached the Buddha and asked him that there are different religious teachers, who come to our city. They speak very highly of their own theories but oppose, condemn and ridicule the theories of one another. We are now in state of doubt as to whom out of these recluses spoke falsehood. Then the Buddha said:
Kalamas, you have a right to feel uncertain for you have raised a doubt in a situation in
which you ought to suspend your judgement. Come now, Kalamas, do not accept anything only on the grounds of (1) tradition or (2) report or (3) hearsay or (4) because it is an authority of text or (5) because it is logic or (6) because it is inference or (7) because of a superficial assessment of the appearance or (8) because it conforms with one's approved theory or (9) because it is seeming possibility or (10) because of the prestige of your teacher. (11) When you, Kalamas, realize for yourself that these doctrines are evil and unjustified, that they are condemned by the wise and that when they are accepted and lived by, they conduce to ill and sorrow, then you should reject them. (A.I.189)
The above-mentioned ten faiths can be paired with “three kinds of wisdom” (panna), that is, wisdom resulting from study, wisdom from reflection, and wisdom from mental development, (D.III.219). The faith-principles nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 can be grouped under the wisdom resulting from study, the faith-principles nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 can be classified into the wisdom resulting from reflection, and the last one no. 11 can be categorized into the wisdom derived from the mental development. The three types of wisdom as quoted above are taken as “gradual path” leading to the realization of Nibbana.
1.1.2. The Method of Progressive or Graduated Sermon (Anupubbikatha)
The Buddha preaches this sermon first and then followed with the Fourfold Noble Truth, so this teaching deserves to be called the real gradual path in its etymological meaning of the term. This doctrine started with: (1) Talk on charity (dana), (2) talk on morality (sila), (3) talk on heavenly pleasures (sagga-katha), (4) talk on the disadvantages of sensual pleasures (kamadinavakatha), and (5) talk on the benefits of renouncing sensual pleasures (nekkhammanisamsakatha), (D.I.148). This sermon represents a distinctively Theravadin method on interpreting the Tipitaka.
1.1.3. The Law of Cause and Conditions as Gradual Path:
The law of cause and conditions is known in other words as the law of Dependent Origination (paticcasamuppada), which consists of general principle as follows: “When there is this, this is; when this is not, neither is this. Because this arises, so does this; because this ceases, so does this.” (S.II.64-65) This law consists of 12 links started from “ignorance” to “decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, grief, and despair”. This law of cause and conditions with the help of the 24 relation doctrine appeared in the Aphidhamma Pitaka can explain the origin of human being more philosophically.
1.1.4. The Method of The Four Great Authorities: It is said that the authority is one only, but by analysis it presents as four authorities. This theory is divided into 2 types as follows:
1.1.4.1. The four great authorities for determining Dhamma: These four great indicators are not actually a classification of authorities or means but a list of matters rejected as invalid authorities. The real purpose of the four indicators was to establish the teaching as the true authority.
“(1) A monk might say: “Face to face with the Buddha did I hear this; face to face with him did I receive this. This is the Doctrine, this is the Discipline, this is the Master’s teaching. It is called “The appeal to the Enlightened One as authority”.
(2) A monk might say: “I such and such a monastery resides an Order (sangha) together with an elder monk, together with a leader. Face to face with that Order did I hear this; …. It is called “The appeal to a community of monks or an Order as authority”.
(3) A monk might say: “In such and such a monastery reside a great number of elder monks, widely learned, versed in the Collections, experts on the Doctrine, experts on the Discipline, experts on the Summaries. In the presence of those monks did I hear this; … It is called “The appeal to a number of elders as authority”.
(4) A monk might say: “In such and such a monastery resides an elder monk of wide learning …. It is called “The appeal to a single elder as authority”.
The words of that monk are neither to be welcomed nor scorned, the words and syllables thereof are to be studied thoroughly, laid beside the Discourses and compared with the Discipline.
If, when laid beside the Discourses and compared with the Discipline, these words, and syllables lie not along with the Discourses and agree not with the Discipline then you may come to the conclusion: Surely this is not the word of the Buddha, and it has been wrongly grasped by that monk. Then reject it, (D.II.123; A.II.167).
1.1.4.2. The four great authorities for determining Discipline: The four indicators allow what is in accordance with the Discipline to be adopted and what is not in accordance to be rejected even when those matters are not being directly referred to in the Discipline, (Vin.I.250).
“(1) What has not been considered inappropriate is inappropriate if it resembles what is inappropriate. For example: Riding a bicycle is not prohibited for monks by their discipline; but it resembles what is not appropriate (asamvara) for monks; hence it is taken as inappropriate.
(2) What has not been considered inappropriate is appropriate if it resembles what is appropriate. For example: A cup of tea in the afternoon has not been prohibited as inappropriate, but resembles what is appropriate; hence it is appropriate.
(3) What has not been considered appropriate is inappropriate if it resembles what is inappropriate. For example: Wearing a wrist-watch has not been approved, but it resembles what is inappropriate because it is a kind of ornament; hence it is not appropriate.
(4) What has not been considered appropriate is appropriate if it resembles what is appropriate. For example: To carry a watch in the inner coat is not approved, but it resembles what is appropriate for one needs to know time; hence it is appropriate.
1.1.5. The Method of Apannaka Practice
The Apannaka is a name of Buddhist sutta, (M. Sutta no. 94). It is an epistemic psychological attitude form of interpretation of all kinds of doubts on the Buddha’s teachings. The apannaka which does not involve logical reasoning cannot be inference; but inference is an aspect of apannaka.
Although the Buddha taught this method to Saleyyakas who did not believe in any religion the method may well be used, in their many different practical questions, by both those who believe and those who do not.
The apannaka may be employed in determining any uncertain matter. For example let’s see how this method may be used in determining whether or not there is a fact behind the belief that the Buddha visited Thailand. The following steps may be considered:
- (According to the folk-lore) it is possible that the Buddha visited Thailand.
- (In the opinion of those who deny folk-lore) it is also possible that the Buddha did not.
- We pay homage to Sripada (the Buddha’s footprints) with the belief that the Buddha visited Thailand.
- If the Buddha had visited Thailand in actuality we would gain ‘merit’.
- If the opposite was true and the Buddha did not visit Thailand still the religious practice motivated by the belief would result in both generating ‘merit’ and spreading a good name for us.
- In this manner, we gain irrespective of the factuality of the belief that the Buddha visited Thailand.
In this manner, an intelligent person would conclude that it is right to pay homage to the Buddha whether he visited Thailand or not.
It seems that the optimistic attitude of Europeans is comparable to the Apannaka practice of Buddhism in many, though not in all, respects.
1.1.6.The Method of Four Assurances
In connection with the Kalamasutta as mentioned earlier, the Buddha has offered the alternative way or option for those who do no yet profess to believe in any faith.
“If there is a world beyond, and there is the fruit and result of kamma well-done or ill, then when the body breaks up after death, I shall arise in a happy born, in a heaven world.”
“If, however, there is no world beyond, no fruit and result of kamma well-done or ill, yet in this very life I dwell free from hostility and affliction, sorrowless and happy.”
“Again, even if having done evil kamma and it is ‘effective in producing a result, nevertheless (now) I do not think to do evil towards anyone, so how can ill touch me?”
“Again, if not having done evil and it is not effective (producing no result) then in both ways I hold myself utterly pure.” (A.I.189)
It can be put in our observation that this theory of four assurances converges with Pascal’s theory of “wager” to believe in God and William James’ theory of “Will to Believe”, and both theories are entitled as “Voluntarism Theories of Faith”, (John H. Hick, 1963, p. 59).
1.1.7. The Method of Simile
To explain a particular point or idea, we found that the Buddha has applied similes. Simile is analysis by making use of comparison (upama) and the compared (upameyya). For example: “He whose corruptions are destroyed, he who is not attached to food, he who has perceived void and unconditioned freedom, his track cannot be traced, like that of birds in the air,” (Dh. 93). Another example is thus: “Though through all his life a fool associate with a wise man, he yet understands not the Dhamma, as the spoon does not understand the flavor of soup,” (Dh. 64). It can be explained further that the cause or comparison is the similes of “birds in the air have no trace” and “the spoon knows not the flavor of soup”, but the effect is the compared.
1.1.8. The Method of Parable
The parable is a long simile or a simile with a long explanation with a story. It is like a story of the Buddha and the sick man. The Buddha uttered the stanza: He that would wait upon Me, let him wait upon the sick,” (Vin. I.301-302). The parable goes thus: Once upon a time, a certain monk was sick with a disorder of the bowels, and lay sprawling in his own urine and dung. Now the Buddha, with Venerable Ananda as attendant monk, wandering from place to place in search of lodging, approached the dwelling- place of that monk. The Buddha saw that monk lying sprawling in his own urine and dung. Seeing, he approached that monk, and said this to that monk: “Monk, what ails you?” “It is disorder of the bowels, Reverend Sir.” “But have you a monk to wait upon you?” “I have not, Reverend Sir.” “Why do not the monks wait upon you?” “I, Reverend Sir, am of no use to the monks; therefore the monks do not wait upon me.” Then the Buddha addressed Ananda: “Go, Ananda, fetch water; we will bath this monk.” When Ananda brought the water for Him, the Buddha poured the water; Ananda bathed the monk. The Buddha grasped him by the head; Ananda lifted him by the feet; they laid him on a bed. Then the Buddha, employing this incident as the source, as the subject, of a lesson, convoked the Assembly of Monks and addressed the monks thus: “Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, to wait upon you. If you, monks, will not wait upon each other, then who will wait upon you? Monks, he that would wait upon Me, let him wait upon the sick.”