Theory and Practice of Buddhist Moral Life -- by Jeffrey Po

(......continued from issue 190)


Theory and Practice of Buddhist Moral Life (Part 1) -- by Jeffrey Po

Buddhist ethical conducts are concerned with the moral behaviors of man and within the society in which he lives. It involves his interactions and interpersonal relationships with those living with and around him, be they people or otherwise (animals, devas, the environment, the eco-system etc). Not only does the behavior as expressed in his speech and actions important in determining his moral behaviors but the purifications of whatever mental proclivities (anussaya) deemed to create unwholesome/unskillful (akusala) acts in speech and action is looked upon as necessary in determining his moral conduct also.

Buddhism does not make distinctions between one's ethical and moral behavior and that of religious behaviors. They are taken as functioning and operating together. In other words, there is no contradiction between morality and religiosity of a person. Hence, what is considered "morally bad/evil" (e.g. war) cannot therefore be justified on religious grounds (e.g. holy war).

The Lord Buddha Gotama teachings on morality are based upon three foundations. They are:

a. Kamavada - this is the recognition or advocacy of moral life in a general sense. It is the acknowledgement that good and bad/right and wrong can be found within the operations of the community and society. It is the understanding by general consensus that certain actions are considered "unworthy" or "worthy". All religions are included under this category.

b. Kiriyavada - the recognition that the efficacy of moral acts. By this is meant to concede that every moral act bears results - whether good or bad (wholesome or unwholesome) and that there are casual relations between the very act and the consequences.

c. Viriyavada - the recognition of the need of human effort in discharging human moral life. It means that for actions to be considered as possessing "moral values", human efforts are required.

Thus according the early Buddhist doctrines, moral values collapse if any one or all of those three foundations (bases) are absent.

The Brahamajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya mentions the 62 different philosophical views prevalent during the time of the Lord Buddha Gotama.

He responded to them by pointing out that though they might have possessed the first foundation i.e. kammavada, the second and third factors were not present. Hence, He dismissed the claims that their philosophies and in the ultimate sense, their ideologies, contained any sort of moral values.

It is best to recall the three general views that tried to explain human existence then. They are:

a. Sabbam Issaramimmana hetu - everything is due to the part of the creator. This view can be termed as "theistic determinism". The Lord Buddha Gotama argues that if such were the case then there would no longer be the necessity of leading a moral life. Whatever good or bad/right or wrong befell man and the world in the past, present and future, were therefore the handicraft of the creator. Hence, those holding such beliefs cannot claim to possess the second and third foundation (factor) of morality i.e. both the efficacy of human act and human effort were not present.

b. Sabbam Pubbekata hetu - everything is due to past kamma. This view can be termed as "kammic determinism" and again the Lord Buddha Gotama, argues that if such were the case, then leading a moral life was meaningless. Again, any of those 62 different views holding such notions cannot claim to have possessed the second and third foundation (factor) of morality.

c. Sabbam ahetu appappaya - everything is due to chance. This view can be termed as "fortuitous origination". Once again, second and third ingredients were not present.

Buddhism therefore stood out amongst the 62 differing philosophical views because of its ability to connect all those three foundations. It constantly claims that the Path promulgated by the Lord Buddha Gotama contains the very elements of moral values and that it could be judged as having with it high ethical and moral standards.

It is said that human experiences are entirely "dependent upon origination".

It infers that the arising of every human experience (mental and/or physical) must necessarily depend upon other conditions. As such, Buddhists would view moral behaviors and standards as "not being determined" by past actions (kamma). Rather, it takes the stand that present situations are brought about by present actions (kamma), though past actions (kamma) could provide some influencing factors. If past actions (kamma) determines one's present state, then the concept of "voluntary action" i.e. the freedom to choose, select, judge (the play of the free will) becomes negated. Buddhists therefore maintain that all present actions (kamma) are in fact determined by one's volitions, motivations, free will (cetana). The Anguttara Nikaya - VI/63, mentions:

"Volitions (cetana), O Monks, is what I call action (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind".

Hence the moral actions of man are based on present volitions (cetana). He is therefore wholly responsible for his actions.

How then does Buddhism provide criteria for moral evaluation of man's actions? On what basis then does one's actions be judged as good or bad/right or wrong?

In theistic religion or way of life, moral judgments are under the purview of the creator and moral precepts are his commandments. In Buddhism, the criteria for moral evaluations of man's actions are purely psychological. One is judged through one's speech and bodily behaviors and based upon the consequences that happen. If those actions result in creating wholesome, congenial and acceptable situations then they are deemed to be morally "skillful" (kusala). Alternatively, if those actions result in creating unwholesome, uncongenial and unacceptable situations then they are frowned upon as "unskillful" (akusala) actions. Hence, Buddhism does not speak of "punishment and rewards". Rather, it speaks of "acts and consequences". It views human moral actions to have been initiated purely by human volitions and that operation of them by any other sort of agents (internal to himself, soul or external to him i.e. creator) to be invalid.

It is said that man's moral behaviors are caused and conditioned by his volitional acts (cetana kamma). Those very volitions (cetana), on the other hand, arise through the extremely strong influences of what Buddhists term as "roots" (hetus). 6 pertinent "roots" of special interest to Buddhists are those of "passion" (lobha), "aversion" (dosa) and "delusion" (moha) - considered as "unwholesome roots" (akusala hetus) and their opposite of "generosity" (alobha or dana), loving kindness (adosa or metta) and wisdom (adosa or panna) - considered to be "wholesome roots" (kusala hetus). Those six are usually referred to as "mulas" and they are looked upon as cardinal roots that lay buried deep in the human psyche. They accompany all volitional acts. "Wholesome" roots (kusala mula) generate "wholesome actions" (kusala kamma) that result in "wholesome consequences" (kusala vipaka) while "unwholesome roots" (akusala mula) generate "unwholesome actions" (akusala kamma) that result in "unwholesome consequences" (akusala vipaka). Hence, in Buddhist moral practice, the management of "unwholesome roots" is vital while the cultivation and expressions of "wholesome roots" are necessary.
Having ascertained the criterion for the evaluation of Buddhist morality one now needs to look into guidelines to Buddhist moral actions. In other words, how Buddhists need to conduct themselves.

Here early Buddhism looks into two guidelines. They are:

a. Attupama - literally translated it means "self"-comparison. However, it does not imply comparing one with oneself. Rather it is taken to mean comparing oneself against "another self". In other words, one's actions are guided by whether or not the resulting consequences are acceptable or unacceptable to the initiator of the action. For instance, if being emotionally hurt is unacceptable, then one ought to refrain from initiating actions and behavior that provokes emotional hurt to another.

b. Adhipateyya - here it taken that before one acts one ought to consider the following:

i. Attadhipateyya - literally it means "supremacy of the self". In this is meant that one ought to refrain from any actions that might cause one to regret those actions. This infers controlling one's actions because of future adverse consequences.

ii. Lokadhipateyya - literally it means "supremacy of the world". In this is meant that one ought to refrain from actions that might result in censure from the "world"

i.e. others - such as the community, public opinions, neighbors etc.

Note that in Buddhism, "public opinion" does not imply the opinion of the "minority" nor the "majority" but rather the opinions of the "wise" - "vinnu". Thus early Buddhists attempt actions that brings about praises from the wise (vinnu pasattha) and refrains any sort of actions that brings about censure and condemnation from the wise (vinnu garahita).

iii. Dhammadhipateyya - this refers to moral behaviors guided by the Dhamma that is to be seen as the "highest moral sense". In Buddhism this "highest moral sense" is taken to be "hiri" (moral shame) and "ottappa" (moral fear/dread). They assume the position of Lokapala (guardian of the world). They are extremely strong and influential mental factors (cetasikas).

Hence in early Buddhism, leading a moral life plays highly significant role in the Buddhist way of life. Whether or not one possesses a religion or believes in the concept of rebirth is considered of secondary importance.

With reference to the Eight-fold Noble Path, Buddhists are familiar with the three kinds of training (sikkha) - of morality (sila), samadhi (concentration) and panna (wisdom). They constitute the whole of Buddhist moral life and the foundation of Buddhist practice. However those act and behaviors can be undermined by morally unwholesome acts that find opportunity to express them whenever and wherever possible. Therefore, for purification, one must necessarily eliminate the unwholesome psychological bases (foundations) that give rise to those unwholesome acts. In other words, Buddhist morality goes beyond the mere avoidance of unwholesome actions. The unwholesome psychological foundations are:

a. Anusaya - this is defined as the 7 "proclivities", inclinations or tendencies that lie dormant and awaiting for opportunities to arise. They include sensuous greed (kama-raga), grudge (patigiha), speculative opinion (ditthi), skeptical doubt (vicikiccha), conceit (mana), craving for continued existence (bhavaraga) and ignorance (avijja). These are called proclivities because they tend to become the conditions for the arising of new sensuous greed etc.

b. Pariyutthana - literally it means, "that which is awakened" - in other words those latent tendencies (anusaya) surface to create mental turbulence that finds expressions such as hate (vyapada), anger (dosa) and thereby condition the expressions of feelings and emotions of excitement.

c. Vitikkama - literally it means, "going beyond", "going out". Here "pariyutthana" finds expression in externalizing itself. It expresses itself as violence, the act of stealing, utterances of abusiveness and so forth i.e. physical actions (kayakamma) and vocal actions (vacikamma).

Of the three foundation levels, the third is considered to be the most dangerous because outward manifestation occurs. However, it is also the easiest to control if one is efficient in one's practice of "morality" (sila)

i.e. restrain of both vocal and physical actions. This is the beginning of one's quest to lead a wholesome moral life (pancasila). With reference to the second psychological foundation, the utilization of the second grouping of the Eightfold Noble Path i.e. samadhi (concentration) is called for. Samadhi (concentration) removes "pariyutthana". It unites the mind and considered as antidotes for a turbulent mind. Finally the third group of the Eightfold Noble Path (panna) removes "anussaya" - those mental proclivities that lay buried within the deep recess of the mind.

As one proceeds towards a life of moral actions and behaviors how then would one behave towards oneself and others?

Early Buddhism distinguishes two aspects of such behaviors. They are:

a. Attahita - concern with one's won moral behavior and good

b. Panahita - concern with other's own moral behavior and good

How then does Buddhism differentiate between those two and the emphasis that has to be placed because early Buddhists (non-Mahayana) place greater importance of "attahita" over "panahita" while the Mahayana adopts the converse attitude.

Here one returns to the admonishment of the Lord Buddha Gotama who establishes that there are four types of individuals. The Angttara Nikaya II: 94 mentions:

"There are these four types of persons found in the world. What four?"

"He who is concerned neither with his own good nor the good of others,

He who is concerned with the good of others but not his own good,

He who is concerned with his own good not the good of others,

He who is concerned with both his own good and the good of others".

Obviously the fourth type is the most welcomed type. However, the Lord Buddha Gotama maintains that the third type is better than the second because one must necessarily look after oneself first before one can assist another. This is not a selfish expression of trying to bolster one's ego. On the contrary, it is the rationalization that morally depraved person is unlikely to be able to provide assistance in uplifting the moral depravity of others.

The Majjhima Nikaya - 45 says:

"It cannot be, Cunda, that one who is sunk in a mud can pull out another who is sunk in mud. It is possible, Cunda, when one not sunk in mud will by himself pull out another who is sunk in mud. When one is not tamed, not trained, not quenched (of defilements), one cannot make another utterly quenched (of defilements)."

Again the Dhammapada - 158 mentions:

"Let one first establish oneself in what is proper, and then instruct others. Such a wise man will not be blamed by others".

In early Buddhist doctrines it is viewed that when one purifies oneself first, the process affects one's surroundings also i.e. members of families, friends, the community and so forth. It therefore possesses social dimension. Therefore, the third type of person is considered better than the second not because of importance but rather out of priority.

Buddhists consider knowledge/wisdom (panna) to be inseparable from moral life/virtue/moral culture. A morally perfect person is aware of the situation in that he is fully mindful of the good and bad/right and wrong. The possession of wisdom is necessary to recognize morally deplorable states and to introduce methods to manage and eventually remove them. Buddhist moral perfection is not looked upon as "naive morality". In other words it is more than merely refraining from performing unwholesome acts because a baby too do not perform unwholesome acts. In the case of the baby, he is totally unconscious and unaware of those refrains. The Digha Nikaya - 84 mentions:

"Wisdom is purified by virtue, and virtue is purified by wisdom. When one is, so is the other. A virtuous person has wisdom, and the wise person has virtue. The combination of virtue and wisdom is called the highest thing in the world".