....................................By Sanath Nanayakkara.............
Freedom of thought is closely linked with the freedom of the individual and the operation of his free will. Both Brahmanism and a majority of the Sramana teachings did not consider the individual to be free. According to Brahmanism the individual is a creature created by the Creator. Hence he is more or less a puppet in the hands of his Creator. Brahmanism is a revealed teaching and hence, considered infallible and unquestionable. Devotees have to accept the teachings blindly. The Creator is the one who orders and plans an individual's life, with all its happiness and unhappiness predetermined and put in place. All that an individual has to do is to faithfully adhere to the revealed teaching and lead the life prescribed in the sacred texts. In such a situation the question of free will does not arise.
Many of the Sramana teachings, too, were deterministic and fatalistic. Some of them denied the efficacy of moral life, human action and human effort. While some maintained that the whole life is pre-programmed, and the individual action and effort to steer it to any other direction is futile. Some others maintained that the present happiness and unhappiness is predetermined by one's past deeds, and this is unalterable. Those who denied the efficacy of moral life advocated indiscriminate enjoyment of sensual pleasures.
In these religions and philosophies there was no room for freedom of thought and investigation. All these religions and philosophies advocated the following of a life laid down according to a stereotyped fromat in which all events, from the beginning to end, according to some not only up to death but up to final liberation, are predetermined and fixed.
Buddhism stands unique in this religious milieu. Buddhism considered the individual to be in dependent, endowed with free will, capable of thinking freely, choosing freely between alternatives, taking initiative, putting forth effort, and striving. The Buddha emphasized that one is one's own master (Dhammapada. stz. No. 160); that one is responsible for one's purity and impurity (ibid stz. Nos. 161, 165); and one's predicament is one's own creation. Hence, an individual has to use his discriminate knowledge, avoid evil, do good, take the initiative and strive hard to attain liberation.
The Buddha presented himself merely as a torch-bearer (ukka-dhara) a guide (maggassa akkhata). Each individual has to do his part of the duty to liberate himself. The Dhamma has to be individually understood by the wise. All these are features unique to Buddhism, and they call for investigation and discriminative thinking.
Buddhism rejects blind faith, which it refers to as 'amulika saddha' (lit. rootless or baseless faith), and encourages 'akaravati saddha' (reasoned faith) (see Canki Sutta, Majjhimanikaya) Buddhism is not a revealed teaching to be accepted on blind faith; hence it extends an invitation to those interested to ' come and see' (ehipassika). Not only the Dhamma, even the Buddha offered himself for scrutiny and investigation, a feature unparalleled in the history of religions. (Vimamsaka Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)
The Kalama Sutta of the Anguttaranikaya can be called a sort of 'charter of free inquiry'. This Sutta takes up the then accepted the criteria of the truth and examine their validity as means of obtaining true knowledge. These then are:
1) Vedic textual tradition (Anussava)
2) Unbroken tradition maintained by successive generations of teachers (Parampara)
3) Hearsay (Itikira)
4) Approved textual tradition (Pitakasampada)
5) Logic (Takka-hetu)
6) Reasoning (Nay-hetu)
7) Validity of reason contained in the teaching (Akaraparivitakka)
8) Agreement between the teaching and the views held by the individual (Ditthimijjhanakkhanti)
9) Competence of the teacher (Bhabbarupata)
10) Respectability and reputation of the teacher (Samanonogaru)
These ten can be broadly divided into two groups: Nos. 1,2,3,4,9 and 10 as means depending on some kind of authority and Nos. 5,6,7,8 as depending on reason.
The Buddha was neither a traditionalist nor a logician nor a mere inquirer but an experientialist (Sangarava Sutta, Majjhimanikaya). Hence he adopted a cautious attitude to these. He did not reject any of these outright. His advice was not to blindly accept any of them merely because they are approved criteria for obtaining the truth. In some other Suttas such as the Sandaka Sutta and Canki Sutta the Buddha explained the limitations of some of these criteria.
In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha presented a new criterion. This is the use of one's own experience and understanding in deciding between what is right and wrong, good and bad. the Buddha says that anyone if he finds, through his experience and understanding, that the adoption of some view or a course of action is unprofitable, blameworthy, censured by the wise, leading to loss and sorrow, or in other words, leading to the growth of greed, hatred and delusion, he should reject such a view or course of action and adopt whatever view and course of action leading to opposite results.
This shows that freedom of thought allowed in the Kalama Sutta has as its ambit of operation the moral issues involved in one's day to day life. This is understandable for the main focus of the Buddhist practice is to develop a moral life. This new criterion has much practical and it is seen that most of our day to day activities are of moral nature.
The Buddhist life is a life of abstention from evil or what is harmful, and cultivation of what is good and beneficial. The Buddha suggests numerous other methods, besides the one given in the Kalama Sutta, that could be used to guide one's thinking when deciding between good and bad. One is to consider the effect of one's action on oneself as well as on others. One is advised to give up all views and actions harmful to oneself and others (See Ambalatthika Rahulovada Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)
Similarly one could analyse one's motives and abstain from all actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion. the Veludvara Sutta (Samyuttanikaya ef. Dhammapada Stz. No. 129) gives another very practical aid to guide one's behaviour. It says that one should take oneself as the example and avoid doing anything to others that one would not wish others do to oneself.
Besides, the Buddha says that one could adopt the three "authorities" (Adhipateyya) to help one decide and choose particular veiws or causes of actions. These are the authority of
1) one's own conscience ........(attadhipateyya),
2) public opinion ....................(lokadhipateyya), and
3) morality .............................(dhammadhipateyya).
Even with regard to customs and traditions Buddhism holds that one should not blindly hang on to them, merely because they are dear and long cherished. One should be ready to abandon tradition that are hindrances, and adopt beneficial and progressive ones. (See Payasi Sutta, Dighanikaya)
However, in the present, there is a widely prevalent wrong view about freedom of thought encouraged in Buddhism through the injunctions laid down in the Kalama Sutta. Some take these injunctions out of context and try to expand the ambit of their application. Such interpretations can lead one's freedom of thinking to a kind of 'wild as freedom'. this indeed will amount to utter misuse of freedom of thought and would, perhaps, bring about much harm to those who conduct their affairs in accordance with such unlimited freedom of thinking, and also cause immense problems to others.
See further:
K.N. Jayatilleke: ..................Early Buddhist Theory of knowledge.
O.H. de A Wijesekera: .......The Buddhist Concept of Mind (Bodhi leaves A 9)
Gunapala Dharmapsiri: ..........Fundamentals of Buddhist Ethics.
Sanath Nanayakkara: ............How Free is Freedom of Thought, (Bodhi leaves, 156)
Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: ....Articles on Ethics, Freedom, Free will.
Freedom of thought is closely linked with the freedom of the individual and the operation of his free will. Both Brahmanism and a majority of the Sramana teachings did not consider the individual to be free. According to Brahmanism the individual is a creature created by the Creator. Hence he is more or less a puppet in the hands of his Creator. Brahmanism is a revealed teaching and hence, considered infallible and unquestionable. Devotees have to accept the teachings blindly. The Creator is the one who orders and plans an individual's life, with all its happiness and unhappiness predetermined and put in place. All that an individual has to do is to faithfully adhere to the revealed teaching and lead the life prescribed in the sacred texts. In such a situation the question of free will does not arise.
Many of the Sramana teachings, too, were deterministic and fatalistic. Some of them denied the efficacy of moral life, human action and human effort. While some maintained that the whole life is pre-programmed, and the individual action and effort to steer it to any other direction is futile. Some others maintained that the present happiness and unhappiness is predetermined by one's past deeds, and this is unalterable. Those who denied the efficacy of moral life advocated indiscriminate enjoyment of sensual pleasures.
In these religions and philosophies there was no room for freedom of thought and investigation. All these religions and philosophies advocated the following of a life laid down according to a stereotyped fromat in which all events, from the beginning to end, according to some not only up to death but up to final liberation, are predetermined and fixed.
Buddhism stands unique in this religious milieu. Buddhism considered the individual to be in dependent, endowed with free will, capable of thinking freely, choosing freely between alternatives, taking initiative, putting forth effort, and striving. The Buddha emphasized that one is one's own master (Dhammapada. stz. No. 160); that one is responsible for one's purity and impurity (ibid stz. Nos. 161, 165); and one's predicament is one's own creation. Hence, an individual has to use his discriminate knowledge, avoid evil, do good, take the initiative and strive hard to attain liberation.
The Buddha presented himself merely as a torch-bearer (ukka-dhara) a guide (maggassa akkhata). Each individual has to do his part of the duty to liberate himself. The Dhamma has to be individually understood by the wise. All these are features unique to Buddhism, and they call for investigation and discriminative thinking.
Buddhism rejects blind faith, which it refers to as 'amulika saddha' (lit. rootless or baseless faith), and encourages 'akaravati saddha' (reasoned faith) (see Canki Sutta, Majjhimanikaya) Buddhism is not a revealed teaching to be accepted on blind faith; hence it extends an invitation to those interested to ' come and see' (ehipassika). Not only the Dhamma, even the Buddha offered himself for scrutiny and investigation, a feature unparalleled in the history of religions. (Vimamsaka Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)
The Kalama Sutta of the Anguttaranikaya can be called a sort of 'charter of free inquiry'. This Sutta takes up the then accepted the criteria of the truth and examine their validity as means of obtaining true knowledge. These then are:
1) Vedic textual tradition (Anussava)
2) Unbroken tradition maintained by successive generations of teachers (Parampara)
3) Hearsay (Itikira)
4) Approved textual tradition (Pitakasampada)
5) Logic (Takka-hetu)
6) Reasoning (Nay-hetu)
7) Validity of reason contained in the teaching (Akaraparivitakka)
8) Agreement between the teaching and the views held by the individual (Ditthimijjhanakkhanti)
9) Competence of the teacher (Bhabbarupata)
10) Respectability and reputation of the teacher (Samanonogaru)
These ten can be broadly divided into two groups: Nos. 1,2,3,4,9 and 10 as means depending on some kind of authority and Nos. 5,6,7,8 as depending on reason.
The Buddha was neither a traditionalist nor a logician nor a mere inquirer but an experientialist (Sangarava Sutta, Majjhimanikaya). Hence he adopted a cautious attitude to these. He did not reject any of these outright. His advice was not to blindly accept any of them merely because they are approved criteria for obtaining the truth. In some other Suttas such as the Sandaka Sutta and Canki Sutta the Buddha explained the limitations of some of these criteria.
In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha presented a new criterion. This is the use of one's own experience and understanding in deciding between what is right and wrong, good and bad. the Buddha says that anyone if he finds, through his experience and understanding, that the adoption of some view or a course of action is unprofitable, blameworthy, censured by the wise, leading to loss and sorrow, or in other words, leading to the growth of greed, hatred and delusion, he should reject such a view or course of action and adopt whatever view and course of action leading to opposite results.
This shows that freedom of thought allowed in the Kalama Sutta has as its ambit of operation the moral issues involved in one's day to day life. This is understandable for the main focus of the Buddhist practice is to develop a moral life. This new criterion has much practical and it is seen that most of our day to day activities are of moral nature.
The Buddhist life is a life of abstention from evil or what is harmful, and cultivation of what is good and beneficial. The Buddha suggests numerous other methods, besides the one given in the Kalama Sutta, that could be used to guide one's thinking when deciding between good and bad. One is to consider the effect of one's action on oneself as well as on others. One is advised to give up all views and actions harmful to oneself and others (See Ambalatthika Rahulovada Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)
Similarly one could analyse one's motives and abstain from all actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion. the Veludvara Sutta (Samyuttanikaya ef. Dhammapada Stz. No. 129) gives another very practical aid to guide one's behaviour. It says that one should take oneself as the example and avoid doing anything to others that one would not wish others do to oneself.
Besides, the Buddha says that one could adopt the three "authorities" (Adhipateyya) to help one decide and choose particular veiws or causes of actions. These are the authority of
1) one's own conscience ........(attadhipateyya),
2) public opinion ....................(lokadhipateyya), and
3) morality .............................(dhammadhipateyya).
Even with regard to customs and traditions Buddhism holds that one should not blindly hang on to them, merely because they are dear and long cherished. One should be ready to abandon tradition that are hindrances, and adopt beneficial and progressive ones. (See Payasi Sutta, Dighanikaya)
However, in the present, there is a widely prevalent wrong view about freedom of thought encouraged in Buddhism through the injunctions laid down in the Kalama Sutta. Some take these injunctions out of context and try to expand the ambit of their application. Such interpretations can lead one's freedom of thinking to a kind of 'wild as freedom'. this indeed will amount to utter misuse of freedom of thought and would, perhaps, bring about much harm to those who conduct their affairs in accordance with such unlimited freedom of thinking, and also cause immense problems to others.
See further:
K.N. Jayatilleke: ..................Early Buddhist Theory of knowledge.
O.H. de A Wijesekera: .......The Buddhist Concept of Mind (Bodhi leaves A 9)
Gunapala Dharmapsiri: ..........Fundamentals of Buddhist Ethics.
Sanath Nanayakkara: ............How Free is Freedom of Thought, (Bodhi leaves, 156)
Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: ....Articles on Ethics, Freedom, Free will.
No comments:
Post a Comment