By Walpola Rahula
There are some who believe that Buddhism is so lofty and sublime a system that it cannot be practised by ordinary men and women in this workaday world of ours, and that one has to retire from it to a monastery, or to some quiet place, if one desires to be a true Buddhist.
There are some who believe that Buddhism is so lofty and sublime a system that it cannot be practised by ordinary men and women in this workaday world of ours, and that one has to retire from it to a monastery, or to some quiet place, if one desires to be a true Buddhist.
This is a
sad misconception, due evidently to a lack of understanding of the teaching of
the Buddha. People run to such hasty and wrong conclusions as a result of their
hearing, or reading casually, something about Buddhism written by someone, who,
as he has not understood the subject in all its aspects, gives only a partial
and lopsided view of it. The Buddha’s teaching is meant not only for monks in
monasteries, but also for ordinary men and women living at home with their
families. The Noble Eightfold Path, which is the Buddhist way of life, is meant
of all, without distinction of any kind.
The vast
majority of people in the world cannot turn monk, or retire into caves or
forests. However noble and pure Buddhism may be, it would be useless to the
masses of mankind if they could not follow it in their daily life in the world
of today. But if you understand the spirit of Buddhism correctly (and not only
its letter), you can surely follow and practise it while living the life of an
ordinary man.
There may
be some who find it easier and more convenient to accept Buddhism, if they do
live in a remote place, cut off from the society of others. Others may find
that that kind of retirement dulls and depresses their whole being both
physically and mentally, and that it may not therefore be conducive to the
development of their spiritual and intellectual life.
True
renunciation does not mean running away physically from the world.
Sāriputta, the chief disciple of the Buddha, said that one man might live
in a forest devoting himself to ascetic practices, but might be full of impure
thoughts and ‘defilements’; another might live in a village or a town,
practising no ascetic discipline, but his mind might be pure, and free from ‘defilements’.
Of these two, said Sāriputta, the one who lives a pure life in the village
or town is definitely far superior to, and greater than, the one who lives in
the forest.[167]
The common
belief that to follow the Buddha’s teaching one has to retire from life is a
misconception. It is really an unconscious defence against practising it. There
are numerous references in Buddhist literature to men and women living
ordinary, normal family lives who successfully practised what the Buddha
taught, and realized Nirvāṇa. Vacchagotta the Wanderer, (whom we met
earlier in the chapter on Anatta),
once asked the Buddha straight-forwardly whether there were laymen and women
leading the family life, who followed his teaching successfully and attained to
high spiritual states. The Buddha categorically stated that there were not one
or two, not a hundred or two hundred or five hundred, but many more laymen and
women leading the family life who followed his teaching successfully and
attained to high spiritual states.[168]
It may be
agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from
noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to
practise Buddhism living among your fellow beings, helping them and being of
service to them. It may perhaps be useful in some cases for a man to live in
retirement for a time in order to improve his mind and character, as
preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual training, to be strong enough to
come out later and help others. But if a man lives all his life in solitude,
thinking only of his own happiness and ‘salvation’, without caring for his
fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha’s teaching which is
based on love, compassion, and service to others.
One might
now ask: If a man can follow Buddhism while living the life of an ordinary
layman, why was the Sangha, the Order of monks, established by the Buddha? The
Order provides opportunity for those who are willing to devote their lives not
only to their own spiritual and intellectual development, but also to the
service of others. An ordinary layman with a family cannot be expected to
devote his whole life to the service of others, whereas a monk, who has no
family responsibilities or any other worldly ties, is in position to devote his
whole life ‘for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many’ according
to the Buddha’s advice. That is how in the course of history, the Buddhist
monastery became not only a spiritual centre, but also a centre of learning and
culture.
The Sigāla-sutta (No. 31 of the Dīgha-nikāya) shows with what
great respect the layman’s life, his family and social relations are regarded
by the Buddha.
A young man
named Sigāla used to worship the six cardinal points of the heavens – east,
south, west, north, nadir, and zenith – in obeying and observing the last
advice given him by his dying father. The Buddha told the young man that in the
‘noble discipline’ (ariyassa vinaye)
of his teaching the six directions were different. According to his ‘noble
discipline’ the six directions were: east: parents; south: teachers; west: wife
and children; north: friends, relatives and neighbours; nadir: servants,
workers and employees; zenith: religious men.
‘One should
worship these six directions’ said the Buddha. Here the word ‘worship’ (namasseyya) is very significant, for one
worships something sacred, something worthy of honour and respect. These six
family and social groups mentioned above are treated in Buddhism as sacred,
worthy or respect and worship. But how is one to ‘worship’ them? The Buddha
says that one could ‘worship’ them only by performing one’s duties towards
them. These duties are explained in his discourse to Sigāla.
First:
Parents are sacred to their children. The Buddha says: ‘Parents are called
Brahma’ (Brahmāti
mātāpitaro). The term Brahma
denotes the highest and most sacred conception in Indian thought, and in it the
Buddha includes parents. So in good Buddhist families at the present time
children literally ‘worship’ their parents every day, morning and evening. They
have to perform certain duties towards their parents according to the ‘noble
discipline’: they should look after their parents in their old age; should do
whatever they have to do on their behalf; should maintain the honour of the
family and continue the family tradition; should protect the wealth earned by
their parents; and perform their funeral rites after their death. Parents, in
their turn, have certain responsibilities towards their children: they should
keep their children away from evil courses; should engage them in good and
profitable activities; should give them a good education; should marry them
into good families; and should hand over the property to them in due course.
Second: The
relation between teacher and pupil: a pupil should respect and be obedient to
his teacher; should attend to his needs if any; should study earnestly. And the
teacher, in his turn, should train and shape his pupil properly; should teach
him well; should introduce him to his friends; and should try to procure him
security or employment when his education is over.
Third: The
relation between husband and wife: love between husband and wife is considered
almost religious or sacred. It is called sadāra-Brahmacariya
‘sacred family life’. Here, too, the significance of the term Brahma should be noted: the highest
respect is given to this relationship. Wives and husband should be faithful,
respectful and devoted to each other, and they have certain duties towards each
other: the husband should always honour his wife and never be wanting in
respect to her; he should love her and be faithful to her; should secure her
position and comfort; and should please her by presenting her with clothing and
jewellery. (The fact that the Buddha did not forget to mention even such a
thing as the gifts a husband should make to his wife shows how understanding
and sympathetic were his humane feelings towards ordinary human emotions). The
wife, in her turn, should supervise and look after household affairs; should
entertain guests, visitors, friends, relatives and employees; should love and
be faithful to her husband; should protect his earnings; should be clever and
energetic in all activities.
Fourth: The
relation between friends, relatives and neighbours: they should be hospitable
and charitable to one another; should speak pleasantly and agreeably; should
work for each others’ welfare; should be on equal terms with one another;
should not quarrel among themselves; should help each other in need; and should
not forsake each other in difficulty.
Fifth: The
relation between master and servant: the master or the employer has several
obligations towards his servant or his employee: work should be assigned
according to ability and capacity; adequate wages should be paid; medical needs
should be provided; occasional donations or bonuses should be granted. The
servant or employee, in his turn, should be diligent and not lazy; honest and
obedient and not cheat his master; he should be earnest in his work.
Sixth: The
relation between the religious (lit. recluses and brāhmaṇas) and the
laity: lay people should look after the material needs of the religious with
love and respect; the religious with a loving heart should impart knowledge and
learning to the laity, and lead them along the good path away from evil.
We see then
that the lay life, with its family and social relations, is included in the ‘noble
discipline’, and is within the framework of the Buddhist way of life, as the
Buddha envisaged it.
So in the Saṃyutta-nikāya, one of the
oldest Pali texts, Sakka, the king of the gods (devas), declares that he worships not only the monks who live a
virtuous holy life, but also ‘lay disciples (upāsaka) who perform meritorious deeds, who are virtuous, and
maintain their families righteously’.[169]
If one
desires to become a Buddhist, there is no initiation ceremony (or baptism)
which one has to undergo. (But to become a bhikkhu,
a member of the Order of the Sangha,
one has to undergo a long process of disciplinary training and education). If
one understands the Buddha’s teaching, and if one is convinced that his
teaching is the right Path and if one tries to follow it, then one is a
Buddhist. But according to the unbroken age-old tradition in Buddhist
countries, one is considered a Buddhist if one takes the Buddha, the Dhamma (the Teaching) and the Sangha (the Order of Monks) – generally
called ‘the Triple-Gem’ – as one’s refuges, and undertakes to observe the Five
Precepts (Pañca-sīla) – the
minimum moral obligations of a lay Buddhist – (1) not to destroy life, (2) not
a seal, (3) not to commit adultery, (4) not to tell lies, (5) not to take
intoxicating drinks – reciting the formulas given in the ancient texts. On
religious occasions Buddhists in congregation usually recite these formulas,
following the lead of a Buddhist monk.
There are
no external rites or ceremonies which a Buddhist has to perform. Buddhism is a
way of life, and what is essential is following the Noble Eightfold Path. Of
course there are in all Buddhist countries simple and beautiful ceremonies on
religious occasions. There are shrines with statues of the Buddha, stūpas or dāgäbas and Bo-trees in monasteries where Buddhists worship,
offer flowers, light lamps and burn incense. This should not be likened to
prayer in theistic religions; it is only a way of paying homage to the memory
of the Master who showed the way. These traditional observances, though
inessential, have their value in satisfying the religious emotions and needs of
those who are less advanced intellectually and spiritually, and helping them
gradually along the Path.
Those who
think that Buddhism is interested only in lofty ideals, high moral and
philosophical thought, and that it ignores the social and economic welfare of
people, are wrong. The Buddha was interested in the happiness of men. To him
happiness was not possible without leading a pure life based on moral and
spiritual principles. But he knew that leading such a life was hard in
unfavourable material and social conditions.
Buddhism
does not consider material welfare as an end in itself: it is only a means to
an end – a higher and nobler end. But it is a means which is indispensable,
indispensable in achieving a higher purpose for man’s happiness. So Buddhism
recognizes the need of certain minimum material conditions favourable to
spiritual success – even that of a monk engaged in meditation in some solitary
place.[170]
The Buddha
did not take life out of the context of its social and economic background; he
looked at it as a whole, in all its social, economic and political aspects. His
teachings on ethical, spiritual and philosophical problems are fairly well
known. But little is known, particularly in the West, about his teaching on
social, economic and political matters. Yet there are numerous discourses
dealing with these scattered throughout the ancient Buddhist texts. Let us take
only a few examples.
The Cakkavattisīhanāda-sutta of
the Dīgha-nikāya (No.26)
clearly states that poverty (dāḷiddiya)
is the cause of immorality and crimes such as theft, falsehood, violence,
hatred, cruelty, etc. Kings in ancient times, like governments today, tried to
suppress crime through punishment. The Kūṭadanta-sutta
of the same Nikāya explains how
futile this is. It says that this method can never be successful. Instead the
Buddha suggests that, in order to eradicate crime, the economic condition of
the people should be improved: grain and other facilities for agriculture
should be provided for farmers and cultivators; capital should be provided for
traders and those engaged in business; adequate wages should be paid to those who
are employed. When people are thus provided for with opportunities for earning
a sufficient income, they will be contented, will have no fear or anxiety, and
consequently the country will be peaceful and free from crime.[171]
Because of
this, the Buddha told lay people how important it is to improve their economic
condition. This does not mean that he approved of hoarding wealth with desire
and attachment, which is against his fundamental teaching, nor did he approve
of each and every way of earning one’s livelihood. There are certain trades
like the production and sale of armaments, which he condemns as evil means of
livelihood, as we saw earlier.[172]
A man named
Dighajānu once visited the Buddha and said: ‘Venerable Sir, we are
ordinary lay men, leading the family life with wife and children. Would the
Blessed One teach us some doctrines which will be conductive to our happiness
in this world and hereafter.’
The Buddha
tells him that there are four things which are conductive to a man’s happiness
in this world: First: he should be skilled, efficient, earnest, and energetic
in whatever profession he is engaged, and he should know it well (uṭṭhāna-sampadā);
second: he should protect his income, which he has thus earned righteously,
with the sweat of his brow (ārakkha-sampadā);
(This refers to protecting wealth from thieves, etc. All these ideas should be
considered against the background of the period.) third: he should have good
friends (kalyāṇa-mitta)
who are faithful, learned, virtuous, liberal and intelligent, who will help him
along the right path away from evil; fourth: he should spend reasonably, in
proportion to his income, neither too much nor too little, i.e., he should not
hoard wealth avariciously, nor should he be extravagant – in other words he
should live within his means (samajīvikatā).
Then the
Buddha expounds the four virtues conducive to a layman’s happiness hereafter:
(I) Saddhā: he should have faith
and confidence in moral, spiritual and intellectual values; (2) Sīla: he should abstain from destroying
and harming life, from stealing and cheating, from adultery, from falsehood,
and from intoxicating drinks; (3) Cāga:
he should practice charity, generosity, without attachment and craving for his wealth;
(4) Paññā: he
should develop wisdom which leads to the complete destruction of suffering, to
the realization of Nirvāṇa.[173]
Sometimes
the Buddha even went into details about saving money and spending it, as, for
instance, when he told the young man Sigāla that he should spend one
fourth of his income on his daily expenses, invest half in his business and put
aside one fourth for any emergency.[174]
Once the Buddha
told Anāthapiṇḍika, the great banker, one of his most devoted
lay disciples who founded for him the celebrated Jetavana monastery at
Sāvatthi, that a layman, who leads an ordinary family life, has four kinds
of happiness. The first happiness is to enjoy economic security or sufficient
wealth acquired by just and righteous means (atthi-sukha); the second is spending that wealth liberally on
himself, his family, his friends and relatives, and on meritorious deeds (bhoga-sukha); the third to be free from
debts (anaṇa-sukha); the fourth
happiness is to live a faultless, and a pure life without committing evil in
thought, word or deed (anavajja-sukha).
It must be noted here that three of these kinds are economic, and that the
Buddha finally reminded the banker that economic and material happiness is ‘not
worth one sixteenth part’ of the spiritual happiness arising out of a faultless
and good life.[175]
From the
few examples given above, one could see that the Buddha considered economic
welfare as requisite for human happiness, but that he did not recognize
progress as real and true if it was only material, devoid of a spiritual and
moral foundation. While encouraging material progress Buddhism always lays
great stress on the development of the moral and spiritual character for a
happy, peaceful and contented society.
The Buddha
was just as clear on politics, on war and peace. It is too well known to be
repeated here that Buddhism advocates and preaches non-violence and peace as
its universal message, and does not approve of any kind of violence or
destruction of life. According to Buddhism there is nothing that can be called
a ‘just war’ – which is only a false term coiled and put into circulation to
justify and excuse hatred, cruelty, violence and massacre. Who decided what is
just or unjust? The mighty and the victorious are ‘just’, and the weak and the
defeated are ‘unjust’. Our war is always ‘just’, and your war is always ‘unjust’.
Buddhism does not accept this position.
The Buddha
not only taught non-violence and peace, but he even went to the field of battle
itself and intervened personally, and prevented war, as in the case of the
dispute between the Sākyas and the Koliyas, who were prepared to fight
over the question of the waters of the Rohini. And his words once prevented
King Ajātasattu from attacking the kingdom of the Vajjis.
In the days
of the Buddha, as today, there were rulers who governed their countries
unjustly. People were oppressed and exploited, tortured and persecuted,
excessive taxes were imposed and cruel punishments were inflicted. The Buddha
was deeply moved by these inhumanities. The Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā
records that he, therefore, directed his attention to the problem of good
government. His views should be appreciated against the social, economic and
political background of his time. He had shown how a whole country could become
corrupt, degenerate and unhappy when the heads of its government, that is the
king, the ministers and administrative officers become corrupt and unjust. For
a country to be happy it must have a just government. How this form of just
government could be realized is explained by the Buddha in his teaching of the ‘Ten
Duties of the King’ (dasa-rāja-dhamma),
as given in the Jātaka text.[176]
Of course
the term ‘king’ (Rāja) of old
should be replaced today by the term ‘Government’. ‘The Ten Duties of the King’,
therefore, apply today to all those who constitute the government, such as the
head of the state, ministers, political leaders, legislative and administrative
officers, etc.
The first
of the ‘Ten Duties of the King’ is liberality, generosity, charity (dāna). The ruler should not have craving
and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare
of the people.
Second: A
high moral character (sīla). He
should never destroy life, cheat, steal, and exploit others, commit adultery,
utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks. That is, he must at least
observe the Five Precepts of the layman.
Third:
Sacrificing everything for the good of the people (pariccāga), he must be prepared to give up all personal
comfort, name and fame, and even his life, in the interest of the people.
Fourth:
Honesty and integrity (ajjava). He
must be free from fear or favour in the discharge of his duties, must be
sincere in his intentions, and must not deceive the public.
Fifth:
Kindness and gentleness (maddava). He
must possess a genial temperament.
Sixth:
Austerity in habits (tapa). He must
lead a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have
self-control.
Seventh:
Freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity (akkodha).
He should bear no grudge against anybody.
Eight:
Non-violence (avihiṃsā),
which means not only that he should harm nobody, but also that he should try to
promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves
violence and destruction of life.
Ninth:
Patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding (khanti). He must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and
insults without losing his temper.
Tenth:
Non-opposition, non-obstruction (avirodha),
that is to say that he should not oppose the will of the people, should not
obstruct any measures that are conductive to the welfare of the people. In
other words he should rule in harmony with his people.[177]
If a
country is ruled by men endowed with such qualities, it is needless to say that
that country must be happy. But this was not a Utopia, for there were kings in
the past like Asoka of India who had established kingdoms based on these ideas.
The world
today lives in constant fear, suspicion, and tension. Science has produced
weapons which are capable of unimaginable destruction. Brandishing these new
instruments of death, great powers threaten and challenge one another, boasting
shamelessly that one could cause more destruction and misery in the world than
the other.
They have
gone along this path of madness to such a point that, now, if they take one
more step forward in that direction, the result will be nothing but mutual
annihilation along with the total destruction of humanity.
Human
beings in fear of the situation they have themselves created, want to find a
way out, and seek some kind of solution. But there is none except that held out
by the Buddha – his message of non-violence and peace, of love and compassion,
of tolerance and understanding, of truth and wisdom, of respect and regard for
all life, of freedom from selfishness, hatred and violence.
The Buddha
says: ‘Never by hatred is hatred appeased, but it is appeased by kindness. This
is an eternal truth.’[178]
‘One should
win anger through kindness, wickedness through goodness, selfishness through
charity, and falsehood through truthfulness.’[179]
There can
be no peace or happiness for man as long as he desires and thirsts after
conquering and subjugating his neighbour. As the Buddha says: ‘The victor
breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery. He who renounces both
victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.’[180]
The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-conquest. ‘One may
conquer millions in battle, but he who conquers himself, only one, is the
greatest of conquerors.’[181]
You will
say this is all very beautiful, noble and sublime, but impractical. It is
practical to hate one another? To kill one another? To live in eternal fear and
suspicion like wild animals in a jungle? Is this more practical and
comfortable? Was hatred ever appeased by hatred? Was evil ever won over by
evil? But there are examples, at least in individual cases, where hatred is
appeased by love and kindness, and evil won over by goodness. You will say that
this may be true, practicable in individual cases, but that is never works in
national and international affairs. People are hypnotized, psychologically
puzzled, blinded and deceived by the political and propaganda usage of such
term as ‘national’, ‘international’, or ‘state’. What is a nation but a vast
conglomeration of individuals? A nation or a state does not act, it is the
individual who acts. What the individual thinks and does is what the nation or
the state thinks and does. What is applicable to the individual is applicable
to the nation or the state. If hatred can be appeased by love and kindness on
the individual scale, surely it can be realized on the national and
international scale too. Even in the case of a single person, to meet hatred
with kindness one must be tremendous courage, boldness, faith and confidence in
moral force. May it not be even more so with regard to international affairs?
If by the expression ‘not practical’ you mean ‘not easy’, you are right.
Definitely it is not easy. Yet it should be tried. You may say it is risky
trying it. Surely it cannot be more risky than trying a nuclear war.
It is a
consolation and inspiration to think today that at least there was one great
ruler, well known in history, who had the courage, the confidence and the
vision to apply this teaching of non-violence, peace and love to the
administration of a vast empire, in both internal and external affairs – Asoka,
the great Buddhist emperor of India (3rd century B.C.) – ’the Beloved of the
gods’ as he was called.
At first he
followed the example of his father (Bindusāra) and grandfather
(Chandragupta), and wished to complete the conquest of the Indian peninsula. He
invaded and conquered Kalinga, and annexed it. Many hundreds of thousands were
killed, wounded, tortured and taken prisoner in this war. But later, when he
became a Buddhist, he was completely changed and transformed by the Buddha’s
teachings. In one of his famous Edicts, inscribed on rock, (Rock Edict XIII, as
it is now called), the original of which one may read even today, referring to
the conquest of Kalinga, the Emperor publicly expressed his ‘repentance’, and
said how ‘extremely painful’ it was for him to think of that carnage. He
publicly declared that he would never draw his sword again for any conquest,
but that he ‘wishes all living beings non-violence, self control, the practice
of serenity and mildness. This, of course, is considered the chief conquest by
the Beloved of the gods (i.e., Asoka), namely ‘the conquest by piety (dhamma-vijaya).’ Not only did he
renounce war himself, he expressed his desire that ‘my sons and grandsons will
not think of a new conquest as worth achieving … let them think of that
conquest only which is the conquest by piety. That is good for this world and
the world beyond.’
This is the
only example in the history of mankind of a victorious conquerer at the zenith
of his power, still possessing the strength to continue his territorial
conquests, yet renouncing war and violence and turning to peace and
non-violence.
Here is a
lesson for the world today. The ruler of an empire publicly turned his back on
war and violence and embraced the message of peace and non-violence. There is
no historical evidence to show that any neighbouring king took advantage of
Asoka’s piety to attack him militarily, or that there was any revolt or
rebellion within his empire during his lifetime. On the contrary there was
peace throughout the land, and even countries outside his empire seem to have
accepted his benign leadership.
To talk of
maintaining peace through the balance of power, or through the threat of
nuclear deterrents, is foolish. The might of armaments can only produce fear,
and not peace. It is impossible that there can be genuine and lasting peace
through fear. Through fear can come only hatred, ill-will and hostility,
suppressed perhaps for the time being only, but ready to erupt and become
violent at any moment. True and genuine peace can prevail only in an atmosphere
of mettā, amity, free from fear,
suspicion and danger.
Buddhism
aims at creating a society where the ruinous struggle for power is renounced;
where calm and peace prevail away from conquest and defeat; where the
persecution of the innocent is vehemently denounced; where one who conquers
oneself is more respected than those who conquer millions by military and
economic warfare; where hatred is conquered by kindness, and evil by goodness;
where enmity, jealousy, ill-will and greed do not infect men’s minds; where
compassion is the driving force of action; where all, including the least of
living things, are treated with fairness, consideration and love; where life
peace and harmony, in a world of material contentment, is directed towards the
highest and noblest aim, the realization of the Ultimate Truth, Nirvāṇa.
[167] M I (PTS), pp.30-31.
[168] Ibid., pp. 490 ff.
[169] S I (PTS), p. 234.
[170] MA I (PTS), p. 290 f. (Buddhist monks, members of the order of
the Sangha, are not expected to have
personal property, but they are allowed to hold communal (Sanghika) property).
[171] D I (Colombo, 1929), p. 101.
[172] See above p. 29.
[173] A (Colombo, 1929), pp. 786 ff.
[174] D III (Colombo, 1929), p. 115.
[175] A (Collombo, 1929), pp. 232-233.
[176] Jataka I, 260, 399; II, 400; III, 274, 320; V, 119, 378.
[177] It is interesting to note here that the Five Principles or Pancha-sīla in India’s foreign
policy are in accordance with the Buddhist principles which Asoka, the great
Buddhist emperor of India, applied to the administration of his government in
the 3rd century B.C. The expression Pancha-sīla
(Five Precepts or Virtues), is itself a Buddhist term.
[178] Dhp. I 5.
[179] Ibid. XVII 3.
[180] Ibid. XV 5.
[181] Ibid. VIII 4.
