Creating a Dialogue between
Buddhism and Western Philosophy
Question Type One: How
reasonable are Buddhist beliefs?
When creating a dialogue
between Buddhism and philosophy, you need to be aware of the following Buddhist
concepts:
Specification - Beliefs and
teachings about:
·
Ultimate
Reality - The key differences between the Theravada and
Mahayana concepts of Buddha; the key features of the Trikaya doctrine in
Mahayana Buddhism; Anicca: the meaning and importance of the concept of Anicca;
the development of that idea in the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness; Nirvana:
Nirvana in this life and after death; Nirvana as indescribable and beyond
understanding; attempts in scripture to describe it and their strengths and
weaknesses with reference to the 80th dilemma of the Questions of
King Milinda.
·
Self,
Death and Afterlife - The meaning and purpose of
life: better rebirth and Nirvana as goals of life and their relative
importance; the ideal of the arhat and bodhisattva in Theravada and Mahayana
Buddhism; Anatta (no-self): the concept of anatta; the five aggregates and the
analogy of the chariot in the Questions of King Milinda, Book II chapter 1.1;
Samsara: the cycle of birth, death and rebirth; the nature of karma and its
role on the wheel of becoming; the realms of becoming and their significance
including literal, metaphorical and psychological interpretations; Tibetan
Buddhist beliefs about the 14th Dalai Lama as an expression of the
Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara.
·
Sources
of Wisdom and Authority - The Buddha: the significance
the life of Gautama Buddha for Theravada Buddhists with reference to his
relevance as a role model and his authority as ‘the enlightened one’; the
Mahayana view that the life and teaching of Gautama Buddha was ‘skilful means’,
with reference to the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra; The
meaning and relevance of Buddha’s teaching about Dukkha, including the debate
about whether Buddhism is pessimistic; The Pali Canon: the nature and authority
of the Pali Canon; different views about how far this is an accurate record of
Gautama Buddha’s teaching and the relevance for Buddhists of this debate; the
use of Pali Canon in worship and daily life.
Dialogues questions
ask you to compare and consider the compatibility between Buddhist beliefs and
the philosophical and religious beliefs from the West. This means that
as well as comparing Buddhism with the Philosophy topics you learnt in Year 12
and Year 13, you can also compare Buddhism to what you know about Christianity
(using your GCSE knowledge!).
Part One:
How far are Buddhist beliefs reasonable?
For all questions that seek to consider how reasonable an
idea from Buddhism is, I want you to consider three things:
1. If there is
evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these
claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.
2. How
coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational
perspective).
3. If the
claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and
thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.
Secular Buddhism
If you are
given a question on how reasonable Buddhist beliefs are, you could also discuss
how secular Buddhist beliefs are more reasonable, as they remove supernatural
teachings from Buddhism and instead focus on practical effects of Buddhism on
the lives of practitioners. In each case you could therefore argue that a secular
Buddhist approach to issues like ultimate reality, religious experiences and
science may be more reasonable from the perspective of secular Western
philosophers
Analysis: Ultimate
Reality
The Buddha
If there is evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
Theravada
teachings on the Buddha – that he was an ordinary man who achieved an
extraordinary feat of attaining enlightenment through extreme mental training
and meditation – seems to be more consistent with our understanding of the
empirical/sensory world than Mahayana, which are fundamentally more
supernatural.
However,
there are some aspects of the Buddha’s life story that seem to be inconsistent
with our empirical experience of the world, making them irrational:
·
His
miraculous birth and the fact that he was said to be able to walk and talk
immediately.
·
Miracles
associated with his life – e.g. the Ploughing Festival, when, as a child, the
earth stopped turning so that the Buddha could remain in shade whilst
meditating.
·
The
fact that he supposedly was unaware of any pain, ageing or suffering until the
age of 29.
·
The
idea that the Buddha achieved supernatural abilities through meditation, and
that others can do this too if they perfect the 4 jhanas (stages of meditation)
– including the ability to levitate, read minds and perform telekinesis.
·
The
idea that the Buddha achieved a supernatural level of awareness and a state of
unknown bliss (nirvana) and then entered pari-nirvana.
·
The
idea that the Buddha had multiple past lives in many different forms (e.g. as
an animal or God).
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
Again it
could be argued that there is some coherence to the belief that the Buddha was
an ordinary man who perfected his ability to meditate and was an excellent
teacher, making it easy to understand Theravada teachings about the Buddha
(although many of the supernatural beliefs about his life are still seen as
irrational from our understanding of the material world).
The biggest
problem of coherence can be seen in the Mahayana view of the Buddha: that he
was a semi-divine being with 3 forms –
·
Nirmanakaya:
An earthly form which appeared to people to have normal human experiences like
ageing and death.
·
Samboghakaya:
A resplendent heavenly form that exists in pari-nirvana, a heavenly realm
outside of rebirth where the Buddha exists eternally and can access earth as
and when he pleases.
·
Dharmakaya:
An ultimate truth form – the belief is that whenever someone accesses any of
the truths of Buddhism they are in fact encountering the Buddha himself, and
this is a spiritual engagement that allows the power of the Buddha to be
ever-present for all beings.
The
nirmanakaya is the only form that can be accepted from a rational perspective,
based on our own sense experiences and an empirical understanding of the world.
Acceptance of the other forms of Buddhism requires some belief in the
supernatural world, beyond the material universe that can be perceived. Therefore, it could be concluded that only
someone with personal belief or faith in the teachings of Buddhism, or someone
who had had a religious experience such as a vision or a numinous experience
relating to the existence of the Buddha in his heavenly or ultimate truth form,
would accept the existence of the other two forms of the Buddha. From a
material perspective, the Mahayana belief in the Trikaya Doctrine is
irrational, and is likely to only be confirmed via fideism.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
Strong
Verification: only that which can be proven true or false through empirical
means – sensory experience or scientific testing – is meaningful. This must
mean that the subject of the statement is immediately observable to everyone
(universally observable) and can be tested scientifically.
Theravada
and Mahayana claims about the Buddha both focus on a figure who existed 2,500
years ago, and claims about him cannot be immediately and universally verified,
therefore statements about the Buddha
cannot be strongly verified.
Buddhists,
particularly Mahayana Buddhists, are also unlikely to allow evidence from
today’s world to counteract their beliefs about the Buddha. This means that
they are unlikely to accept conditions in which these statements are false,
making them not meaningful according to the Falsification Principle (Flew).
Evidence against the statement “the Buddha walked and talked at the moment of
his birth,” is likely to be responded to with the belief that the Buddha was a
semi-divine being, so it was possible for him to do this against all evidence
we have of new born babies not being able to walk and talk. Therefore, from the perspective of Flew and
the Falsification Principle, Buddhist statements are meaningless as they would
not allow evidence to count against their beliefs.
However, it could be argued that some
statements are meaningful from a cognitive perspective, as we can prove them false – such as “the Buddha walked and talked
at the moment of his birth.” We know through inductive reasoning and our own
experience of new born babies that this is very unlikely to be true, making
this statement meaningful, but ultimately wrong.
It could
also be argued that statements about the
Buddha could be weakly verified according to Ayer’s development of the
Verification Principle – this is because he accepted the authority of some historical statements (giving more
credibility to Buddhist texts and the evidence they provide). He also suggested
that if we could verify something in principle, it has some meaning. This means
that some statements could be weakly verified regarding the Buddha – such as
statements about his family and upbringing, which could be compared to other
historical evidence from the time and confirmed as likely or unlikely to be
true.
Anicca and Shunyata
If there is evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
When
considering the world around us, there is plenty of empirical and sensory
evidence that things are impermanent and constantly changing – science tells us
that from moment to moment organic material is growing and decaying – movement
and growth are true of all things, and all objects also eventually can break,
decay or be worn away. It therefore
seems that rationally, anicca is a point of view that makes sense, as there is
evidence from the material world to support it.
Similarly,
Mahayana teachings about Shunyata have supporting evidence. Again, from a
chemical and physical perspective, our cells are always changing and growing,
and even dying. Whilst we cannot observe things such as our hair and fingernail
growth directly, it is evidence over time that our physical form is changing,
supporting this idea that anicca occurs at a particle level. Thitch Nhat Hanh
is known for comparing Buddhist teachings about all things being “empty” of
inherent existence with Quantum Physics, which suggests that the world is made
up of tiny unobservable particles (“quarks”) that are constantly changing and
evolving, so do not permanently exist. It is generally accepted amongst
scientists that quarks exist, meaning that there is evidence from reasoned
thought at empirical testing that supports the belief that all particles are
shunyata, but this cannot be directly verified as quarks are too small to
observe.
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
It could be
argued that beliefs regarding anicca are somewhat more coherent than beliefs
about shunyata, this is because teachings on anicca (that everything is subject
to decay and change, and this causes suffering) can be confirmed through
sensory experience. It is harder for us to confirm shunyata, as no one can
observe quarks/dharmas and this means that we can only assume their existence,
although they do appear reasonable.
Shunyata is
a notoriously difficult concept – even the Gods in the Mahayana scriptures are
said to not be able to understand it. Mahayana Buddhists also distinguish
between “ultimate” and “conventional” reality – most Buddhists do not go about
their days focusing on shunyata as this could lead to annihilationist
feelings/feeling that nothing matters because nothing really exists. On a
day-to-day, conventional basis, Mahayana Buddhists act like they do have real
existence and that they do matter, this allows them to commit themselves to the
bodhisattva goal, prioritise morality and meditate. It is only really higher
level monks who actively consider the ultimate truth that they do not really
exist, and often they will use vipassana meditation to bring them more insight
and knowledge of this truth. This suggests that teachings about shunyata are
not easy to understand rationally, as most Buddhists have to spent their time
ignoring these teachings to be able to function in day to day life. This
doctrine can only be understood by someone who is enlightened, making it
incoherent to most practising Buddhists and those outside the religion.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
Anicca: The statement “everything is
impermanent” can be empirically tested, making it meaningful according to the
Verification Principle. The doctrine of anicca is phrased in a cognitive way –
the Buddha made factual assertions about the nature of the world which can be
understood through our own sensory experience and through scientific testing,
suggesting that statements about anicca are rational and meaningful.
Furthermore, anicca is not just meaningful, it is also factual, suggesting that
this doctrine is actually right, giving more rational support to the arguments
of Buddhism.
However, it
should be questioned if Buddhists would allow anything to count against this
belief, should there be some evidence that something eternal does exist. For
example, Buddhists do not believe in a permanent soul or in the existence of a
permanent deity, but classical theist religions like Christianity and Islam do.
Should these religious be confirmed through divine intervention, would
Buddhists change their beliefs? This is obviously hypothetical, but it could be
that this belief is a “blik” that Buddhists have.
Shunyata: whilst the statement “everything is
empty of inherent existence” is also phrased in a cognitive way, it is at this
point impossible to verify if everything is made up of constantly changing
particles. This can only be verified “in principle”, through the methods of
Quantum Physics, but not in reality. This means that the doctrine of shunyata
is only verifiable according to Ayer’s weak verification, rather than being
strongly verified as factually correct using the methods of Logical Positivism.
Ultimate Reality – Nirvana
If there is evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
Issues:
·
Nirvana
is beyond human understanding so cannot be analysed in relation to scientific
language.
·
Evidence
for nirvana and pari-nirvana comes from Buddhists texts, which are
unreliable/old/have a faith agenda to convert people. An example is the Lotus
Sutra, in which the Buddha supposedly appears in his heavenly form from
pari-nirvana – this proves to Buddhists that pari-nirvana exists, but not to
those who do not have faith such as scientists.
·
There
is no concrete proof that someone has attained nirvana beyond personal
testimony, and these testimonies cannot explain nirvana as it is seen as
ineffable - Buddhist beliefs about nirvana come from personal religious
experiences, and testimony regarding these experiences. However, there is no
scientific evidence to support the claims that it is possible for human beings
to become “awakened” to a new level of reality, where they have ultimate
knowledge of how the world works. In fact, it is generally accepted that an
understanding of the nature of the universe can only come from intellectual
pursuits, and not through spiritual practises such as meditation.
·
An
understanding of nirvana often depends on a supernatural interpretation of the
world – including the belief that beings are constantly reborn over many
lifetimes and in many different forms within the cycle of Samsara. There is no
empirical evidence to support these claims beyond people’s past life memories,
which have been criticised as unscientific and unreliable in nature. This is
particularly true of pari-nirvana, which is seen as an unknown heavenly realm
beyond human experience – this means that Buddhists subscribe to supernatural
beliefs about life after death, but there is no hard scientific evidence to
support human consciousness being able to continue after death, meaning that
most hard materialists would reject views on pari-nirvana.
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
Nirvana is
one of the most incoherent beliefs in the Buddhist doctrinal system, as it is
viewed as being ineffable/impossible to describe. This is illustrated in the
Milindapanda when Nagasena is unable to explain nirvana through an analogy, as
nothing is like it. The problem of ineffability shows that from a rational
perspective nirvana cannot be understood. Buddhists must aim for this goal out
of a sense of personal conviction and faith, but the nature of this goal is
impossible to understand rationally.
There are
also various interpretations of nirvana and it is hard to know which one is
right, this makes views on nirvana incoherent:
·
Theravada
believe that it is a spiritual awakening on earth that leads to rebirth outside
of Samsara, resulting in the end of suffering. Once beings go there they are
inaccessible to those on Earth.
·
Mahayana
view nirvana, particularly after death, as being more like some sort of heaven
– it is outside of Samsara but still accessible – proven through the Lotus
Sutra.
·
Mark
Epstein – those who have a metaphorical view of rebirth and samsara may see
pari-nirvana in an entirely different way – nirvana is a mental state achieved
through meditation and clarity, so there may not be life after death at all for
those that achieve it.
·
Secular
Buddhists see nirvana as awakening – Batchelor – it is when people have
completed the 4 “tasks” of overcoming suffering in their lives. This again is
viewed as a mental state achieved after the practising of meditation and
mindfulness rather than a spiritual/supernatural achievement. Secular Buddhists
may also not believe in life after death.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
The
statements “nirvana is possible” or “pari-nirvana exists” are treated as
cognitive by Buddhists, but it is impossible to test these
empirically/scientifically. At best, there can only be a personal confirmation
of nirvana achieved through practising the way of Buddhism, but this cannot be
universally verified, making the beliefs appear to be unreasonable/irrational.
However, it
could be argued that the statement “pari nirvana exists” could be confirmed
through Hick’s Eschatological Verification. In principle, it is possible to
verify this statement, and we understand what is needed to check its validity –
one must become nirvaned on earth, and then see if they enter a state of
pari-nirvana when they die. This means that logical positivism could regard
some of these statements as meaningful, even if they are not necessarily
factual.
Analysis – Self,
Death and the Afterlife
Anatta
Is there evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
Anatta is
the personal extension of anicca, which as discussed above, can be regarded as
a farily reasonable belief, grounded in material observation of change and
decay in the universe.
Buddhism
rejects the existence of a soul, making it more concurrent with science and
empiricism, which generally also accepts there is no soul. Therefore, Buddhist
doctrine can been seen to have support from atheist philosophers such as
Richard Dawkins (who argues that we have no soul, we are “machines made of
meat”, programmed by our DNA) and Gilbert Ryle (who sees the belief in the soul
as a “category mistake”).
However, it
is important to remember that Buddhism is still based in faith rather than
scientific evidence – for example, the Buddha illustrated his belief in anatta
by discussing the 5 skandhas – the 5 elements that make up a human (form,
consciousness, perceptions, sensations, impulses) – these are somewhat
unscientific in nature, so Buddhism does not directly correlate to science and
empiricism.
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
Anatta is
illustrated through the chariot analogy, contained in chapter 1.1, book 2 of
the Milindapanda of the Pali Canon. Nagasena’s use of analogy makes this
teaching easier to understand, showing that despite the fact that Buddhists use
names to refer to each other, these names do not denote a permanent soul or
essence – rather, they are a convenient way to reference an impermanent
collection of parts (the skandhas), just as a “chariot” in reality is just a
collection of different objects. This makes the belief more reasonable as it is
clearly explained, and possible for all humans to see that because everything
is changing, there can be no permanent soul.
However,
this view can be criticised when considered in relation to Buddhist teachings
on rebirth, as it leads people to question how they can be reborn when the soul
does not exist to take on new forms. Whilst the Buddha does explain that all
the skandhas develop into a new form, this could make the overall teachings on
anatta less coherent (note – there is not consistency with other teachings from
Buddhist doctrine).
It must be
remembered that other world faiths would reject this viewpoint as incoherent –
dualist religions like Classical Theist faiths would outright reject the idea
that there is no soul, as they rely on the belief that there is an immortal,
God-given part within all humans.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
“There is no
atman.” Is a cognitive statement, so the assumption is that it can be proven to
be true, and the evidence that is given for this comes from the human
experience of anicca and the chariot analogy – suggesting that when all the
parts of a human are subtracted, no permanent soul remains. There is evidence
from the material world that supports the statement that there is no soul –
e.g. the beliefs of hard materialism, that human consciousness is created by
the brain.
However, it
should be questioned if this belief is falsifiable for Buddhists, relating to
the view of Flew – like other doctrines, it only has meaning if it can be
falsified, and we must ask if Buddhists would allow any evidence to count
against this belief. This is a hypothetical question, but if the existence of
the soul was somehow proven, would Buddhists accept it?
Samsara and Karma
If there is evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
Science does
not accept the belief in the supernatural, so Samsara is a problematic. Karma and
samsara are intimately connected, this offers a completely different worldview
to modern science and the two ideas are hard to fit together. Karma is
dependent on the existence of an afterlife and the view is that karmic
consequences are experienced over many lifetimes in Samsara– this is rejected
by science. The nature of both karma and Samsara can only be truly understood
by gaining nirvana, not through scientific testing.
There is no
evidence from science or empiricism supporting the ideas that humans are
reborn, let alone reborn in multiple forms (some of which are spiritual rather
than physical). Samsara is seen as largely illogical from the perspective of
modern science.
However, Possible
response: Metaphorical and Psychological Interpretations of Samsara. By
arguing that karma and samsara may be non-literal and refer instead to
psychological states, it can be argued that Buddhism and science can continue
to coexist. From a psychological point of view,
different karmic actions contribute to one's metaphorical
existence. Rather
than being reborn in a place, the view could be that humans “inhabit” a place
on the wheel of life depending on their actions. E.g. – someone who craves
often could be described psychologically as a “hungry ghost”. In this view,
people may believe that we are always reborn as a human, or that we can
literally be reborn in the other realms, or even that we are not reborn at all
(this is a more secular interpretation). Mark Epstein
supports this: “Each realm becomes not so much a specific place but
rather a metaphor for a different psychological state, with the entire wheel
becoming a representation of neurotic suffering.”
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
·
Based
on scriptures that are unreliable and have a specific faith agenda.
·
No
evidence to support the existence of other realms in the material world today –
particularly Gods and demons.
·
Past
life memories are seen as unrealiable and irrational, and are not universally
experienced.
·
The
workings of Samsara and karma are hard to know without gaining enlightenment –
karma is equated to a universal law but unlike other universal laws, such as
gravity, chance is also possible. This means that not everything that happens
to us is determined by karma, and it is possible for accidents and random
events to occur. It is also unknown when exactly we will experience the impact
of past karma, so we could go many lifetimes before we receive that punishment
for past misdeeds.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
Karma and
Samsara are explained in cognitive ways in Buddhism, but it is not possible to
prove their existence through empirical observation or experience. Therefore,
the statements that these doctrines are true are presented as being factual,
but in reality it is impossible to prove this, making the statements
unverifiable.
However, it
could be argued that Samsara could be verified through Hick’s eschatological
verification – to know if samsara exists, we must be reborn, meaning we have to
die to be able to test these statements. Buddhists believe that at the moment
of enlightenment they are able to remember all of their past lives, which will
result in individual proof of these doctrines.
Bodhisattva’s (specifically,
Avalokiteshvara):
If there is evidence from science and
empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a
rational understanding of the material world.
There is no
scientific support for the existence of bodhisattvas as semi-divine beings. For
Avalokiteshvara to be empirically verified, it must be possible for all people
to be able to see or experience him, which we know has not happened in today’s
world. Avalokiteshvara’s divine form (many heads and arms) is supernatural in
nature, and his renowned spiritual abilities appear to be illogical when
considered from a material standpoint.
Teachings
regarding Avalokiteshvara from scripture have been proven to be untrue – for
example, in the Lotus Sutra it is suggested that if a person is drowning or
burning in a fire, they can call out to Avalokiteshvara and immediately be
saved from harm. It would be quite easy to test this claim, and so far evidence
from the world around us tells us that this is not true, particularly
considering the fact that it is likely that many Mahayana Buddhists have been
caught in natural disasters, and we can assume that despite these beliefs
Avalokiteshvara has not saved them from harm.
There is
also no evidence that the 14th Dalai Lama is the earthly form of
Avalokiteshvara, particularly as he is worshipped by Tibetan Buddhists as a
semi-divine being. Most would argue from a rational perspective that Tenzin
Gyatso is a normal man, and there is biological and historical evidence to
support this, so he should not be regarded as a spiritual being with great
power.
How coherent the belief is (i.e. if
it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).
Many
Buddhists see the teachings regarding the bodhisattva goal as being rational,
because they are explained in scriptures such as the Lotus Sutra. This is
particularly easy to understand as it has been illustrated by the Parable of
the Burning House, which teaches people why the Buddha i) did not immediately
preach the bodhisattva path when on earth and ii) he had to pretend to live and
normal life and pass away to encourage others to start along the path (i and ii
are both examples of upaya kusala). It is believed that this teaching came from
the Buddha directly, albeit through his Sambhogakaya, so this gives the
teachings rational weight for Mahayana Buddhists.
However,
other Buddhists, particularly Theravada, have criticised the bodhisattva path,
suggesting that this does not reflect the teachings of the Buddha himself, who
only taught the arhat goal. As Theravada Buddhists believe that Gautama is
inaccessible to humans now he has entered pari-nirvana, they reject the
authority of the Lotus Sutra over texts such as the Pali Canon. This shows that
there is no one coherent view of the bodhisattva path within Buddhism itself.
It could also be argued from this perspective that it does not make sense to
say that the Buddha pretended to live a normal life only to later return from
pari-nirvana and overturn these teachings. The evidence from the Pali Canon
suggests that the arhat path is the only correct path preached by the Buddha.
If the claims can be supported by the
Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a
cognitive way.
The claims
“the bodhisattva path is the final teaching of the Buddha” and “the 14th
Dalai Lama is the earthly form of Avalokiteshvara” are both cognitive
statements, and are thus treated as meaningful. However, it is impossible to
prove if these statements are factual in an empirical sense, meaning that
ultimately they cannot be meaningful from this perspective.
It is also
possible to argue from the perspective of Falsification that it is unlikely
that Buddhists will allow beliefs regarding Avalokiteshvara and the 14th
Dalai Lama to be overturned by empirical evidence, due to the impact of fideism
on the lives of believers. These statements are meaningful to Mahayana
Buddhists and it is likely that any attempt to disprove them are going to be
rejected by Buddhists – for example, testing Avalokiteshvara in a life or death
scenario is likely to be rejected, as only those with true faith would be saved
by the bodhisattva.
Analysis – Sources of Wisdom and
Authority
AO1 – what are the sources?
·
The Buddha – Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha of this
time cycle, is seen as the primary authority for all sects of Buddhism, but particularly
for Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists. This is because he is seen as a role
model (Theravada) as an extraordinary human who was able to become enlightened
without the help of another teacher – his importance is further emphasised
through his miraculous experiences and his moral conduct. For Mahayana, it
could be argued he has even greater importance, as a semi-divine being who
exists as the Trikaya (Nirmanakaya – earthly body; Sambhogakaya – heavenly
body; Dharmakaya – ultimate truth form). This means that Mahayana Buddhists can
continue to have a personal relationship with the Buddha in pari-nirvana as he
is still accessible to them.
·
Texts – the Pali Canon (Theravada) and the
Lotus Sutra (Mahayana and Nichiren).
AO2 - Issues with the reliability of
Buddhist texts:
The evidence
from the empirical world is mostly found in Buddhist texts. These could be
considered to be inaccurate and
unreliable – this is because:
1. They were not compiled immediately. The Pali
Canon was not written down until around 5 centuries after the death of the
Buddha, being previously preserved through oral traditions. The Lotus Sutra was
not written until at least 2 centuries after the Buddha’s death, and is based
on the supernatural revelation of Buddhist doctrine from heaven.
2. There is no guarantee that the
message of these texts has not been changed over time, or contains mistakes, so
the evidence they provide regarding the Buddha could be wrong.
3. The writers of these texts had a
specific agenda – to convert people to Buddhism, and to promote the ideas of a
specific sect of Buddhism and show that this is right (e.g. the Lotus Sutra
promotes the Bodhsiattva Goal, and describes Mahayana Buddhism as the “greater
vehicle” – the agenda of the writer is to clearly show that Mahayana Buddhism
is better than the “Hinayana” (lesser vehicle) of the Theravada school.
4. The content of the texts appear to be
irrational – the texts deal with supernatural matters on a constant basis, from
the story of the Buddha’s miraculous birth in the Pali Canon, to his miraculous
appearance centuries after his death in the Lotus Sutra. These texts also
depend on the Indian worldview of karma and Samsara, for example the Jartaka
takes in the Pali Canon tell stories of the Buddha in a variety of forms in
Samsara, including animal forms. This is irrational and incoherent when
considered from a scientific and empirical perspective, as we know through
observation that animals are not rational and sentient in the way that they
think and behave, yet this is how the Buddha is presented when he was in these
forms (for example, when he was born as a tiger, he realised a carnivorous diet
caused suffering to other creatures and thus chose to starve himself to death
in order to save others – this goes against everything scientists have observed
about the nature and intelligence of tigers).
5. The concepts, particularly those that
are supernatural (miraculous accounts, Samsara and karma, nirvana, ultimate
reality, gods and hell, bodhisattvas), cannot be verified through the methods
of the Verification Principle, making them meaningless.
However: this could be counter argued:
1. Through Swinburne’s principle of Credulity and Testimony – Swinburne assumes that testimonies
should be taken at face value, The principle of credulity states that
if it seems to a subject that x is present, then probably x is present.
Generally, says Swinburne, it is reasonable to believe that the world is
probably as we experience it to be. Therefore, when considering a text such as
the Lotus Sutra, which records the appearance of the Buddha in his heavenly
form, it should be assumed that this text tells the story as is, and the
testimony should be accepted by those who hear it.
2. Through the fact that the texts should not be taken literally – many contemporary Buddhists do not
view the Buddhist scriptures as being literally true, rather they see them as
illustrative myths that help Buddhists to better understand their doctrines.
This in particular is a view of Batchelor in Secular Buddhism – the stories are
not true, but they help us to understand the context and origins of Buddhism,
as well as the beliefs that existed at the time that these texts were being
written down. Therefore, it does not matter if the texts cannot be proven
through science and empiricism, as they are not supposed to be taken as
cognitive fact.
3. Others would disagree with the above point and say that the Buddhist
texts are true, regardless of evidence against them – fundamentalist
Buddhist groups such as Nichiren Buddhists may fall into this category.
Nichiren argued that the Lotus Sutra is the only authoritative text in
Buddhism, and that the content and message it contains is literally true,
without error, and should be protected and upheld by all Buddhists. This view
of the texts simply dismisses the criticisms against it, seeing the texts as
being most authoritative and ignoring potential issues. This could also be
linked with Hare’s “blik” and Flew’s view of Falsification – some Buddhists do
not accept any evidence against their beliefs, and this could include and
criticism of their scriptures.
4. Some Buddhists would argue that the question of textual accuracy is
irrelevant – as Buddhism is seen to be a personal journey of
spiritual discovery, where each doctrine needs to be personally encountered,
considered and experienced before it can be truly accepted, some Buddhists
argue that it is not important whether or not the events in the Pali Canon and
Lotus Sutra actually happened. What is important is whether or not the stories
and teachings have an impact on a believer and help them on their path of
ending dukkha. This could be seen as an anti-realist interpretation – it is the
mental effects of the text on the believer that is important, rather than the
beliefs actually needing to be true or proven.
No comments:
Post a Comment