Model Essay - Buddhist dialogues with ethics - "Buddhist ethics can be define as character-based." Critically examine and evaluate this statement.

 

Plan: ‘Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based.’ Critically examine and evaluate this statement with reference to the dialogue between Buddhism and ethical studies. [25 marks - AQA]

Thesis statement: Buddhist Ethics may share the most similarities with Virtue Ethics, but that does not mean that it can be “defined as” character based, because ultimately the two are incompatible.

Buddhist Ethics AO1:

·        Samsara, Karma and Intention

·        Ahimsa

·        Magga and nirvana

·        Rules – Vinaya, 5 precepts, 6 perfections

Virtue Ethics AO1:

·        Brief context and historic society – lead to character-based ethic, “you are what you do”

·        Golden Mean – moderation between abstinence and excess, 12 virtuous characteristics.

·        Agent centred, but 3 deontological rules – no murder, theft or adultery.

·        Aim: Eudaimonia and Flourishing

AO2: Reasons why they are similar

Reasons why they are different

•         Focus on growing over time – e.g. magga flower analogy. •         Emphasis on teacher – fits with Theravada view of Gautama as a role model. •         Rebecoming/paticcasaumpadda – over time, Buddhists create what kind of person they are through their moral decisions, in the same way Aristotle argues they shape their character.

•         Buddhism has both teleological and deontological aspects as well. •         The goal is not to just grow as a person, the goal is supernatural in nature (nirvana). •         Different worldviews and contexts – Athenian gentleman’s society versus Ancient forest nomadic. •         Buddhist ethics depend on other moral authorities and have different goals, within the context of Samsara – Aristotle rejected the afterlife meaning their ideas do not fit together well.

Conclusion: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics have completely different contexts and worldviews, making them incompatible. It is inappropriate to try and define Buddhism in the framework of Virtue Ethics and they should be treated in separate ways.

Model Answer

In this answer, I will conclude that it is inappropriate to suggest that “Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based”, due to the completely differing contexts and worldviews of Aristotle and Gautama and Buddhism. This question is asking for one to compare an Ancient Athenian moral philosophy with the ethical beliefs and practices of a major world religion, and I believe that it is disrespectful to try to force Buddhist ethics to confine to a Western understanding of ethics, suggesting that the only way that Buddhism can be understood is if it is seen through the lens of a Western ethical theory.

Buddhist Ethics stem from the religious philosophy of Siddhartha Gautama, and comprise many different aspects. There are deontological aspects, in the form of set rules and ethical opinions – for example, those contained within the Vinaya Pitaka (the discipline section of the Pali Canon containing rules for monk and nuns). Other deontological rules include the 5 moral precepts that all Buddhists, including lay people, are expected to follow – guidance includes abstaining from killing and false speech. The ‘sila’ section of Magga (the ‘Middle Way’/Noble Eightfold Path) also gives guidance for ethical behaviour, suggesting that one should have a right speech, action and livelihood. It is important to note that Buddhist ethics are governed by the rule of intention: one can only receive negative karmic effects for an akusala (unhealthy) action that one actually intended to do. This shows that as well as the deontological aspects of Buddhism, the intention formed within one’s character is important within ethics. The final goal of all sects Buddhism is nirvana (true understanding of the nature of things), which will lead to eventual escape from Samsara (the cycle of death and rebirth), either as an arhat or a future Buddha. For Buddhists, ethical behaviour is a key part of the practice that will eventually lead to nirvana.

Virtue Ethics, founded by Aristotle within the context of Ancient Greece, is heavily influenced by Greek mythological literature. Greek myths focus on a “heroic society” where one’s actions indicate the nature of one’s character – Greeks aspired to be Heroes like Hercules and Theseus, and did not want to be villains like Greek monsters, or known as having a hamartia like Icarus. Therefore, in Aristotle’s day, morally it could be said “you are what you do”, and your actions show if you are a good or bad person. This idea is evidenced in Aristotle’s theory, as Aristotle encouraged people to try and perfect their character over time, eventually aiming for Eudaimonia (ultimately happiness through doing good deeds). Aristotle, whilst providing some deontological guidance (for example, he outlawed the actions of murder, theft and adultery in any context), argued that a moral agent has a duty to try and become a better person through practising being virtues. He said a virtuous life is one of moderation between “abstinence” (having too little of a characteristic) and “excess” (having too much of a characteristic). A balanced character leads to Eudaimonia. For example, “courage” is an Aristotlian virtue, but “cowardice” is seen as the corresponding vice of abstinence and “rashness” is seen as the corresponding vice of success. For Aristotle, societies where all people are aiming for Eudaimonia can be described as “flourishing”, because all people are in such a society are reaching their full potential.

It could be said that when comparing Buddhist Ethics and Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, that there are enough similarities which would make it appropriate to say that Buddhism can be defined in a character-based way. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the emphasis on living a life of moderation shared by Gautama and Aristotle. For Gautama, whose life of luxury and life of strict asceticism and self-mortification did not allow him to gain nirvana, magga became part of the truth that he realised: that a life of balance between two extremes was necessary to reach nirvana. For this reason, he preached non-attachment to worldly possessions balanced by the supplication of physical needs through eating alms donations and living in a monastery to his sangha. The parallels between Gautama’s “middle way” and Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” are striking – Aristotle argued that it is wrong to have too much of an emotional character, and that a balance of emotions behind one’s actions would lead to one having a truly good character. This could suggest that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, because a life of moderation is seen to lead to a follower reaching the final goal in both cases.

In addition to the above point, it could also be said that the emphasis on learning and growing over time in Buddhism shows that Buddhist ethics can be best defined as character-based. Both Gautama and Aristotle recommend learning from a more moral teacher first: Gautama himself taught his followers to be arhats, and ordained the sangha to continue this teaching tradition after his death. Aristotle too recommended that one find a teacher who exhibits virtuous characteristics and first learn from them when trying to improve one’s character. Buddhists and Virtue Ethics also do not expect immediate moral perfection, but expect one to learn to exhibit sila or become virtuous over a lifetime of ethical practice, continually trying to put their intention towards the final goal. This also suggests that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, due to the emphasis on development in both theories.

However, there are also some clear differences between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism which show that the two cannot be combined. Perhaps most importantly, Aristotle’s atheist beliefs should be considered – it is likely that Aristotle would reject the Buddhist belief in karma and rebirth, as Aristotle did not believe in an afterlife. Buddhist ethics are in part informed by the belief that all begins are trapped within Samsara, and their status is impermanent in their current reborn form, with the final goal to escape the cycle of rebirth. It is hard to see how this is compatible with Aristotle. Also, Buddhist attitudes to being within Samsara are very different to Aristotle’s ideas – Aristotle upheld the ‘Hierarchy of Souls’, meaning that humans were above plants and animals within the moral order. Buddhist would disagree with this on two grounds – firstly due to anatta (not self) which rejects the existence of a soul, and secondly due to anicca (impermanence) which means that all beings within Samsara are seen as being equal, because their current state is impermanent and they could have a more positive rebirth in the future. Therefore, it is wrong to say that humans are above animals, as Aristotle does. This shows a huge difference in worldview, and begins to highlight why it is inappropriate to combine Virtue Ethics and Buddhist ethics, as their views of ultimate reality differ so greatly.

Finally, one must remember also that Buddhism could not be solely defined as a character-based theory, because it also has deontological and teleological aspects. This means that Buddhist ethics also share facets with teleological theories such as Bentham’s Utilitarianism, and deontological theories such as Kantian Ethics. The deontological focus on rules, evident in the Vinaya, could appeal more to other deontological theories, and the importance of moral consequences within karma also shows that Buddhist ethics are partly teleological. Therefore, it is difficult to say that Buddhist ethics are solely character-based, when similarities are evident with other ethical theories.

Overall, it seems impossible to me that Buddhism can be defined as being only “character-based” in nature. Despite having an emphasis on personal moral development when on the path of Magga, it cannot be denied that Buddhism also shares aspects with deontological and teleological ethical theories within Western ethics. This entire question seems to be asking for me to force Buddhism to fit the mould of a recognisable ethical theory in the West, rather than appreciating Buddhism in its own context, as having its own moral truths. For this reason, I do not think that Buddhist Ethics are compatible with Aristotle’s ethics, and it is therefore wrong to define Buddhist ethics in this way.

Buddhism and Philosophy: Creating Dialogues

 

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 80^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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.

 

Buddhist Attitudes to Use of Animals in Scientific Procedures - Creating a Dialogue - Buddhist Ethics and Animal Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Buddhism and Animal Testing (using animals in scientific procedures)

Arguments that oppose using animals in scientific procedures:

Buddhists try to do no harm (or as little harm as possible) to animals. This reflects the teachings of the first moral precept - to abstain from taking life, as well as the intention of the Buddhist path to reduce suffering. Buddhists believe that the actions one performs and the emotions one experiences when doing so can be carried across multiple lives, suggesting that harming animals (even with the good intention of helping humanity) may become a pattern of behaviour which can effect one's karma and lead to a negative cycle of emotions and rebirths that a being will have to work hard to break free from. This provides a warning for scientists and laboratory workers who are involved in the regular testing of animals.  

  Buddhists try to show loving-kindness to all beings, including animals. This is particularly true of Mahayana Buddhists who uphold the 6 Paramitas and the Bodhisattva goal of ultimate compassion for all beings. A Mahayana Buddhist would view the suffering of mammals in laboratories as being unacceptable, particularly when these tests often link to undesirable human traits, such as vanity (cosmetic testing) or craving for permanence in a world affected by anicca (for example, anti-aging products that are first tested on animals). 

 The doctrine of right livelihood teaches Buddhists to avoid any work connected with the killing of animals. This is a clear command to scientists and the medical profession that animals should not be killed during scientific testing. This would mean that certain research, for example where animals are infected with fatal diseases in order to try and research vaccines and cures, would be seen as unacceptable as the ultimate outcome will be the death of the animal. 

The doctrine of karma teaches that any wrong behaviour will have to be paid for in a future life - so cruel acts to animals should be avoided. One could argue that cosmetics testing is particularly pointless and cruel, and that animal suffering cannot be justified to support the development of makeup or bath products which link heavily with vanity, craving and sensual pleasure - all concepts that are affected by anicca and will cause further dukkha (suffering) when they stop working or no longer satisfy the user.

Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect

Buddhists see human and non-human animals as closely related:

·        both have Buddha-nature (the ability to become a Buddha in the future) - this is evidenced through the Jartaka Tales, the stories of the Buddha's past lives. These stories tell of when the Buddha was a monkey or a tiger or another being, and how in those forms he was still able to grow in wisdom, perform moral actions and progress on the path to enlightenment. 

·        both have the possibility of becoming perfectly enlightened - all beings are impermanent and their current form is not indicative of the form or experience they will have in the future.

·        a being may be reborn either in a human body or in the body of a non-human animal, therefore all beings are treated with the same basic respect because they are, in essence, equal. 

•          Buddhists believe that is wrong to hurt or kill animals, because all beings are afraid of injury and death. One who observes an animal before it is killed, or whilst it is undergoing animal testing, can see that those animals are not happy or fulfilled, and that they feel pain and fear. This emotion is bound to have negative karmic consequences and create patterns that could be carried across multiple lives due to the teachings on the Chain of Dependent Origination - traits and experiences can be repeated in multiple lives, meaning that animals who are tested upon could experience further fear or depression in the future. 

Arguments that supporting using animals in scientific procedures: Buddhist behaviour towards and thinking about animals is not always positive.

• The doctrine of karma implies that souls are reborn as animals because of past misdeeds. Being reborn as an animal is a serious spiritual setback. It could therefore be argued that due to their inferior karmic form, it could be for the greater good that humans use these animals to further their own lifespans. This is particularly true of medical animal testing for the sake of developing new treatments to preserve human life. It could even be argued to be a worthy reason for the animal to suffer, as their suffering leads to a reduction is suffering for a large number of humans, for example through developing treatments such as chemotherapy to treat cancer. 
•  Because non-human animals can't engage in conscious acts of self-improvement they can't improve their karmic status, and their souls must continue to be reborn as animals until their bad karma is exhausted. Only when they are reborn as human beings can they resume the quest for nirvana. Therefore, it could be argued that animal testing can be justified due to their lower karmic forms.
• This bad karma, and the animal's inability to do much to improve it, led Buddhists in the past to think that non-human animals were inferior to human beings and so were entitled to fewer rights than human beings. If animals are below humans in the spiritual hierarchy, it could be argued to be morally right for humans to use them for their purposes. 
• Early Buddhists (but not the Buddha himself) used the idea that animals were spiritually inferior as a justification for the exploitation and mistreatment of animals. This shows that some Buddhists may take andro-centric teachings around the importance of the human form to justify the use of animals to further human life and experience. 

Experimenting on animals – moral conditions

Buddhists say that this is morally wrong if the animal concerned might come to any harm. However, Buddhists also acknowledge the value that animal experiments may have for human health.

So perhaps a Buddhist approach to experiments on animals might require the experimenter to:

·        accept the karma of carrying out the experiment

·        the experimenter will acquire bad karma through experimenting on an animal

·        experiment only for a good purpose

·        experiment only on animals where there is no alternative

·        design the experiment to do as little harm as possible

·        avoid killing the animal unless it is absolutely necessary

·        treat the animals concerned kindly and respectfully

The bad karmic consequences for the experimenter seem to demand a high level of altruistic behaviour in research laboratories.

Buddhism and Animal Cloning

Buddhist doctrines could be argued to both support and reject the matter of animal cloning for reproductive purposes and medical experimentation. 

There is no stated position among Buddhists on cloning, so scholars like Campbell are left only to interpret the tradition's precepts on their own.

Arguments in favour of animal cloning: Buddhism might be willing to accept cloning,  C Campbell (Director of Philosophy and Ethics at Oregon State University) said, because it represents a leap in modern science and self-understanding that could be considered a path to enlightenment. The Dalai Lama and Thitch Nhat Hanh are both in favour of the links between Buddhism and science, so may allow animal testing if it allowed for great scientific breakthroughs.

Damien Keown (Buddhism, A Very Short Introduction, 1996) argues that unlike other religions that as there is no divine creator in Buddhism, Buddhists do not see the creation of a new animal (or even human) life as playing God. This is because it is impossible to "play God" when an omnipotent divine creator with a plan for humanity does not exist. Buddhism and science are therefore argued to be more compatible, because Buddhists do not see themselves as usurping the role of an omnipotent God when they reproduce animals via artificial methods. 

Arguments against animal cloning: 

However, Keown  does raise the question of what creating copies of beings will do within the context of Samsara: negative personality traits passed on through paticcasamuppada could be multiplied in animals that are cloned, leading to more karmic suffering of multiple beings. Do they carry the same karmic traits as the animal they were cloned from? Does this create a new being within Samsara? Is this being entirely new? These questions remain unanswered and of course cannot be answered via Buddhists scriptures, due to the contemporary nature of cloning technologies.

The  Eightfold Path prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which could be seen in the destruction of cells necessary to perform cloning research. Many embryos are destroyed in the process, or cloning gone wrong means that living beings are born incompatible with life - this could be argued to be tantamount to murder, depending on the attitude to the embryo that the Buddhist has taken. Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990) argues that Buddhists believe life begins at conception, so the ending of cloned lives is the destruction of a living being. On more practical grounds, Buddhism promotes ultimate respect to every sentient being, and that generally includes cells born out of research. Destroying such cells, even in research on animal cloning, runs contrary to Buddhist teaching.

"It is hard to see what purposes—scientific or otherwise—can justify the dehumanization that results when life is created and manipulated for other ends," Keown said. "We should not forget that Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly [the cloned sheep], failed 276 times before Dolly was conceived."

Buddhism and Using Animals in Organ Donation

In favour: Organ donation is giving an organ to help someone who needs a transplant. There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. Central to Buddhism is a wish to relieve suffering and there may be circumstances where organ donation may be seen as an act of generosity. It could be argued that an animal would receive good karma in a future life if its organs were used to relieve suffering after death.

Against: However, as karma is governed by the rule of intention, can this be the case? An animal cannot consent to giving up an organ so it would be difficult to argue that it would be helpful to an animal to use their organs after death.

Because of the moral precepts, it would be wrong for a Buddhist to kill an animal in order to use its organs, as this would be harming a sentient being who could be reborn as a human in the future and should be treated with respect. Animals cannot give informed consent so it could be seen as wrong to take their organs. In order for animal donations to be successful there has been a lot of animal testing which causes dukkha.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a concluding paragraph on Buddhist attitudes to the above issues: Animal testing, Animal Cloning and Organ Donation. Make sure to conclude your own overall opinion on how most Buddhists would interpret these actions.