Buddhism and Human Rights

Dr. Mattia is sitting to the left in a blue shirt. I am next to the very tall Russian underneath the "and". 

Yesterday I attended a seminar at Mahachula University on the topic of Buddhism and Human Rights. This is a subject of paramount importance to all Buddhists as we march further into this new age of modernity. Whether or not people agree with universal rights and Buddhism being compatible or not, this is a topic that needs to be discussed seriously. Many of my western readers who have not had an intimate relationship with orthodox Buddhism may find that former statement uncomfortable- Whether or not people agree with universal right and Buddhism being compatible or not. This is a crucial element of the conversation, human rights and Buddhism may not be consistent. Just brushing this possible dispute aside as nonsense is folly, a great folly; we need to examine this issue and we need to be prepared to intellectualize the relationship between the two. For me personally, this topic is very close to my heart. I teach Buddhism and Human Rights at my university, and I was surprised at how difficult it was to convey the real meaning of what rights is in relation to Buddhism. It also opened my eyes to how strongly the modern world attaches itself to this recent concept of universal equality, a concept that we did not begin to understand, if not outright create, until only a couple hundred years ago. It is as if many refuse to see that some cultures may not only be averse to the idea, but work much better under a different matrix of entitlement. 

Human rights in itself can be a difficult concept to explain, it is really quite abstract. Almost always, one points to the 30-point declaration by the United Nations to explain what they are exactly. This is a definition from the UN:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

This vague definition is then given 30 articles, found here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Some main points from the United Nations United Declaration of Human Rights are as follows:

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
•  Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Most everyone raised in Europe or a country with European roots, e.g. America or Australia, would be comfortable with this notion of rights. However, there is real contention when it is brought into the spectrum of Buddhism. Why is that? Some say that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is based in Christian thought. Some say it is too Eurocentric. Others will argue that the concept itself is flawed. These issues can not be ignored, and while some schools of Buddhism have embraced this notion of modern rights, such as Engaged Buddhism, others are less willing to bend to this modern ideal of universal equality.

There are many explanations for this, but first I would caution readers to understand that just because a culture may not recognize, or even understand, human rights, it does not necessarily mean they are abnormal or deficient in any way.

The Buddha does not appear to address anything like human rights directly in his teachings. He talks about duty, morality and uprightness of character in great detail, but seemingly not rights. This is an important distinction one should understand, duty is not human rights, and while some claim that they have a correlation, that correlation is debatable. Morality of action is not the same as rights. One having an ethical code to not kill is not a right, this is a moral duty. Another concept that seems to be confusing is that of equality. Equality does not mean similarity or sameness. Everyone having the quality of Anicca, or impermanence, is not equality in the sense of human rights, nor is everyone being infused with suffering, this is not what equality is referring to. Equality means that the entitlement to comfort and prosperity is equal amongst all humans, not that all humans share ontological qualities of existence. Again, I was surprised at how difficult it was to convey this exact meaning, which tells me just how much I have to learn on the subject.

Many scholars have addressed this perception that a distinct teaching on rights appears to be absent from the discourses of the Buddha.

Kenneth Inada states that:

Each individual is responsible for the actualization of an "extensive concern" for everything that lies in his or her path of experience. So, we may say that the sum total of the "extensive concerns" can be referred to as a mutually constituted existential realm, and it thereby becomes a fact that there will be mutual respect of fellow beings. It is on this basis that we can speak of the rights of individuals. These rights are actually extensions of human qualities such as security, liberty, and life.

This does not actually solve the problem for me, as it seems to still be focused on concern and duty. It appears to be saying that our respect for each other is the basis for human rights. This does not seem to follow what the UN says about universal rights being innate to all humans.

H.R. Perera states that: 

It is from the point of view of its goal that Buddhism evaluates all action. Hence, Buddhist thought is in accord with this and other Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the extent to which they facilitate the advancement of human beings towards the Buddhist goal.

This approach seems to also take duty as the main basis for human rights. If the duty and morality of Buddhism is the basis for human rights, how does one come to that conclusion? What are exactly these rights that duty gives us?

Damian Keown seems to have the best answer for this:

The apparent differences between the moral teachings of Buddhism and human rights charters is one of form rather than substance. Human rights can be extrapolated from Buddhist moral teachings in the manner described above using the logic of moral relationships to illumine what is due under Dharma. A direct translation of the first four precepts yields a right to life, a right not to have one's property stolen, a right to fidelity in marriage, and a right not to be lied to. Many other human rights, such as the rights to liberty and security can either be deduced from or are extant within the general corpus of Buddhist moral teachings. A right not to be held in slavery, for example, is implicit in the canonical prohibition on trade in living beings. These rights are the extrapolation of what is due under Dharma; they have not been "imported" into Buddhism but were implicitly present.

All above quotes are from: Are there Human Rights in Buddhism- Damian Keown
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/humanrights.html


This is a wonderful argument in favor of Buddhism and human rights, which appears to solve the problem between duty and entitlement. If I, as a Buddhist, have the duty to not steal, then others have the right to property. If I, as a Buddhist, have the duty to not kill, then others have the right to life.

One problem I have with this argument though, is that it is inferring a modern concept into an ancient context, one that may not have been implied, or even understood, at the time of the Buddha. 

I heard a wonderful response to this at the Buddhism and Human Rights Seminar yesterday,

Dr. Mattia Salvini, a presenter at the seminar, spoke about the possibility of Buddhism having something better than human rights. Buddhism can focus on lessening the suffering of each individual when addressing concerns, not a human rights agenda.

I really appreciate this approach, because it is more human-centric on an individual level. Not basing the worth of a human on some foggy, absolute construct that grants humans universal rights from some objective force, but on the human itself. I think this fits in with the teachings of the Buddha much better than the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A perspective of the individual from the basis of the individual, not the individual filtered through a colander that bunches humanity into one homogenous entity.  

I would actually like to take that individual focus a step further and apply a sense of deontology to it, and instead of focusing on suffering, Buddhism would focus on the individual as an END, and never a MEANS. Something more centered around the will and awareness of the individual, and not that individuals suffering; a concentration on what the individual IS as a whole not what the individual FEELS. Just to be clear, this idea of mine is in its infancy and will require much more thought and research, but I feel that this approach  will be a definitive part of future work from me.

It is amazing what we can learn from each other. I owe Dr. Mattia a great debt for expressing a complex view of such a convoluted concept in such a clear and apprehendable way. 

Philosophy is Alive and Well

“Philosophy is dead.” 

These words were uttered by the renowned physicist Professor Stephen Hawking at Google’s Zeitgeist Conference held in 2011, ”Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead, Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” Dr. Hawking went on to say, ”Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He added  that new theories ”lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

I have known of this quote for some time now and shrugged it off along with other colleges of mine. It is hardly new to encounter  a science-minded person who thinks in such way, though they are usually not well versed in philosophy at all, which often leads me to wonder why they have opinions about it in the first place. It was a bit shocking to hear  Prof Hawking decree this absolute and final demise of a field I have devoted my life to, as he is very well educated and surely has had at least some training in philosophy, but I never gave it much thought beyond attributing it to over zealousness of the scientific framework. However, a colleague of mine posted an article with this quote to Facebook recently and I thought I should give a quick statement as not only a student of philosophy, but as a teacher. 

First and foremost, science is a philosophical discipline, this is not some great secret of hidden knowledge, science itself is philosophical. Philosophy is a very broad field of study that deals with existence, asking questions of what reality is and how we know of it. Science takes a particular stance at describing reality, one that deals with explaining interpretations and predicting actualities of existence through the collection of evidence, induction of causality, theory-construction, valid inference, hypothesis testing, and so forth. Science also deals with speculative reasoning in developing ideas to test for in the first place. The framework of this field is very much philosophical, taking empirical judgments and reasoning out a possible reality. That being said, many people feel that science has diverged completely from the realm of philosophy in that its theories can be tested and verified. We can take this stance for the sake of argument, science is not philosophy, though it is not a stance I agree with.

So, science, the field of explaining reality based on the induction of verified conclusions arrived at through testing hypotheses inferred from empirical judgments, is not the same as philosophy, the broad study of what reality is in itself and how we know of it. Even then, philosophy plays an intricate role in how we deal with science. Karl Popper has, in my opinion, the best way to verify scientific inquiries; that being a method wherein which constant attempts are made to falsify them. In this way, we should never think that we hold an absolute answer to what reality really is; rather, we hold answers  based on induction. This is a continuation of thought from David Hume, who said that assuming, or the induction of, empirical judgments of the senses as an exact correlation with what reality is in itself is always problematic; this is the famous problem of induction. This would include our perception of the continuity of reality itself, and cause and effect. The best scientific position is to assume that the best answer science has may, in fact, be wrong and attempts at a better answer should be made while trying to falsify the present claim, With this being said, how could we not look to philosophy with questions about reality itself? These are questions that concern our very perception of reality, questions that address the very problems that Popper and Hume were so worried about.

We do not know if our interpretation of reality is what reality is in itself, and good science would agree with that statement. However, let's say that we somehow knew that our perception of reality was an exact replica of what that actual reality is. Would philosophy then be dead? Absolutely not. We still have a quality of reality that is not being examined by our experiments upon actualities of existence, that being perception itself. Awareness of experience, i.e. consciousness, can not be fully explained by dissecting particulars of existence. No matter how much one studies the brain, or the eye, it will never fully explain the experience of seeing a tree. That experience of seeing a tree must be studied from within the perception of seeing the tree, there is no physical chunk of matter to study here. Even if consciousness was just a condition of electrical currents  in the brain, and I am not sure that is the case, but even if it was, that will not explain what the awareness of a tree is from within awareness. There is something that exists within reality that is beyond the cold, empty, material world, and that is one's knowledge of that world, that being, one's interpretation of that world. Even if an interpretation of the tree is pure and exact, and represents the real world perfectly, that interpretation is still a quality that is not being studied while looking at the particulars that the interpretation is intending. In other words, perception, not the object of perception, but perception itself, is a quality of reality that is not studied when one is only looking at the object of perception.

So, let's say that Prof Hawking does indeed find the answers to everything, and we are able to perceive the truth of reality and know all that can be known via scientific inquiry. Well, that sounds fantastic. That is wonderful. Except, what about knowledge itself? What about the perception of truth, not the truth as it is perceived, but the perception in its own right?

Even if we did find an equation to explain absolutely everything in the universe, what would explain the equation's existence? 

I have tried to be exact and precise with my statement, which is not meant to be taken as a detailed argument upon Prof Hawking's claim, more of an observation. In my precision, I left out the problem of ethics, especially in light of today's technological advancements, and other questions such as beauty and virtue of character, not to mention communication and language. These are also important problems, problems philosophy addresses. However, I kept my statement within the realm of what science attempts to answer and tried to show why philosophy is important in regards to those attempts.

 Philosophy is very much alive, and it is in no danger of dying anytime soon. 

Kamma and Vipāka- That Which is Life Itself

One of the most discussed concepts within the belief system of Buddhism is that of Kamma (or Karma in Sanskrit), it is also one of the most misunderstood. Most people think of Kamma (I will use the Pali spelling of the concept, as that is where my focus lies) as the consequence of one's actions, but this is a misleading and reductionist view of the process of act and consequence within Buddhism. This process of Kamma, the act, and Vipāka, the consequence, is a vital quality of the Dhamma, which should be understood for anyone who is serious about the Buddha's teachings. This process is actually quite complex in regards to its mechanics and is not simply Kamma waiting to punish people who have done wrong. In fact, a view of Kamma as some contraption of  comeuppance is a wrong view, often times with qualities of revenge, and it itself is an act of unwholesome Kamma. To fully understand the process of Kamma and Vipāka, the process that actualizes our very being within existence, would take years, dare I say decades, of study and meditation. However, by grasping a few important characteristics of this process, one can understand that Kamma itself is not the consequence of action and have a clearer notion of what is happening within this paramount and intricate quality of the Dhamma.

Kamma itself is the act. It is reaction. It is what is wholesome or unwholesome. Kamma is actions of thought, speech, and body, these actions are reactions to the environment, either physical or mental, and are not consequences of acts in themselves. Within the framework of the Buddha's teachings, one has the freedom to choose their actions, this is Kamma. No matter what assails us, we have the freedom to either act wholesomely or unwholesomely. At the most intimate level with one's self, nothing can influence that decision, we have control of our reaction to the environment. This freedom is an extraordinary difficult task to achieve, yet there it is, freedom to choose our actions. This Kamma, or action, is based upon intention, what we intend to do when we act. In the Upali Sutta, the Buddha discusses the difference between an act that produces unsatisfactory results without intention and an act that produces the same unsatisfactory results with intention: 

“What do you think, householder? Here some Nigantha might be restrained with four checks - curbed by all curbs, clamped by all curbs, cleansed by all curbs, and claimed by all curbs - and yet when going forward and returning he brings about the destruction of many small living beings. What result does the Nigantha Nataputta describe for him?”

“Venerable sir, the Nigantha Nataputta does not describe what is not willed as greatly reprehensible.” 

“But if one wills it, householder?” 

“Then it is greatly reprehensible, venerable sir.”

This passage is discussing a situation where someone would kill a beetle while walking without intending to kill that beetle compared to the same man killing the beetle with intention. The Buddha stresses that the act where the beetle is killed intentionally is more reprehensible. The intention of the act is what produces Kamma, one could say that Kamma is the intention of an act, or simply, Kamma is intention. These intentions will either be wholesome or unwholesome, in the intention, in the act, in the moment. Each intention makes wholesome or unwholesome Kamma, which will then be later experienced as results of Kamma, or Vipāka. The Vipaka, the results of Kamma, is not Kamma itself. This can not be stressed enough, Vipāka is not Kamma. When someone reaps the consequences of what they have sown, that is Vipāka, which are results of past Kamma being experienced. Vipāka is past Kamma coming into contact with an individual, the individual then reacts to that Vipāka with an intended reaction, this would be new Kamma. Vipāka comes in as an experience, Kamma is the intentional act towards that experience. This cycle continues for eternity until one escapes rebirth, like a wheel. 

The most natural reaction one can have is that of hate or desire. If an experience is painful, one naturally hates it (in Buddhism, hate is a catch-all concept for fear, wrath, revenge, envy or any negative emotion). If an experience is pleasurable, one naturally has desire for it, or greed. These are intended reactions to experience that are unwholesome, in other words, unwholesome Kamma. These acts of unwholesome Kamma will produce unwholesome Vipāka. This unwholesome Vipāka will then create a painful experience, which will naturally lead one to react with hate, this reaction being one with unwholesome intentions, which will create more unwholesome Kamma, which will lead to more unwholesome Vipāka. This is the cycle of suffering, or samsara.  

One does have the freedom to react wholesomely to any experience, but it takes great effort to take control of that freedom. One must find the control, which means finding one's initial reactions, this is a process done through meditation. According to the Buddha's teachings, it is in this way, that we gradually become a being that reacts more and more wholesomely, eventually becoming enlightened and escaping the cycle of suffering that is known as life. 

When one says Karma will catch up to another being, they are misunderstanding the teachings, and the quality of what Karma is itself. Kamma was their choice, their implementation of their free will upon the world, they have already sown the seeds that will come to fruition, What one should say is, the results of their Kamma, or Vipāka, will catch up to them. However, that is also a misinterpretation of the teachings, as the results of Kamma are not a punishment, rather it is the shackles to existence. The very leash that keeps us tied to the state of being. Vipāka is that which thrusts us into existence through never ending rebirth. It is not a punishment, it is life itself. When one wishes another to be punished, they do nothing but tighten the leash of suffering upon themselves, intending unwholesome Kamma and creating that very same Vipāka they wish upon someone else.

A Short Thank You From a Traveling Monk

I am in the middle of traveling, first to my home temple where I was ordained and then up to the Loas border where I will do some writing, so I was unable to post a blog yesterday. Posts will be less than usual for a week or so as I will be either on the road or doing intensive academic writing for a journal I hope to publish in. In my travels, I am always reminded of the early Sangha, and the Buddha himself, and their life on the road. Many of the monks depicted in the Pali Canon did not have a permanent home and would wander Northern India either teaching, following the Buddha, or in isolation meditating. Not that my travels are anywhere near as extreme as those of the Buddha's, but sleeping in different places every night and eating from different tables always leaves me nostalgic for the stories I learned as a young child; picturing Prince Siddhartha leaving his lush palace filled with pleasures and comforts only to cut his hair, put on a robe, and wander the forest in search of a truth beyond this mundane world. Even after becoming enlightened, the Buddha would not stay in one place for very long as he would walk around the countryside training new disciples and teaching the people of India, whether they be poor beggars or rich kings.

While the Buddha, and the early Sangha, did remain active in the cities and towns of Northern India through teaching, going for alms rounds, or just traveling through and sleeping at a room provided by a lay devotee, they still separated themselves from the society that populated these centers, and the culture of the area itself. These monks and nuns were both of and not of the community in a very delicate relationship between those that have gone forth, to live the Buddha's teachings, and those that stayed within the social norms of the time. The Buddha required monks and nuns to beg for their food, to never ask directly, and to always take what was given with deep appreciation and gratitude. It is against the rules for a monk or nun to prepare their own meals or to even take food that is already prepared without it being offered by a lay person. This is a remarkable rule the Buddha laid down for the benefit of both the Sangha and the lay devotees as it keeps the two connected where the necessities of life are concerned. No matter how isolated, no matter how far one has traveled, a member of the Sangha must beg for their food and be dependent on the lay community for their sustenance. Furthermore, no matter how isolated a monk or nun may be, they are always in contact with those that may require their advice and guidance.

One who has gone forth, one who has broken the shackles of society and has embraced the life of a homeless beggar, one who has devoted one's own life to the teachings of the Dhamma is dedicated to cleansing their own interpretations of the world. Leaving society and concentrating on one's own self without the distractions of the community is a vital step in this process. However, the Buddha made sure that the Sangha would always be dependent on that same society that the members left. This is important, it is actually the Sangha that is wholly dependent on the lay community, not the other way around. The teachings are there if people want them, but humanity is not dependent on them. There have been many past Buddhas and between each one of them there have been uncountable years of existence without the teachings of the Dhamma. The human race has lived far more years without the Dhamma than it has with it. In order for the teachings to stay alive, the Sangha must be supported by the lay community. The Buddha envisioned an interconnection, one which provides livelihood of bodily nutrient and one that provides the nutrient of the Dhamma. But the Sangha must never forget that, while we are the pillars of morality and justice for many, the society is the pillars for our very existence.

 As a member of this Sangha, with humbleness and apologies for our imperfections and flaws, I am deeply and sincerely grateful to this very society that keeps me, and the whole Sangha, functioning, I owe you more than I could ever repay. You are with me as a travel this beautiful country of Thailand, you are with me when I'm hungry, you are with me when I'm sick.

My appreciation is far deeper than I could ever express, so I will just say thank you-

Thank you for supporting me and keeping me alive.

The Buddha and the Truths He Taught

The Buddha instructed his disciples, and those who had not yet decided whether or not to follow him, to question the teachings. He said to be sure that the teacher and the teachings are the correct path before giving one's self over to them. The emphases the Buddha put on investigating the truth and not just blindly following his instructions shows how much he wanted people to be sure of the Dhamma, to learn the Dhamma, to live the Dhamma. He did not want people to just participate in these lessons of existence without actually believing in them. This is a level of investigation that the Buddha not only recommends to his students, but implores to the whole world. It is a wonderful quality of his teachings. However, there seems to be a little confusion regarding this particular trait of the Buddha's instruction, and it appears some people think the Buddha actually meant for there to be followers of the Dhamma while not believing in the actual Dhamma as an absolute structure of reality itself and how one should act within this reality (that being constructs of ontology and ethics) or that he himself, the Thathāgatha, the self-realized fully awakened one, was not the greatest teacher of the actual truth of existence (in this particular age of this particular world cycle). This is a misunderstanding to be sure. The Buddha most certainly wanted people to believe in his teachings, for themselves, from conviction and determination that the teachings were actually true. What he did not want, was people believing in the teachings without any meaning behind that belief, an empty faith that amounted to nothing but following a herd. This, however, in no way implies that the Buddha thought people could make their own arbitrary belief systems and be on a path to liberation. It also does not imply that the Buddha wanted people to believe in the Dhamma yet somehow think the Dhamma was not an absolute structure of reality.

One argument I seem to hear is that the Four Noble Truths, and other teachings, are open to interpretation. While I may not agree with that totally, I can certainly agree with the idea that the Four Noble Truths are conceptualized differently for each person. What I don't see, is how this makes the Four Noble Truths itself, as the Buddha taught it, a mundane structure that is not universal to the Dhamma. He certainly would not want someone to not believe in the Nobel Truths, this would not be a follower of the Dhamma in his eyes. The fact that people may hold the Truths differently than others does not make them any less of a teaching that is required. They are called the Truths for a reason. They are taught, by the Buddha, as absolute Truths of reality, ones in which a person must understand in order to progress towards liberation. This doesn't mean everyone must understand them the same way, the Buddha never suggested that. He was well aware that people thought differently and held concepts in personal ways that can not be compared to others. This is why he would give different teachings to different people, depending on their need and ability. However, the Truths are still the Truths. They are not the Maybe's, or the If You Understand's, or the Only If You Feel Like Believing's, they are absolute qualities of existence, according to the Buddha's teachings.

In the Alagadupama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha compares his teachings to a raft. He said that the lessons he gives of the Dhamma should be used like a raft going from one shore to the other. At the other shore, the raft would be discarded. This famous simile is discussing the difference between mundane reality (the shore of departure) and absolute reality (the shore of arrival) and the means in which to get there, the teachings of the Buddha, which is only given in conventional language and must be discarded once one realizes the absolute Truth. There is most certainly absolutes as taught by the Buddha, and in order to even begin to understand these absolute constructs one must believe in the teachings. But belief is not enough, one must hold these teachings as truth through faith and conviction, one must come to this decision of belief on their own with great determination. The famous teachings of the Kālāma Sutta are lessons in how to do that, you can read my explanation for this here.

There are many times the Buddha called for people to not only question the teachings, but to question the validity of the Buddha himself. The Vīmaṃsaka Sutta is a discourse given to his disciples teaching them to question his own authority and knowledge. However, again, this did not mean that one could still be a follower of the teachings, yet not believe that the teachings were of Truths beyond language and conception, Truths that are absolute, according to the Buddha.

The Buddha after telling his students to question his own validity-

“Bhikkhus, when anyone‟s faith has been planted, rooted, and established in the Tathagata through these reasons, terms, and phrases, his faith is said to be supported by reasons, rooted in vision, firm; it is invincible by any recluse or brahmin or god or Mara or Brahma or by anyone in the world. That is how, bhikkhus, there is an investigation of the Tathagata in accordance with the Dhamma, and that is how the Tathagata is well investigated in accordance with the Dhamma.”


Faith must be ROOTED, must be ESTABLISHED. The Buddha was talking of conviction through questioning, not a chronic state of doubt concerning what he actually taught, a chronic state that one would be comfortable with, this would not be considered a follower of the teachings by the Buddha (this doubt is actually an unwholesome quality of consciousness, yes, a quality of consciousness that is unwholesome absolutely, called vicikicchā in Pāli). He said to "be a refuge on to yourself" in the Mahaparinabbana Sutta, not so that you create your own truths arbitrarily, but that you create your own truths fully ROOTED in those that the Buddha is teaching. Truths beyond the actual teaching that one must have faith in. This statement of his to "Be your own refuge" does not mean to create your own truths, it means to "be your own refuge" within the triple refuge of the Teachings: The Dhamma, which is absolute- The Buddha, self-realized fully and awakened one that brought the teachings of the absolute to mundane reality through language- and the Sangha, the warriors of the Buddha who keep the flame of the teachings alive.

There are different interpretations as people understand the teaching differently, no doubt. People hold the teachings in different ways, of course. People live the teachings in their own capacity, I completely agree. But in order for a group of people to have different interpretations, to understand something in their own way, implies a greater structure that they are interpreting FROM. There must be an overarching construct that which people understand in their own way FROM. Just saying people believe in the Noble Truths differently does not mean that there is not a unified belief system within Buddhism. In fact, saying that implies there MUST be a unified belief system, otherwise there would be nothing from which to reference these differences.

I am not against a more modern interpretation of the Dhamma. I am not even against people taking some parts of the Buddha's teachings and leaving out the supernatural essence of the teachings. Following an ancient existentialism that promotes compassion and wisdom sounds like a wonderful path. What seems to be a problem though, are attempts at proof, not very coherent ones, that the Buddha himself was not teaching a belief structure that was universal, or that he would tolerate someone claiming to be his devout follower without attending to his lessons.

The Buddha could be very strict, many times he admonished his students for not following the rules or observing the teachings.

The Catuma Sutta-

The Blessed One addressed the venerable Ananda thus: “Ananda, who are these loud noisy people? One would think they were fishermen hawking fish.” 

“Venerable sir, they are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And while the visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away their bowls and outer robes, they have been very loud and noisy.” 

 “Then, Ananda, tell those bhikkhus in my name that the Teacher calls the venerable ones.” 

“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to those bhikkhus and told them: “The Teacher calls the venerable ones.” 

“Yes, friend,” they replied, and they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. When they had done so, the Blessed One asked them: “Bhikkhus, why are you so loud and noisy? One would think you were fishermen hawking fish.” 

“Venerable sir, we are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And it was while we visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away our bowls and outer robes, that we were very loud and noisy.” 

“Go, bhikkhus, I dismiss you. You cannot live with me.”

Trying to manipulate the actual words of the Buddha to somehow fit an individualistic modern mind-set where everyone can do as they please as long as they believe they are being compassionate is not healthy for anyone. It is misinterpreting the actual teachings, it is infringing upon tradition, and it is an outward attempt to validate individuality via a teaching while trying to appear nonchalant about teachings. If the consensus is that the Buddha taught people to come up with their own belief systems arbitrarily, solidifying people's belief that one did not need absolute truths or teachings in the first place, why then do people care so much about what the Buddha taught? Why search for teachings of a structure that verifies the need for no teachings of a structure? Again, a modern interpretation of Buddhism is not an issue for me, I actually think that it can be a very good thing. However, understanding what the Buddha actually taught and what context he taught it in is paramount. Otherwise, we are just creating our own truths, and if that is all we are doing, why look towards the Buddha at all?

Meditation Throughout the Ages- Where Husserl and the Buddha Agreed

Vipassanā meditation, a very popular form of Buddhist meditation in this present day, is surprising similar to phenomenological mediation, especially that of Edmund Husserl's Epoché. Though separated by millennia, one can see that the Buddha and Edmund Husserl were manipulating consciousness in much the same way when practicing introspection. A comparison can be made between the two, but first one must understand the history of Vipassanā mediation and how it has become so popular.

The Buddha did not actually ever speak of Vipassanā meditation in his teachings though he did use the word Vipassanā sparingly. The context of this word was to explain a sense of seeing reality or deep insight, but he did not use it in the context of meditation. The Buddha would speak of Jhana and concentration in regards to the actual act of meditation, but never Vipasanā. The very few times the Buddha described the exact moment of enlightenment within meditation, such as the Bhaya-bherava Sutta and the Maha-Saccaka Sutta both in the Majjima Nikaya, the Buddha talked about being in Jhana, but he describes a moment where his mind turns inward and he begins to investigate the mind rather than just being absorbed upon an object. The Buddha also discussed Sati, mindfulness (though awareness is a better definition, that is a conversation for later) and meditation with Sati in the famous teachings of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. This is a teaching of four stages where the practitioner first concentrates on a physical object, the body, and then gradually becomes aware of the consciousness as it is perceiving the body, this is the Sati or awareness. The practitioner first becomes aware of feeling as a separate part of interpretation, then consciousness as a whole. Lastly, the observer becomes aware of the function of interpretation in the fourth and final step.These two teachings, that of his exact moment of enlightenment and that of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, are where the Theravada tradition of Vipasanā was born.

The use of Vipassanā as a form of meditation was not formulated until 800 years after the Buddha when the great Buddhist Scholar Bhandantācariya Buddhaghoṣa wrote the Visuddhimagga, The Path of Purification. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghoṣa talks of two types of meditation, Samadhi, or tranquil meditation, and Vipassanā, or insight meditation. Here Buddhaghoṣa explains that deep concentration that leads to Jhana, with one of the 40 Kammaṭṭhāna objects, is absorption into an object, this is Samadhi. He goes on to explain that examining an object, and the reality that the object exists within, with Sati, is Vipassanā, or insight meditation. Within Vipassanā meditation, the practitioner sees the three characteristics of existence- impermanence, suffering, and non-self. As the meditator progresses down a 16 step path of insight, these are known as the "nanas", one begins to understand these characteristics more and more. That first stage is the separation of mind and object, or the separation of the interpretation of an object and the object itself. This separation requires Sati, it is a process of the mind seeing the mind seeing an object and takes reflexiveness, commonly known as mindfulness, in order to achieve. This was Vipassanā, a meditation of investigation as opposed to the calm and tranquil absorption of Samadhi meditation. 

Jump another 1600 years into the future and we have Ledi Sayādaw who wrote the Vipassanā Dīpanī around 1900. This treatise of Buddhist metaphysics again conveys the importance of separating mind and object, or the interpretation of the object and the object itself. Jump another 50 years into the future and we arrive at Mahāsi Sayādaw, one of the greatest modern monks and my personal hero, his influence on me has been considerable to say the least. Mahāsi Sayādaw developed a particular practice of meditation that emphasizes this separation of the mind and its object. In fixating on the movement of the abdomen when one is breathing, one begins to understand that that movement is outside of the mind as it is making contact with the mind- as the mind perceives an object we interpret an object, but our interpretation and the object are different. He said- the practitioner will see a difference in the movement and the noticing of the movement. Mahāsi Sayādaw developed this teaching through years of meditation, he also had extensive academic training in Buddhist theory. 

This method of rising and falling is the quintessential practice of Vipassanā meditation today, but that does not mean you must focus on the abdomen in order to do Vipassanā, that is a common misunderstanding. Vipassanā is simply becoming aware of the perception of an object, and experiencing one's self experiencing the object, otherwise know as mindfulness.

If one were to study the great phenomenologist Edmund Husserl and his epic guide to consciousness Logical Investigations, one would become familiar with the term Epoché, Husserl's mode of meditation. Part of my life's work in academia will be comparing phenomenological philosophy and the Buddha's teachings and in studying both I have found a significant amount of similarities between Buddhism's Vipassanā and Husserl's  Epoché. Husserl discusses intentionality, and the consciousness intending one object at one time. This object of consciousness is then labeled as an interpretation that we can understand through a process of noema/noesis. The object and the interpretation are different, and the way to separate the two in order to discern the difference is to "bracket" the object- this is taking away all other factors of experience, eg wandering thoughts, other objects that may be visible, sounds, etc. and concentrating upon that object. The mind using Epoché, or"bracketing", then focuses on the one object wherein which the mind becomes reflexive and consciousness can then observe consciousness, It is in this way that Husserl is able to describe the process of interpretation. This reflexiveness is awareness of the experience, or mindfulness, and is strikingly similar to the teachings of Vipassanā meditation. Husserl believed we all lived in a "life world" and that this "life world" was literally nothing but interpretations of the outside world that we understand through conceptions made by our consciousness. This is what the Buddha was talking about when he said mundane reality and absolute reality. Husserl also said that in order for us to understand reality we must understand our interpretations, and in order to do that we must meditate upon that process of interpretation. This is what Mahāsi Sayādaw was teaching when giving lessons on Vipassanā meditation- We can only understand reality when we understand how we view reality. Husserl and Mahāsi Sayādaw, a Jewish mathematician, and a Burmese Theravada monk, not so very different after all.

Faith, Tradition, and Culture- Why Buddhism is a Religon

This post may come off a little opinionated, and I fully admit that I have strong opinions about the subject,  but this is something I have needed to say for awhile. To all my 3 readers, bare with me. I do have a reasonable point, obviously my own opinion, and it's time I shared it with all of you... and you... and you over there in the corner.

A story first, to help illuminate the issue. I have a Burmese friend who posted on facebook that Buddhism was a peaceful religion yesterday, an American then replied to the post and said Buddhism is not a religion but a "way of life". I have so many problems with this reply that I am honestly unsure of what to type next...

Let us just start with my Burmese friend, whose English is very good. She was genuinely confused and asked me if she was missing something. I had to tell her that some westerners don't think Buddhism is a religion. I got the same response I have gotten from many other Asians when saying this, "Why would they think that?" I had to tell her I didn't know. This is an issue that I have been dealing with my whole life. I was raised a Buddhist and went to a Thai temple in America growing up. Of course Buddhism was a religion, this was not even a question. However, about the time I started college, I started coming into contact with many Buddhists my own age. I guess this is the first time I heard the all too common phrase, "Buddhism is not a religion."

I was as confused as my Burmese friend. I would ask, "Why would you say that?" I got several responses, none very coherent. I got responses that the Buddha said he didn't want his teachings to become a religion. I am very sorry to anyone that thinks the Buddha said this, he did not. In fact, he set up the Sangha quite similar to any religion to go out and teach people so that his teachings would survive long after he died. He envisioned his teachings to last well over 1000 years, as a structured belief system, eg four noble truths, eightfold path.

I got responses like- you don't need faith to believe in the Buddha's teachings. I am sorry again, I deeply apologize for ruining your day, you do, in fact, require faith in order to believe the Buddha's teachings. I can already picture people reading this and disagreeing, the Kālāma Sutta ready at hand as they formulate an argument. The Kālāma Sutta is one of the most misunderstood suttas in the Pali Canon, it is actually a lesson on faith, you can read my post about the subject here. Saddhā is one of the defining factors of a wholesome consciousness, it is also one of the 5 powers and 5 factors for a wholesome existence within the Dhamma. The Buddha discusses Saddhā at length several times throughout the Tipitaka as a necessary quality of anyone hoping to be liberated. Saddhā is Pali for faith, yes, faith. Some translators have tried to translate it as conviction, however, the most accepted translations are faith. I suspect that the attempt, and not a very convincing one, to translate Saddhā as conviction was because of this western mentality that religion is bad, and hence, faith must be too. Regardless, the meaning of Saddhā is most assuredly faith.

I got responses like- Buddhism is a science, not a religion. I still hear this argument all the time. I completely agree that Buddhism is a very rational religion with a surprising amount of emphasis on empirical experience. However, that is all done within an overarching structure of reality that requires belief, a reality that one must have faith in. These beliefs include rebirth, kamma, and many others. You can read more about this particular subject here.

Lastly, I got the response that Buddhism doesn't have a god. Here I will concede the point. No, Buddhism does not have a god, and if being a religion means the belief must have a god, then I suppose Buddhism is, in fact, not a religion. However, I don't think that is a concrete definition of religion.

If one were to look up religion in a Dictionary, they would find a belief in the superhuman. While I do believe Buddhism fits this model, the Dhamma is most certainly superhuman, I don't think it is a very good definition of religion.

Religion is a cultural model of faith, tradition and community. Things Buddhism is in abundance of.

One standard definition of religion, used in academia all over the world, is that of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who simply defined it as "a cultural system".

Furthermore, French sociologist Emile Durkheim explains why Buddhism is a religion, "In default of gods, Buddhism admits the existence of sacred things, namely, the fours noble truths and the practices derived from them."

I suspect that much of the West's insistence that Buddhism is not a religion comes from an unsavory view of their own Christian culture. A faulty line of reasoning seems to occur-

Christianity is a religion

Christianity is bad

Therefore, religion is bad.

I have even run into some westerners that think the culture of Buddhism in South East Asia is not real Buddhism! (I have a post on that here).  Excuse me, I really don't see that anyone who is relatively new to the religion, and has probably not read many books on the subject, can possibly say that a whole culture of people is practicing their own religion wrong. A common response to that is- it is not the Buddhism the Buddha would have wanted. Maybe not, though I don't think many of the western people complaining about Asian Buddhism have any idea what kind of Buddhism the Buddha wanted either, and are certainly not in the position to tell cultures that have been Buddhist for more than 1000 years what to believe.

Some people may also claim that religion has done atrocities and is a bad thing in itself. Great point. Absolutely religion has done wrong, much of the world's suffering can be laid at its feet. Every single religion has committed atrocities, including Buddhism. And before I hear another claim that Buddhism is too peaceful to be a religion, please look into its history, the Third Buddhist Council was a slaughter, and into the present day state of Buddhism. The violence and brutality in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and the Southern Thai border are very real things.

Another point I need to make is this idea that if the world had never had religion it would have somehow been more peaceful. Maybe, maybe not. There are no grounds to say this, people can be awful, with or without religion. There is no way to tell if the world would have been better without religion. In saying this, I am in no way excusing religion of its horrors, as a Buddhist monk I carry the weight of what Buddhism has done. I do not act like Buddhism is perfect and pretend terrible things didn't happen. To do so would be a great affront to Buddhism, turning it into a fake plastic construct of perfection. I have too much respect for the religion to even consider such folly.

I guess I will close by saying this, if you don't think Buddhism is a religion and insist on saying it is a "way of life," I have a few questions: What is the difference? Why do you care so much about whether it is or not? and finally, What gives you the authority, expertise or knowledge to say it is not a religion? If one still insists on saying it is not a religion, that is fine, no problem. Just do the whole world and Buddhism a favor, stop correcting other people... especially people that have been born and raised within a Buddhist culture.