It is well-known that Buddhism is the most ethical of
"religions". An important part of the Noble Eightfold Path relates to
the development of ethical conduct; for many a layperson Buddhist practice
consists mainly in the "keeping of the precepts"; many Bhikkhus see in
the Vinaya rules the essence of the religious life; and even many of the pāramitās
expected of those aspiring to Buddhahood are ethical in nature. Yet to present
the teaching of the Buddha as being solely and exclusively concerned with ethics
could serve as a detraction from the real objective of the Buddha-Dhamma, which
is to serve as a path or vehicle leading to Enlightenment. While conforming to
the norms of Buddhist ethics is essential for this purpose this alone will not
guarantee the elimination of ignorance (avijjā), which is the real meaning of
Enlightenment. The tendency of some exponents of the Dhamma to represent
Buddhism as just another ethical system is misleading, especially when put
before a newcomer to the Dhamma who may not be able to distinguish between
Buddhist ethics and the precepts of other ethical teachers, and may conclude
that Buddhism has nothing new to offer.
All religions inculcate some basic ethics, whether relating to individual or
to social conduct. Indeed the advocacy of an ethical system does not need a
religious framework, and some: of the great ethical teachers of the world (e.g.
Socrates or Confucius) did not feel the need for one. The religion-surrogates of
the modern world, like Humanism, rationalism, or Communism, have all evolved
their own norms of ethics, however inadequate we may consider them to be.
Wherein, then, lies the uniqueness of Buddhist ethics? This question could be
answered in many ways, but here we shall look at it from the standpoint of three
criteria.
First of all there are the ethical rules themselves. When we consider what
actions are considered "good" and what are deemed to be
"bad", it might appear that there is a great deal of agreement between
the different ethical Systems. Such actions like killing, theft, sexual
misconduct, and falsehood seem to be condemned universally. The differences
emerge when we examine the question more closely, e.g. when we investigate the
rationale for these rules, whether they are absolute or are relative to some
other end, and so on. The rule against killing could be taken as an example.
Many ethical systems proscribe only the killing of humans (i.e. murder), but
Buddhism applies the rule to all sentient existence. Furthermore even in the
case of humans, exceptions are sometimes allowed, e.g. for "holy" or
"just" war. Buddhism admits of no such exemptions. In Buddhism the
ethical quality of actions depends on the mental factors associated with their
commission or even contemplation, and on the impact they have on the well-being
of others. If action is committed with greed, aversion or delusion it is
unwholesome (akusala), but the degree of moral reprehensibility (and karmic
consequence) depends on a whole host of factors. Even an "accidental"
killing could have adverse consequences if it was caused through negligence and
unmindfulness, which is a kind of "Delusion" (moha). What has been
said of the rule regarding killing, may also be extended to the other ethical
precepts as well. Furthermore Buddhist ethics does not stop at the Five Precepts
(pańca siila), which provides only the very minimum for the proper conduct of
lay persons.
The second criterion that could be adduced for the evaluation of ethical
Systems relates to the motivation for adhering to the ethical rules of the
system, religious or secular. In Buddhism the goal of ethical conduct is self-
control, self-understanding, and self-development. It is an essential
prerequisite for the training of the mind, the elimination of ignorance and the
attainment of Enlightenment. Theistic religions usually require the adherence to
their ethical precepts as a means to the union with God, whether in an abstract
metaphysical sense or more directly as entry into a kingdom ruled by God, or
even the enjoyment of pleasures in a heavenly paradise. In such a system the
most important rule, precept or commandment is not usually an ethical one, but
belief in, love of, submission and obedience to, and veneration of God. This is
thus placed at the head of the Judeo-Christian decalogue, with the ethical rules
coming subsequently. When we look at "secular" ethics, such as those
embodied in legal systems, the objective is usually the avoidance of social
conflict, the regularization of property rights, and the like. Of course, some
secular laws (e.g. those relating to the so-called "victimless
crimes") are more directly "moral" in nature, but these too
usually are indirect social objectives. The pursuit of Buddhist ethics too leads
to social harmony, but this harmony is achieved through individual perfection,
rather than through the compulsory observance of legalistic rules. But because
of the non-compulsive nature of Buddhist ethics, they are not intended to
replace the laws of society, but neither are those of other ethical systems
erected on religious and philosophical foundations.
The third aspect of the question relates to the way in which "good"
and "bad" conduct results in appropriate consequences. This is the
question of the "policing of the rules". Here two approaches may be
distinguished. One is where some kind of trial and punishment (or reward) is
instituted individually for each person. The supreme judicial authority could be
God to the theist; or simply the normal judicial processes of society in the
case of the secularist and the materialist. The second approach relies on the
workings of an impersonal law (like the Law of Karma in its Buddhist and
Hindu-Jam forms). The legal model of trial-and-punishment is best suited to the
enforcement of the laws of society, such as are necessary for the preservation
of the authority of the State and the well-being of society. When this model is
used to evaluate personal moral conduct and behaviour, as in the theory of
divine judgement, several curious features arise. One that could be mentioned is
the doctrine of the "forgiveness of sins". According to this doctrine
the exercise of divine grace could wipe out "sins" and negate the
principle that actions bring their own reward. In such a system the ultimate
factor which determines the destiny of an individual is not the scrupulous
observance of the ethical rules of the system, but the element of blind faith in
its dogmas.
In Buddhism the operation of the law of kamma (karma) is all-pervasive and
universal. Its exact modus operandi is not detailed, and may not be immediately
obvious. Unlike in some other versions of the karmic hypothesis, in Buddhism
there is no mechanical equivalence between action and result (vipāka). As
mentioned above the karmic quality of an act depends on a whole host of
circumstances. In the accumulation of kammas, good and bad, the fruiting of some
may be postponed or delayed while that of others could be immediate. What is
certain is that the law of kamma makes divine authority, divine grace, etc.
redundant.
Thus in spite of superficial similarities, Buddhist ethics differs from other
ethical systems when analysed in detail. In the Noble Eightfold Path the
elements corresponding to morality and ethics are Right Speech, Right Action and
Right Livelihood. These three together constitute siila. The cultivation of
siila normally proceeds alongside progress in the other two great constituents
of the Path, namely mental training (bhāvanā) and wisdom-insight (pańńā).
Because of the mutually supportive nature of the three components of morality,
mental development and wisdom, it is difficult to argue about the relative
importance of these three components. Nonetheless it has long been the generally
accepted view that pańńā is both the threshold as well as the culmination of
Buddhist practice, with the other two components of sla and bhāvanā being the
chief means to the realization of this great objective.
The distinction between ends and means is very important in the understanding
of the true place of ethics in Buddhism. For the ordinary person (putujjana)
ethical conduct may appear to be an end in itself, but for the adept (sekha) it
is a means to the realization of a greater end. Because of the Buddha's custom
of proclaiming the Dhamma according the varied capacities of his listeners,
there are diverse references to the importance of siila in the Buddha's
discourses which at first sight might appear to be inconsistent or even
contradictory. This apparent inconsistency, however, disappears when the actual
context is considered. By way of illustration we can consider two places in the
Pali Cannon of Buddhism which seem to attach different degrees of importance to
morality (siila) in the Buddha's system.
"The first of these comes from the Brahmajāla Sutta. This is the first
discourse in the Sutta Pitaka (the section dealing with Buddhist doctrines), and
this exalted position accorded to it reflects its importance to the early
Buddhists, perhaps to the Buddha himself. This discourse was occasioned by a
report brought to the Buddha of derisive commuents made on him, his Doctrine and
the Sangha by a wandering teacher called Suppiya, and the equally unfounded
praise bestowed on h;m by Brahmadatta a follower of Suppiya. This had led to
conflict between teacher and pupil, and disquiet amongst the followers of the
Buddha. The Buddha commences the discourse by advising his followers to consider
all statements made about him, whether favourable or unfavourable, in an
objective manner, with equanimity and even-handedness, and then to reject what
was wrong, whether it be unfounded blame or unfounded praise, and to point out
these errors in a calm and reasoned manner.
The Buddha anticipated that much of the praise heaped on him would be for the
wrong reasons: "It is in respect only of trifling things (appamattaka.m) or
matters of little value (oramattaka.m), or mere morality (siilamattaka.m) that
an unconverted man (putujjana) when praising the Buddha would speak". What
is interesting from our point of view is that the Buddha considers the mere
keeping of ethical rules to be a matter not worthy of any real praise. In this
sutta the Buddha groups ethical rules into three categories. The first of these
(the cula siila) contains the basic ethical precepts (like the "killing of
living things") which are usually included amongst the Five Precepts laid
down for the guidance of lay persons. The other two categories (the majjhima and
mahā siilas) contain, ethical rules of lesser importance or those specially
laid down for monks. As against these "moralities", none of which is
deserving of real praise, the Buddha describes those things that are deserving
of real praise. These are the "things profound difficult to realize, hard
to understand, tranquillising, sweet, not to be grasped by mere logic, subtle,
comprehensible only to the wise". More specifically they turn out to be the
realization of Right View (sammā di.t.ti), and the refutation of wrong views,
in which connection the Buddha outlines the famous list of sixty-two schools of
thought, ranging from theism to materialism, which then as now, were the main
contenders with the Dhamma. Even though the Brahmajāla was mainly concerned
with what was praiseworthy in a Buddha, it does provide a clear statement of the
principle that wisdom-insight (pańńā) ranks above siila and bhāvanā in the
accomplishments necessary for the realization of the Buddhist goal of Nibbana.
The second extract from the Dhama which we shall consider seems to paint a
slightly different picture. This is probably the best known stanza in the Dhamapada,
itself the best-known of the Buddhist books. This Stanza (No.183) with its usual
translation is as follows:
Not to do any evil, to do good, The uniqueness of Buddhist ethics lies in its many outstanding qualities. It
is all-embracing and comprehensive without being impractical or impossible to
follow. It is free from taboos relating to diet, dress, behaviour etc. which
very often pass as ethical principles. It serves the needs of the worldling as
well as those of the recluse. It is useful to the rich and to the poor; to the
powerful as well as to the powerless. To conform to Buddhist ethics one need not
have to be a "buddhist"; and it serves as a norm to measure the
ethical standard of other teachings. But Buddhist ethics is only the threshold
for those who wish to pursue the Buddha's path to Enlightenment and the end of
all ill.
Sabbapāpassa akara.na.m, kusalassa upasamapdā,
The ethical import of this Stanza is obvious. It seems to claim that the
Buddha'e teaching is threefold: avoid unethical conduct, cultivate good deeds,
and train one's mind. There is no question of the ethical purport of the first
two postulates. "Training the mind" could also be interpreted as an
ethical postulate, especially when we consider the Buddhist view that evil
thoughts generated by an unguarded mind are karmically effective. The last
phrase of this Stanza is usually taken to mean that the three ethical postulates
constitute the whole (or at least the most important part) of the Dhamma.
However it could be taken to mean that these ethical principles are part of the
teachings of the Buddha, and not necessarily the part that constitutes the
Buddha's unique discovery. In the Commentary to the Dhammapada it is stated that
this and the two following Stanzas constituted the admonition (ovadagātā)
delivered by the previous legendary Buddhas to bhikkhus on the uposatha days. In
the explanation of the meaning of the terms in this Stanza, the Commentator says
that "to do good" really means the "generation and development of
skillful acts from ordination until the realization of the path of
Arahat-hood", while "purifying the mind" means the elimination of
the five "hindrances" which are obstacles to the realization of jhanic
states during meditation. All this is in keeping with the general purpose of
these stanzas, which was to serve as exhortations to Bhikkhus on the uposatha
day, and not to serve as a summary of the Buddha-Dhamma.
sacittapariyodapana.m eta.m Buddhāna sāsana.m
To purify one's mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.]