Presentation on theme: "Notes on Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught (1907 - 1997)"— Presentation transcript:
Notes on Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught (1907 - 1997)
The Three Jewels of Buddhism Buddha = a title not a personal name (“Awakened One”) especially Siddhartha Gautama (born c. 563 BCE in Lumbini, modern Nepal; died c. 483 BCE [or 411-400 BCE] in Kushinagar, modern Uttar Pradesh, India) Dharma = teaching about the way things are (from linguistic root dhr = “to fasten, support, or hold”) Sangha = the community of Buddhists, especially monks and nuns For an excellent overview of the Three Jewels (and the historical development of Buddhism), watch the BBC documentary Seven Wonders of the Buddhist World: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQRCGBeXiow&feature=youtu.be www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQRCGBeXiow&feature=youtu.be
The Buddha as a Teacher “The Buddha was not a computing machine giving answers to whatever questions were put to him by anyone at all, without any consideration. He was a practical teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to show his knowledge and intelligence, but to help the questioner on the way to realization. He always spoke to people bearing in mind their standard of development, their tendencies, their mental make-up, their character, their capacity to understand a particular question” (Rahula, p. 63).
Buddhist Ontology: The Three Signs/Marks of Existence Anitya/Anicca = “impermanence” Anatman/Anatta = “not-self” Dukkha = “suffering, unsatisfactoriness, distress”
The Four Noble Truths Dukkha (= suffering, unsatisfactoriness, distress) The Cause of Dukkha (= thirst, craving, attachment, excessive desire) The Cessation of Dukkha (= Nirvana/Nibbana, “blowing out”) The Way leading to the Cessation of Dukkha (= The Noble Eightfold Path)
The Noble Eightfold Path Wisdom Right Understanding Right Thought Virtue Right Speech Right Action Right Livelihood Meditation Right Effort Right Mindfulness Right Concentration
Four “Sublime States” (or Supreme Virtues) Unlimited, Universal Love and Good Will (or Lovingkindness) = seeking the well-being of others Compassion = feeling the suffering of others Sympathetic Joy = sharing in the happiness of others Equanimity (or Impartiality) = maintaining a calm, steady mind and avoiding extremes (e.g., of expressing too much or too little of the previous three virtues)
The Buddha’s Theory of Anātta (“No Soul” or “Not-Self”) According to the Buddha, every human being is composed of physical and non-physical components that can be categorized as belonging to one of the following five categories or “aggregates”: Matter Sensations Perceptions Mental Formations/Volitions Consciousness
The Buddha’s Argument for No Permanent Self 1.If any of the five aggregates (matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, or consciousness) were (an aspect of) a permanent self, then it could be controlled, and so it would not lead to suffering. 2.But none of these aggregates can be controlled, and so each of them does lead to suffering. 3.Therefore, none of the five aggregates is (an aspect of) a permanent self. 4.But every individual human being is comprised of nothing but a combination of these five aggregates. 5.Therefore, no individual human being has a permanent self.
The Buddha’s Social Thought “Those who think that Buddhism is interested only in lofty ideals, high moral and philosophical thought, and that it ignores the social and economic welfare of people, are wrong. The Buddha was interested in the happiness of men. To him happiness was not possible without leading a pure life based on moral and spiritual principles. But he knew that leading such a life was hard in unfavourable material and social conditions. Buddhism does not consider material welfare as an end in itself; it is only a means to an end--a higher and nobler end. But it is a means which is indispensable, indispensable in achieving a higher purpose for man’s happiness. So Buddhism recognizes the need of certain minimum material conditions favourable to spiritual progress--even that of a monk engaged in meditation in some solitary place” (Rahula, p. 81).
The Buddha on War and Peace “It is too well known to be repeated here that Buddhism advocates and preaches non-violence and peace as its universal message, and does not approve of any kind of violence or destruction of life. According to Buddhism there is nothing that can be called a ‘just war’--which is only a false term coined and put into circulation to justify and excuse hatred, cruelty, violence and massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust? The mighty and the victorious are ‘just’, and the weak and the defeated are ‘unjust’. Our war is always ‘just’, and your war is always ‘unjust’. Buddhism does not accept this position” (Rahula, p. 84).
The Buddha on Freedom and Determinism According to the Buddha’s concept of conditioned genesis (what Thich Nhat Hanh calls “interbeing”), nothing exists as a separate individual; everything exists in relation to others, interdependently. As a result, the Buddha’s position on the problem of free will and determinism would seem to be that of compatibilism. (See Rahula, pp. 54-55.)
Rahula’s Response to the Objection that Buddhism is “Impractical” “There can be no peace or happiness for man as long as he desires and thirsts after conquering and subjugating his neighbour. As the Buddha says, ‘The victor breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.’ The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-conquest. ‘One may conquer billions in battle, but he who conquers himself, only one, is the greatest of conquerors. You will say this is all very beautiful, noble and sublime, but impractical. Is it practical to hate one another? To kill on another? To live in eternal fear and suspicion like wild animals in a jungle? Is this more practical and comfortable? Was hatred ever appeased by hatred? Was evil ever won over by evil? But there are examples, at least in individual cases, where hatred is appeased by love and kindness, and evil won over by goodness. You will say that this may be true, practicable in individual cases, but that it never works in national and international affairs. People are hypnotized, psychologically puzzled, blinded and deceived by the political and propaganda usage of such terms as ‘national’, ‘international’, or ‘state’. What is a nation but a vast conglomeration of individuals? A nation or a state does not act, it is the individual who acts. What the individual thinks and does is what the nation or the state thinks and does. What is applicable to the individual is applicable to the nation or state. If hatred can be appeased by love and kindness on the individual scale, surely it can be realized on the national and international scale too. Even in the case of a single person, to meet hatred with kindness one must have tremendous courage, boldness, faith and confidence in moral force. May it not be even more so with regard to international affairs? If by the expression ‘not practical’ you mean ‘not easy’, you are right. Definitely it is not easy. Yet it should be tried. You may say that it is risky trying it. Surely it cannot be more risky than trying a nuclear war” (Rahula, pp. 86-7).