The speaker cited heavily in his talk a 2011 article in the Tricycle magazine on the discovery of the Gandhara Text. According to him, the Gandhara text is revolutionizing how scholars viewed the development of early Buddhist traditions.

Scholars of early Buddhism no longer hold the view that Buddhism developed like a tree where the later traditions (Mahayana) branch out from earlier ones (Theravada). Rather the Gandhara Texts (some as old as 100 BCE) proofed that Mahayana Buddhism itself was very old and it interacted heavily with the other early Buddhist traditions, borrowing ideas from each other, thus making it impossible to say for sure which tradition is older. So the way early Buddhism developed is closer to the model of a braid rather than a tree.

The talk was a spirited reminder to all Buddhists to respect and learn from the rich traditions. No doubt, the message had left a strong impression on the listeners. After the talk, I decided to read the said Tricycle article [1] to learn more about the Gandhara text.

In all, the Tricycle article was well written, but left me with some unanswered questions. For example, while the article talked about the importance of the discovery, it gave very little details on what was actually in the Gandhara Texts. The article also used the word “Tradition” frequently without specifically stating if it was referring to the early Buddhist schools or the three traditions (MTV) that we have today.

I decided to do some additional research of my own [2], which proved to be both rewarding as well as educational. More importantly, I came to some interesting conclusions of my own:

Firstly, in his talk at the Buddhist Fellowship, the speaker mentioned that the Gandhara Texts were older than the period called “Early Buddhism”, this is incorrect [3]. In fact, the bulk of the Gandhara Texts had been attributed to one of the early Buddhist school called the Dharmaguptaka.

Secondly, both the speaker at Buddhist Fellowship as well as the Tricycle article seems to imply that the Gandhara Text proofed that the Theravada and Mahayana traditions are equally old, that the two traditions borrowed ideas from each other during the early stage of their development before settling on the characteristics that is known today. This is also incorrect.

What the Gandhara Texts support is the theory that early Buddhist schools interacted with each other and borrow ideas from each other, thus making it impossible to say for certainty which school was the oldest [4] – The emphasis here is “early Buddhist schools”, of which Theravada is the only surviving tradition [5].

Scholars do not considered Mahayana Sutras as part of Early Buddhism. Unfortunately relatively few fragments of early Mahayana Sutras survived, making it difficult to say with certainty when and how the Mahayana Tradition first began and evolved.

For the early Buddhist Texts however, the story is different. We have the complete Nikaya as well as texts from the other early Buddhist schools (in the Agamas and the Gandhara Texts). This allowed scholars to study the texts in detail, tracing the developments of the Early Buddhist Schools.

So the braid model is correct, but it is used to describe early Buddhist schools, not Theravada and Mahayana.

Thirdly, apart from the Buddha’s teachings, the suttas also recorded the cultures, customs, religious beliefs, important events and personalities (like kings) during the Buddha’s time. Historians and scholars have been able to cross reference these information with other historical sources. This gives greater credibility that the suttas are based on real historical events. The same can’t be said of Mahayana Texts.

So where does this leave us?

For me, the Gandhara Texts as well as my own research showed that what I already knew was true; that the Nikayas of the Theravada tradition together with the Agamas and Gandhara Texts are the oldest known Buddhist Texts and that the Mahayana Texts definitely came later.

But does that mean we should reject two thousand years of Mahayana movement? Certainly not. As the Buddha had said, where the Noble Eightfold Path is found, that is the Buddha’s teachings. The Noble Eightfold Path can certainly be found in Mahayana Buddhism. There is the emphasis on morality, simplicity, letting go, meditation and the development of wisdom [6].  The Buddhist community is richer because of the development of Mahayana Buddhism.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that there are important differences. Most Buddhists are a pacifist lot! Many would prefer to overlook the differences (not wanting to even discuss it or find out more) in the name of sectarian harmony. While a small but vocal minority would argue at length over them (especially on online forums).

For me, the most honest, practical and wisest approach is to first learn as much as what we can with as little bias as possible. Try to understand, accept and respect the differences while keeping our attention on the similarities. Much like what we would do in genuine and mature relationships.

Notes:
[1]The article can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93908177/Whose-Buddhism-Is-Truest

[2] I referred to Wikipedia as well as Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project as well as other websites.

[3] Early Buddhism refers to the period after the second Buddhism council (about 250BCE) to about 500CE. This put the Gandhara Texts within the Early Buddhist period (the Gandhara Text dates to 100BCE – 600CE).

[4] Ajahn Sujato commented that while the Gandhara Text find is important. It is not as revolutionary as the Tricycle article had described. Rather, it confirmed a long held belief among Buddhist scholars – that Early Buddhist schools borrowed ideas from each other. http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/whose-buddhism-is-truest/

[5] Other early Buddhist schools include the Sthaviravadins, Mahasamghikas, Dharmaguptaka and Sarvastivada. These schools had all died out, but the texts of Dharmaguptaka and Sarvastivada can be found in the Agamas and Gandhara Texts.

[6] I simply find it very difficult to accept the rest of Mahayana doctrines.

The most common narrative we’ve heard from within the Buddhist circle is that contentment is the highest happiness (for greed and craving knows no boundary). So if we want to be happier, learn to be more content. This is certainly a lot of true in that. Learning to let go and put down (contentment) are a powerful antidote to many of the emotional and psychological issues that plague our modern materialist world (which seems to measure success only in material terms).

I would like to suggest in this post that while contentment play an important role in happiness, there are many other important factors that the Buddha talked about that have been over-looked when we discuss happiness in the Buddhist context.

In the Mangala Sutta (SN 2.4) the Buddha spoke about 38 blessings (conditions for happiness) in life. Among the blessings listed are good friendship, family, being gainfully employed, doing good and fulfilling our duties as parents or children and finally happiness through spiritual development.

In the Dighajanu Sutta (AN 8.54) the Buddha also recommended to Dighajanu that if he wishes to have happiness and welfare in this life, he should apply effort in earning a living, have good friendship and lead a balance lifestyle.

This is a comprehensive (and helpful) list than just stating contentment!

I think this makes a lot of sense. For most lay Buddhists, family, friends, money and career does matters. We can’t just brush these things aside. But I rarely see these topics and issues being discussed.

Furthermore, in human interaction the issue is often not about the lack of contentment. Rather it is about destructive emotions like anger, hate and jealousy etc. The Buddha taught the 4 Brahmavihara (loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity) as antidote to anger, hate and jealousy.

The Buddha also spoke about the importance of Right Speech[1] in our interaction with people (all the more important reminder in our super connected world) to create harmonious society.

I think this approach of reading and quoting widely from the suttas provides a much more instructive, descriptive and in-depth understanding of what the Buddha thought about happiness.

Note:
[1] Click here for more on Right Speech

Below are my reflections on my recent visit to the country. I have to say I only stayed in the country for 5 days so it is in no way a comprehensive study of the country.

Bhutan is a small mountainous country about the size of Taiwan and has a small population of only 700,000 people. It is surrounded by the Himalayas (China) to the north and India to the south. It is landlocked and has never been colonized. The reclusive Buddhist country opened up to the outside world in the 1970s. The country is politically very stable and the 4^th King voluntarily gave up power in 2008 and introduced democracy to the country.

While the country is considered a “developing country”, the government is very far sighted. The country has universal healthcare and free education for all its citizens. All subjects in school are taught in English. Because of this most people could communicate in English. And during my short 5 days stay, only once did I see a homeless person.

The country also places high premiums on protecting the environment (one of the measures of GNH). During my stay in Bhutan, I did not see any dirty streets and every rivers and streams I saw were clean. Most mountains and hills, even in the capital, are covered with trees and according to my guide, everyone is encouraged to plant 2 tree samplings every year. Many shops use paper bags and the country  only allow bio-degradable plastic bags to be used.

Charging USD250 per day per tourist helps ensure that only “quality” tourists visit the country. The strategy seems to be working – protecting the local culture (another measure of GNH) while earning precious dollars for the local economy.

The people are deeply religious (they practice Vajrayana Buddhism), while I had limited interaction with Bhutanese other than my guide, it seems that and Buddhism is indeed a very integral part of Bhutanese identity and way of life (more so than Thailand).

So are the Bhutanese as happy as reputed? Well it depends on what we mean by happiness. If happiness is measured by how often people simple and laugh, then I feel the Philippines would come across as a happier country.  However, if we measure happiness by GNH (sustainable economic development, protecting the environment, and culture and good governance) then I think Bhutan has certainly done a great job.

The government seems to genuinely care about the happiness and welfare of the people and has learned the lessons many other developing countries have made and tries not to make the same mistakes. However, the country is not without its challenges.

Bhutan wants development; my guide shared with us how as a child he used to spend an hour each morning gathering fire wood in the forest just to collect enough fuel to cook. Bathing during winter is rare due to the lack of fuel to heat the water. Kitchens were often dark, smoke-filled rooms with poor hygiene. With the introduction of electricity and cooking gas in recent years, all that has changed.

Nevertheless these modern amenities cost money and the majority of the people can’t afford it without support from the government. Most students today still spend an hour or more walking to school daily (how many parents in Singapore would be happy if their children had to walk an hour to go to school?) – Development has their benefits, but in order for more people to enjoy these benefits the country needs to have greater economic means.

(I feel that Bhutan faces many economic challenges. The country is very mountainous, land locked and the small population is sparsely spread throughout the country. Today, hydro-electricity export to India forms the main source of income for Bhutan, while 80% of the population survived on subsistence farming.)

So why does my reflection on Bhutan sounds more economics than Buddhistic? Many of us have the “grass is greener on the other side syndrome”- Over-enthusiastic Buddhists may have a romantic view of Bhutan, thinking that with its Buddhist inspired GNH, Bhutan is happy and troubled free. Truth is the country faces many challenges, just like Singapore (or any other country).

In addition, as Buddhists, we sometime see only the spiritual dimension to happiness. However, the reality, is many other factors (like family, environment, security, health etc) also contributes greatly to our happiness and general well-being.

Therefore I feel that there are much we can learn from the Bhutanese system. For many money minded Singaporeans, we can start by learning a little contentment and take a little time to seek our inner Bhutan (peace).

Nevertheless, it’s better late than never, so here are the reasons:

Reason 1: First Cause?

If the Universe needs a creator, then who created the creator? If we can accept that the creator don’t need a creator, then why can’t we accept that maybe it is the Universe that don’t need a creator?

Many people feel that the Universe is so grand and wonderful that it must have been created by a creator (a “higher being”). Then the next logical question to ask is who, then, created this creator (since this being must be even more wonderful and complex than the Universe it created)? If people can accept that the creator don’t need to be created, then why can’t we accept that maybe it is the Universe that don’t need to be created by some “higher being”?

No, this argument does not “prove” that a creator does not exist. Nevertheless, it does weaken the argument for one tremendously. It shows that it is a matter of preference where we draw the line on what we feel is the correct answer.

Reason 2: God of the Unknown
Before the advent of modern science, people have a limited understanding of the world around us, for example, why are there different seasons, what are the moon and stars made of and why the sun shines so mighty and bright. People of various cultures created stories of gods and goddesses to explain these natural phenomena.

Thanks to Science, we know better now. The stories of gods and goddesses that used to be taken seriously are now treated as legends and mythologies, made into movies to entertain us. Nevertheless, the belief in gods or God can be very hard to shake off. Even as our knowledge and understanding of the world expands, there will always be things that are just beyond the horizon of our knowledge, beyond the reach of our understanding. Proponents of gods and God will then say that that must be where the divine lies!

Reason 3: Limits of Human Experience
Nevertheless, many intelligent people (Scientists among them) still believe in some higher divine being simply because of the sheer complexity of the biological world. Within the cells of every living being, thousands or perhaps millions of things need to go right in order for the cell to function, for life to be possible. It seems untenable that all these are not the work of some higher forces.

I think that the reason why people feel this way is because of the limits of our human experiences. A typical human lifespan is about 70 – 80 years, it is very hard for us to appreciate processes that took thousand, million or even billions of years to evolve.

Yes, every cell has thousands or millions of parts that need to work right in order for the cell to function. But nature has billions of years and trillions upon trillions of “proto-types” to work with to “perfect” these biological processes (In fact, it seems nature did require billions of years to “perfect” these processes).

Reason 4: It’s about suffering
The natural world is amazing both in its beauty and diversity. The amazing shapes, colours, sizes and numbers of creatures that filled our world is truly breath taking. Many people attribute this to the power and creative energy of an almighty, all-loving God.

Nevertheless, this is only half the story. The truth is nature is as cruel as it is beautiful and amazing. Every creature, from the smallest single cell organism to the biggest blue whale feeds off each other in order to survive. – The natural world is a massive battle ground where millions of creatures die each day so that other beings can live.

If I were to give everyone a piece of paper and ask them to draw an imaginary world of any shape, colour or form they like, how many of us would even conceive a world as cruel as the one described above, much less draw it out? So how could an all-loving God create such a cruel world? If an almighty God wants to awe us with his power, surely there must be less sadistic ways to do so.

Reason 5: It’s still about suffering
Suffering can be a great teacher, it can shape us into stronger and wiser people. But not all kinds of suffering are created equal. Some suffering is clearly unnecessary. In the last few years, we have witnessed how natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis have kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

People struggle to explain why an all loving, all knowing and all powerful God could allow such terrible events to happen. The deaths are indiscriminate (in fact, the young, old, weak and poor are more likely to suffer) and I’ve not read any convincing argument being put forward by any believers to explain these events.

And let us not forget the millions of deaths that are occurring “silently” around the world each year from malnutrition, wars and diseases. They may not have the same visual impact as roaring tsunamis, but the suffering of the victims is just as real.

Suffering is not reserved only for the modern times. In fact, the situation was worse in the past! For thousands of years, human lifespan was a miserable 30 – 40 years. Infant mortality rate was high and even adults routinely died from various diseases. The Black Death killed atleast one third of all Europeans in the 1300s more recently, the Spanish Flu killed more people around the world in 1918 than World War I!

Again, no almighty God came down to intervene nor a more careful reading of holy scriptures lift the veil on such senseless suffering. It was the advent of modern medicine that stopped the spread of these deadly diseases.

Reason 6: Touched by an Angel?
Many people express the belief that they have been touched by some divine being or have felt their presence. I do not profess to be able to explain these experiences, but what I can say is that these experiences are not the monopoly of only one religion.

Stories of such spiritual experiences are common among all religions and cultures throughout the world, both present and past. If we do a survey of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims or any other religions, I am sure you will find testimonials of such spiritual experiences.

I think it speaks more about our shared humanity than the supremacy of any religion.

Reason 7: Faith, comfort and hope
Many people choose a particular religion because the religion gives them comfort and hope. These are also some of the reasons why I choose to be a Buddhist. But more importantly, for me the religion needs to satisfy my intellectual quest.

I like Buddhism because it fits the modern scientific world view, gives a coherent explanation to why suffering exist and explain the diverse spiritual experiences by various cultures and religions.[1]

What’s more, Buddhism focuses on universal compassion for ALL sentient beings and not limited only to human beings. In Buddhism we also believes that our destines is decided by our actions rather than who we have faith in, that there is no eternal damnation. In my opinion, all these make Buddhism a more spiritually equitable, compassionate and hopeful religion.  

Finally, Buddhism offers not just comfort, but more importantly, wisdom. In Buddhism we say that the Mind is the forerunner of all states. So rather than constantly  looking outside to seek for help, Buddhism ask us to look inward; Calm the mind so that we can see ourselves and the world clearer, so that we can learn and grow and to be better equipped to help ourselves and others.

I find this approach much more intellectually, emotional and spiritually satisfying.

Note:
[1] The explanation on why I feel this way is too long for this post. I will touch on it in due time in a future post.

I am sure many of us have encountered the above conversation one time or another. We might even have played the role of person A or B at different times.

As Buddhists, we recognise the importance of generosity, kindness & being supportive of charitable endeavors. It lessens the suffering in others, support our own spiritual practice and create good Kamma to ensure better rebirth for ourselves. So its win win win.

However, something is inept about the message in the above dialog. It is subtly implying that our current state is all a result of kamma from our past lives and that there is little we can do about it now, all we can hope to do is to do good deeds so as to improve our state in the future.

Of cause this is not true, on the contrary, now is the most important time. We all carry good & bad kamma from the past, we can’t change that. But there are many things we can do now.

For a start, we can choose how we react when bad things happen to us. We can choose to react in anger/sorry or embrace it with calmness and kindness. Equally important, there are also many things we can do to change the status quo. So from the above example, if we wish to increase our wealth and to gain financial independence, we can start by working harder and smarter, and adopt a frugal lifestyle!

In fact that was the advice the Buddha gave in the Dighajanu Sutta, when asked by a layman, Dighajanu, how to have happiness & well-being in this life. The Buddha answered that the lay person should develop skill-sets that are valued in our modern world, work very hard and smart, be frugal and don’t develop bad habits like gambling or womenising and lastly avoid bad companies that might influence us to act in ways that would endanger ourselves. (see http://ahandfulofleaves.net/dhamma/?page_id=135) [1]

These are the most important Kamma (action) for gaining wealth in this life. The same can be said of all human endeavors; If we wish to be _____ (fill in the blank yourself; more generous, patient, kind, wealth, get a higher education, a better meditator), there is always something practical & tangible we can do to help us achieve our goals & aspirations.

Note:
1. In the same sutta, the Buddha also gave equal emphasis on being generous, kind and taking the opportunities in this precious human life to practice the Dhamma to ensure happiness in future lives.

The story is found in AN 8.51 (the 51^st sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya Book of Eight).  The story is set in the 5^th year after the Buddha’s Enlightenment. The Buddha was in Kapilavatthu, the capital of the Skayans and his father had recently passed away. The Buddha’s foster mother, Mahapajapati Gotami, who was already a stream-enterer, requested the Buddha to allow her and some other women to be ordained as nuns. She said,

“Lord, it would be good if women could obtain the going forth from house life into homelessness in the Dhamma and disciple declared by the Perfect One”

The Buddha then replied:

“Enough, Gotami, do not ask for the going forth from house life into homelessness for women in the Dhamma and disciple declared by the Perfect One”

Three times Mahapajapati Gotami requested the going forth and three times the Buddha gave the same answer. Sad and unhappy, she then departed.

Soon after that, the Buddha departed and traveled to Vesali. Mahapajapati Gotami and a group of Sakyan women, meanwhile, decided to cut off their hair, put on a yellow robe and followed the Buddha. These women lived most of their lives in the courts and obviously were not suited for such travels. The sutta captured vividly Mahapajapati Gotami’s conditions when she finally arrived at Vesali:

“Her feet were swollen, her limbs covered in dust, and she was sad and unhappy, with tears in her face and sobbing”

Ananda saw what happened and decided to intervene. He asked the Buddha to allow women to be ordained, to which the Buddha again declined. Ananda then tried a different approach. He asked the Buddha if women have the capacity of realizing the fruits of stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner and arahantship. The Buddha replied that they indeed do. Ananda then reminded the Buddha how Mahapajapati Gotami, had loved and care for him when he was still a young prince.

Finally, the Buddha relented, but not before laying down the eight weighty rules. The Buddha then went on to say that if women had not been allowed to join the Sangha, the Dhamma and disciple would last a thousand year, but now it would last only five hundred years. The Buddha then went on to give various examples why the Dhamma and disciple would not last long:

“Just as clans with many women and few men are easily ruined by robbers and bandits, so too in the Dhamma and Discipline in which women obtain the going forth the holy life does not last long….”

This sutta raised many questions, namely, why was the Buddha so against women ordaining? Why would allowing women to ordain as nuns shorten the “holy life” from one thousand years to five hundred years? If this is true, why did the Buddha not tell Ananda or Mahapajapati Gotami his reasons before he allowed women to be ordained?

Some people commented that allowing women to be ordained as nuns would be too radical for the time and would not gain wide support from the laity.  This does not sit well with what we know about the Buddha. The Buddha was one who has no quam about going against conventions (like castes system) if he sees that they were harmful. The Sangha provides one the best conditions for making spiritual progress and there is no reason why the Buddha would stop women from joining the Sangha just to please the laity.

Lastly, by shaving her hair, putting on the robe and following the Buddha out of her own initiative, was Mahapajapati Gotami not going against the wishes of the Buddha? Mahapajapati Gotami was already a stream-enterer and it seems unlikely that she would go against the wishes of the Buddha.

Recently I came across an interesting paper by Ven Analayo offering, in my opinion, a more plausible explanation. Ven Analayo had done much research into the nuns ordination as recorded in the ancient Buddhist texts . He did a comparative study between AN 8.51 with MA 116 (Sutta 116 in the Madhyama Agama, is a direct parallel to AN 8.51) as well as various vinaya texts from other early schools of Buddhism. The MA 116 version of this story provided new insides as to what might have actually happened.

Formation of the Order of Nuns in the Agamas
In MA 116, the story also began with the Buddha in Kapilavatthu and Mahapajipati Gotama requesting to be ordained as nuns. The request, however, was framed differently:

“Blessed One, can women attain the four fruits of recluse-ship? For that reason, can women in this right teaching and discipline leave the household out of faith, becoming homeless to train in the path?”

The Buddha then replied:

“Wait, wait, Gotami, do not have this thought, that in this right teaching and discipline women leave the household out of faith, becoming homeless to train in the path. Gotami, you shave off your hair like this, put on ochre robes and for your whole life practice the pure holy life.”

In this version, it was Gotami herself who argued that since women can attain the four fruits of recluse-ship why not allow them to be ordained as nuns, not Ananda. But more significant was the Buddha’s reply. The Buddha seemed much more sympathetic to Gotami’s wishes. Instead of simply saying “no”, he suggested that she shave off her hair, put on a robe and live a holy life while living in the courts.

In another word, the Buddha believed that women, like men, have the spiritual capacity for spiritual awakening and wanted women to practice and live the holy life. Not wanting to ordain them as nuns was out of concerns for their safety. So the Buddha suggested that they live the “pure holy life” while living in the courts under the protection of men.

In the MA116 version, the Buddha too decided to travel from Kapilavatthu to Vesali, and Mahapajipati Gotami and some Skayan women decided to followed him. Again, in this version, Mahapajipati Gotami had already followed the Buddha’s advices to shave off her hair and put on a robe. She would seem as less “rebellious” than had she took her own initiative to  cut off her hair and put on the robe as recorded in AN 8.51.

Ananda’s intervention on behalf of Mahapajipati Gotami also showed signification differences. When Ananda asked the Buddha to allow women to be ordained, the Buddha repeated;

“Wait, wait, Ananda, do not have this thought, that in this right teaching and discipline women leave the household out of faith, becoming homeless to train in the path.

Ananda, if in this right teaching and discipline women obtain the leaving of the household out of faith, becoming homeless to train in the path, then this holy life will consequently not last long. Ananda, just like a household with many women and few men, will this household develop and flourish?  (Ananda replied “No, Blessed One”).”

Here, again the Buddha was highlighting the fact that if women were to be ordained as nuns, they can no long be in close proximity with men, thus becoming vulnerable to attacks and potentially cutting short their “holy life”.

When Ananda reminded the Buddha of the love and care Mahapajipati Gotami shown the Buddha when he was young, the Buddha’s reply was that Mahapajipati Gotami had indeed been very kind to him, but whatever debt the Buddha owed Mahapajipati Gotami, he had fully repaid when he established Mahapajipati Gotami on the right path. Nevertheless, the Buddha finally relented and allowed for the establishment of the order of the nuns, but laid down the eight weighty rules.

To summarise, the key differences between the 2 suttas are:
-          In AN 8.51, when asked to ordain nuns, the Buddha replied “no”. In MA 116, the Buddha’s advised Mahapajipati Gotami to shave off her hair, put on a robe and live the holy life while living in the household life

-          In AN 8.51, Mahapajipati Gotami went against the Buddha’s wishes by cutting off her hair and put on the robe and followed the Buddha to Vesali. In MA 116, she followed the Buddha’s advice and cut off her hair and put on the robes. She then followed the Buddha to Vesali.

-          In AN 8.51, Ananda asked the Buddha to ordain Mahapajipati Gotami and the Buddha said ‘no”. In MA 116, the Buddha again raised his concern about the safety of the nuns.

-          In AN 8.51, Ananda reminded the Buddha how Mahapajipati Gotami had loved him while he was young, out of gratitude to his foster mother, the Buddha relented and ordained her. In MA 116, the Buddha told Ananda what whatever “debt” he owed Mahapajipati Gotami, he had already fully repaid by establishing her on the right path. But nevertheless, the Buddha agreed.

However, both suttas still contains many similarities:
-          In both version, the eight weighty rules were set by the Buddha

-          In both version, the Buddha commented that the “Holy life” will now last five hundred years instead of a thousand.

So what can we make out of these 2 different accounts? Firstly, I think as Buddhists, we need to acknowledge that the Buddhist scriptures have been modified (either by accident or purposefully).  Anyone who have studied these suttas from the different early Buddhist schools have to come to this conclusion.

Nevertheless, I do see 2 bright spots; Firstly, large fragments of the other schools do exist and by doing comparative study of these against the Pali canon, we can come to a good idea of what was said by the Buddha and what were likely to be later works. Secondly, (and more importantly) comparative studies of these texts have shown that the core teachings of the Buddha (e.g 4NT, N8FT, rebirth, karma) are very consistence across these early suttas, so for anyone who are serious about practicing the Buddha’s teachings, these suttas from any early school will provide us with an adequate guide.

Lastly, I feel that as Buddhists we need to study deeply and ask questions. Most Asian cultures place a high premium on respecting authorities and elders. This is especially true, if it is a religious practice that has been passed down from past generations. As Buddhists, we should not be afraid to cast aside old practices if we see that they are detrimental to the spiritual path – prohibiting half of the world’s population (women) from ordaining as nuns being foremost among them.

I have heard similar views being expressed many times by various Mahayanists. In fact, these views generally fall into 2 categories:

“Strong” version: Mahayanists in this camp claim that Theravada (and the arahants) are selfish and only care only about their own enlightenment and not much else.

I think very few Mahayanists hold this view these days. Anyone who has met a well practicing Theravadin Buddhist will know that this is not true. This view is also not supported by Theravada doctrines (both the Nikaya and the commentaries), nor by history. In fact, if Theravada Buddhism is truly selfish, it would have died out within one to two generations after the Buddha’s passing because everyone would be too selfish to teach it to others.

“Weak” version: In the “weak” version, Theravadins are held in higher regard. Mahayanists in this camp believe that Theravadins want to reach their own enlightenment, before going out to help others.

I think this is too simplistic and is not in accordance with reality; I personally know many Theravada Buddhists who are dedicated volunteers and Dhamma workers, much like their Mahayana counterparts.

Compassion is a common human quality[1] and we run against reality when we try to put Buddhists neatly into 2 camps; One with lots of compassion and the other with little. Reality is usually more complicated than that[2].

Note:
[1] Compassion is not an idea exclusive to Mahayana Buddhism. It is not even unique to humans only. There are many reports of animals showing kindness and compassion to each other and even to humans.

[2] So what differentiates Mahayana from Theravada Buddhism? Well, its a long story! But I would say that the core differences comes primarily from where they draw their teachings. Theravada Buddhism is based on the teachings found in the Pali Canon (the suttas, Abhidharma and the commentaries) while Mahayana is based on the Mahayana sutras, Mahayana commentaries and the teachings of Mahayana teachers.

Therefore the goal of Theravada Buddhism is Arahatship and the suttas themselves were silent on how one can become a Buddha. While in Mahayana Buddhism, the Bodhisattava ideal (and the Bodhisattava vow to save all sentient beings) is held in highest regard.

This may explain why Mahayanist sees Theravada Buddhism as “selfish”.  However, aspiration aside, on the ground level I know many Theravadins who are equally committed to serving as any Mahayanist.

According to the article, the monk saw his income dropped by as much as 70% in the last 2 years because of foreign competition.

Informed Buddhists would find the claims by the monk bemusing because we know that monks and nuns are not supposed to charge for any of their services (funeral chants or otherwise).  He would certainly be shocked to learn that genuine monks and nuns in Singapore can easily give these foreign monks a run for their money because they charging nothing for their services! [1]

But I like to highlight another more serious issue in this post. While accurate information on Buddhism are readily available on the Internet, many Singaporeans still associate the religion with geomancy, amulets[2], fortune telling and… monks charging for chanting at funerals, none of which has anything to do with Buddhism!

It is important that we uphold the image of Buddhism. Imagine for a moment that Apple were to allow other companies to use their brand. We will soon see iShaver, iWashing Machine, iBlender, iSofa appearing in the market, all carrying Apple’s logo! People will be totally confused as to which are real Apple products. Many of these non-Apple products will surely be of poor quality and design, further damaging Apple’s brand.

Yet this is what we are seeing in Buddhism in Singapore. For a very long time, we have allowed people wearing monks’ robe to read fortunes, perform geomancy readings and to sell amulets. We, the real practitioners of the Buddha’s teachings have lost control of the Buddhist “brand” to these pseudo-Buddhists beliefs. And many of them are giving Buddhism a bad name. [3]

What can we, as informed Buddhists, do about it? I suggest 3 solutions:

Firstly, we need to speak up. The Internet and social media has greatly empowered the ordinary folks. We can inform others on social media and online forums, where discussion has cropped up, as to what is and isn’t Buddhism.

Secondly, Buddhist leaders should speak up against practices that go against Buddhist principles. While ordinary Buddhists can inform at the grassroots level, only the leaders can present an official stand on these issues. Sadly I’ve not seen any official statement coming out that makes a stand on this issue.

Lastly, we need to reach out to these people who are giving Buddhism a bad name. Some are just opportunists, in for a quick buck. Others have genuine bread and butter concerns which we as Buddhists should help to address.

Incidents like these can be great opportunities for Buddhism to grow if we address them appropriately. Lets hope we get it right sooner than later.

Notes:
[1] We need to understand the “Business model” of deaths. Loved ones of the departed usually contact the funeral parlor to help arrange the funeral. These funeral parlor are run by businessmen who make a living from these services they provide. Usually it is these funeral parlor who contact “money charging monks” to chant at funerals.

[2] I recall about 2 years ago, the Straits Times ran a half page article on “Thai Buddhism” and amulet business in Singapore.  Again, while amulets are very popular among Thai Buddhists, they have nothing to do with Buddhism. In the thousands of suttas recorded in the Buddhist cannon, the making and use of amulets was never recorded.

[3] A friend once told me of her angry encounter with one of these “monks”. At the funeral of her relative, the “monk” told her that if she wants him to chant more “powerful” sutras, she would have to pay more and hinted that she should not mind paying more (a more “powerful chant could cost a thousand dollars more) if she loved her relative. This “monk” is clearly a businessman in a monk’s robe.

The sutta is named after the Kalamas, who lived in a village or town that was frequently visited by many religious teachers. These religious teachers would praise their own teachings while discrediting the teachings of others’, leading the Kalamas to be confused as to which religion to believe. Having heard the Buddha’s good reputation, they decided to seek the Buddha’s advice.

After listening to the Kalamas’ dilemma, the Buddha’s first response was to lay down 10 guidelines according to which a teaching should not be accepted;

“Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.”

The Buddha then laid down practical guidelines on when to accept a teaching;

“When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Some of the “10 guidelines” make sense, indeed we should not accept something to be true simply by reports, legends, traditions, tradition or scripture. because there is no way of verifying if what was said were true.

However, how can we not depend, to some degree, on logic, inference, “pondering over views” or teachers to help us to decide what is true or false. For example, while I’ve never been to the United States, I’ve seen it on TV, I have friends who said that they have been to the country and I even know a few people who are Americans. Therefore, using logic and inference I know that United States exist. Is the Kalama sutta telling me not to accept this?

In school we learnt about the existence of atoms; how atoms are suppose to be so small that we can’t see them, yet they are supposed to make up our entire visible universe. None of us have ever seen an atom but most of us accept what our teachers taught us. Is the Buddha in the Kalama sutta telling us this is not a strong enough grounds to accept this teaching?

Some interpretations of the Kalama sutta tell us that we need to verify what we are told with our experiences. Yet, we all know what we can experience is limited and not always dependable. Following the above example, how can I possibly “experience” an atom for myself to verify that it really exists?

To cite another example, if I only go by my experience, I would have believed that the world is flat and that the sun moves around our Earth. Yet, this is clearly wrong! Yet, I am very willing to accept the truth from scientists and reject my experience to be wrong.

So does the Kalama Sutta still stand?

Questions like these have troubled me since I first read the sutta. Over the years I’ve made a few lazy attempts to clarify my doubts with no success. Thankfully because of our sutta discussion, I was forced to do my research into this sutta and confront my doubts in earnest. After much research and reading, I feel I’ve arrived at a meaningful understanding of the sutta.

The 10 guidelines for not accepting a teaching
The first point to note for all students of Buddhism is that asking questions and not accepting a teaching merely on faith is a core Buddhist principles. The Kalama Sutta is but one of the many suttas where the Buddha talked about the important of asking questions[1].

Yet the 10 grounds for not accepting a teaching appeared only in the Kalama sutta. Why is this so? A possible explanation could be that the Kalamas were already very confused when they approached the Buddha for advice. Thus under these circumstances, the Buddha laid down these 10 “rules” to ask the Kalamas to cast away what other teachers have taught and instead focus on what they can independently verify. – In short the 10 guidelines should not be read as the Buddha telling us not to use logic, inference or teachers under any circumstances.

Next, it was not clear from the sutta who these religious teachers were and what were they teaching. However, the Nikayas make frequent mentions of the existence of other religious teachers who lived and taught during the Buddha’s time. Six of these teachers were particularly famous.

Some of these teachers taught that good and bad actions has no moral consequences (in another word, no law of Kamma), others taught that every act produces kamma and one needs to “burn off” all bad kamma through self mortification, others taught that all things are predestined, yet others taught that death is the end of a person (materialists who believed that there is no rebirth or Kamma).

So it is reasonable to assume that the Kalamas were confused by these various beliefs, in particular on rebirth and the law of Kamma. Going by traditions, scripture, logic, inference, teachers etc would indeed not be able to help the Kalamas decide which teaching was right.

When to accept a teaching
We can assume that the Kalamas were not just concerned as to which belief system was correct, but wanted to know how to act so as to ensure that they are safe, in this and in future lives. The Buddha therefore further elaborated by stating the “four assurances”:

“‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good
destination, the heavenly world. This is the first assurance he acquires.

But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will,
free from trouble. This is the second assurance he acquires.

If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance he acquires.

But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance he acquires.”

In short, if the Kalamas act with morality, kindness & compassion they will be happy in this life and if rebirth & Kamma is true, they will be happy in future lives too. Thus, they should always act with morality, kindness and compassion.

After hearing the Buddha’s discourse the Kalamas were impressed and became his lay disciples.

My reflections
Reading the Kalama sutta in this context helps put away much of my doubts. In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha did not answer if rebirth, kamma or God(gods) are true[2]. But instead told the Kalamas that when confronted with questions which they have no way of knowing they should cast away speculations and instead focus on carry themselves in a virtuous way.

But what does the Kalama sutta means for us?

For me there two main lessons to learned from the Kalama sutta. Firstly, always try to learn from the “source” if possible. Try not to depend on reports, traditions, inference etc unless necessary. Keep an open mind and be ready to let go of  beliefs if it  proven wrong, even if its goes against our teachers or norms of society.

Secondly, when confronted with issues that can’t be resolved, always follow the path of compassion and kindness and act in a way that leads to greater happiness and welfare for ourselves and others.

The spirit of the Kalama sutta is an important one even for our modern world. Every religion claims that they are right, many demand that we submit ourselves completely. The Buddha, as seen in the Kalama sutta and many other suttas, encouraged us to question. This “freedom of enquiry” is a great gift that the Buddha gave us. One which we should use wisely as we tread this path.

————–

Note:

[1] For example, in the Shorter discourse on the Elephant footprint (MN 27), the Buddha told the monks that they can have full confidence in the Buddha Enlightened only when they themselves have attained it.

[2] There are other suttas where the Buddha did discuss these topics in detail.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

- Edmund Burke

The above is a short quote by Edmund Burke which, speaks volumes. The need to stand up to evil is certainly an appealing ideal. No doubt, many people take this message to heart and are motivated by this ideal.

Hollywood clearly understood its appeal and exploited this theme over and over again in popular movies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I myself have a soft spot for these movies and never grow tired from watching them.

The real world, however, is a much more complicated place. One of the trouble with the “Good and Evil” paradigm is how do we define what is “Good” and “Evil”? – Everybody thinks that they are right and that they are on the side of good! The follow on question is, how does the good fight the evil?

Osama clearly thought that US is evil and the terror attack on September 11, 2011 was a justified way to fight what he thought was evil, even if it means the death of thousands of innocent lives. George Bush too thought that Osama is evil and needs to brought to justice and to “spread freedom”, even if it meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, Afghans, Americans and Iraqis have to be lost. Both believed that they were good fighting evil.

Some may argue that there are examples where the distinction between good and evil is more clear cut, like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. No doubt, millions of lives had been lost under their rule. The sacrifices by so many to fight these evils have made it possible for us to live in peace and harmony.

So what does Buddhism have to say about good and evil? I personally feels that this good vs evil paradigm is not a Buddhist concept. Instead, Buddhism is about compassion and wisdom!

No doubt, this requires us to think and act at a higher level than we are used to. Instead of good vs evil, Buddhism requires us to have compassion even for those whom we think are evil, like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot!

With a compassionate mind we can remain calm and collected (rather than becoming overwhelmed by anger and aversion) and clearly investigate if what we perceived to be evil is really bad? Or why are they so willing to inflict suffering on millions of lives? Only then can we get a fuller picture.

Being able to understanding the causes and conditions in Buddhism is called wisdom. Only through understanding the causes and conditions can we truly prevent similar acts from happening again and start the healing process.

In the movies bad guys are often portrayed as 1 dimensional evil characters. For example, Sauron, the key villain from Lord of the Rings is portrayed as nothing more than an evil eye bent on destroying all human beings and elves! This simple 1 dimensional portrayal of someone as evil makes it easy for us to hate them and want to destroy them.

While it may be entertaining in movies, as Buddhists we must avoid this oversimplified way of perceiving the real world.

So perhaps, the Buddhist answer to the above Edmund Burke quote is,

“All that is necessary for the triumph of greed, hatred and delusion is not to let generosity, compassion and wisdom arise”