3.3. The Intellectual Climate within the Buddhist Community
The second point I want to talk about the intellectual climate within the Buddhist community
during the lifetime of the Buddha. Actually, this intellectual climate was not limited to the
Buddhist community. It was common to other communities as well in India during 6th cen. B.C.E. This period was very dynamic time in India. It was the time of great intellectual, social, economic and political changes and upheaval. There were new ideas, new social institutions, new economic classes and new political form of organizations. That was a great time of change. A great time of ferment, a very fertile time so far as the ideas and social institutions and so forth were concerned.But particularly there were three factors or characteristics that were typical to Buddhist community during the lifetime of the Buddha.
3.3.1. The Monastic Discipline: pragmatism and flexibility The first aspect I want to mention is the flexibility of the Buddha with regard to the disciplinary codes, i. e., regarding the rules of the monastic discipline. First of all, it is important to know how the rules for the monks and the nuns were formulated during the time of the Buddha. How the Vinaya rules were formulated
originally. The rules were formulated as an event took place, because something happened and
someone came to the Buddha reporting the incident. So the Buddha formulated the rules. The
Buddha did not sit down and gave a discourse and enumerated the rules but he did it on the ad
hoc basis. As the problem arose, he formulated the rules to deal with that problem to avoid that issue might arise again.
But the other important thing to remember about the disciplinary rules (Vinaya) is that the
Buddha was in fact extremely flexible. If one carefully reads the Vinaya rules either from the
Theravāda canon or otherwise, one can see very clearly that for every rule, more or less there is
an exception except for the very basic rules, i.e. the four downfalls (Parajikas: not to kill, not to
steal, not to commit sexual misconduct and not to claim attainments). Apart from those the other rules are quite flexible. For example, regarding eating, there are strict rules but if one is sick, the rule can be relaxed. Similarly, the Buddha allowed the monks who lived in the far countries to wear sandals, because in the far countries the terrain was rough and not very easy to travel bare footed.
The Buddha’s attitude even with the living out in the open or
living under the trees was flexible. Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha wanted to make some rules obligatory like no one should eat meat and fish, no one should live in dwellings or no one
should receive cloth for robes and so on. He tried to create a schism in the Order by making the
austere practices compulsory rather than being flexible. The Buddha refused to make these rules
obligatory. His attitude was if anybody wants to follow more rigorous practices, he is free to do.
The Buddha’s own attitude was quite flexible. The Buddha’s attitude was, there were certain core
rules (which one should follow);other rules were formulated according to occasions. Those rules can be moderated. There can be exceptions. That was the attitude towards the disciplinary rules
during the time of the Buddha.
3.3.2. Free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings
With respect to the doctrines, the Buddha’s attitude was to put the responsibility on the disciples.
He put the responsibility on the members of the community to understand the doctrine to best
of their ability. This attitude is reflected in the Buddha’s method of teaching. Although the
Buddha delivered and expounded doctrines of InterdependentOrigination, the Five Aggregates
and so on but in most cases the Buddha taught through dialogue. The disciples asked question,
the Buddha asked some counter question and step-by-step the Buddha led his disciples to their
understanding of the dharma by means of questions and counter questions. He led his disciples
themselves come step-by-step to the correct understanding of the dharma.
The Buddha never dismissed his disciples by giving his own view rather he led his disciples gradually to a correct understanding of the dharma. So again, it was an interactive method of
teaching. And the method of this teaching allowed the disciples to come themselves to
their own conclusion. The most famous Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65), the instruction to the Kalamas is an example that verifies the fact. Kalama Sutta is sometime slightly misrepresented when one
thinks it allows one to do whatever one wants as long as one thinks it is right. It is not quite
that liberal. In general it does put the burden on the disciple to decide themselves what is truth.
It is one’s responsibility to examine and enquire about the truth in the light of their own experience. The Buddha said not to accept anything, which is not verified by one’s experience, not even the words of the Buddha. The truth must be verified on the basis of one’s own experiences and when one knows such and such thing is true, they are wholesome and they lead to happiness and peace, then they come to the right understanding and to the correct view. The Buddha encouraged his disciples to enquire about the truth and verify the truth by
themselves rather than accepting on the basis of blind faith, authority, hearsay and such other criterion.
3.3.3. Consensus and Democracy with regard to the organization of the
community
Apart from the principle of free enquiry, which was reinforced in the latter part of the Buddha’s
life there were whole questions of the political organization of the Saṅgha- the way the monastic
community was organized. The monastic community was organized on the basis of institutional
democracy. In fact it was not so much democracy, it was consensus, which is even more democratic than democracy. In democracy there is always a defeated minority, but for the
Buddha, democracy was the second best to choose for the monastic organization.
For the early monastic community democracy was an acceptable but not a desirable process. The best process was consensus. The point is, here everyone’s point of view was taken
into consideration. Again there was no authoritarian supreme head. There were always
consultations and discussions. To settle some matter there was always a desire to achieve consensus, that is mutual agreement among the members of the Order. So these are the features that characterize the monastic and to some extent even the lay community during the time of the Buddha. It was a climate in which there was flexibility with regard to the rules of the discipline and there was free enquiry permitted with regard to the doctrine. There was always free exchange of views, free debate, consensus and democracy in the area of the institutional organization.
These are important facts about the early Buddhist community that one should keep in mind.
One need to keep this in mind, because they give us a picture of what they were like? What the
intellectual life was? What the community life was like? It was not a rigid, authoritarian
community. It was not a situation, which was characterized by an authoritarian supremacy. It was a climate in which pragmatism and flexibility with regard to the rules of discipline were
present. There was free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings, and there were
consensus and democracy with regard to the organization of the community.
3.3.4. The Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist
community
I like to point out the Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist community.
There are several important indications are contained in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, which
describes the last days of the Buddha before his passing into Mahāparinibbāna. In this connection we recall the incident, which took place during the last days of the Buddha. The
Buddha told Ananda when asked by the latter that the community (order) is free to abolish the
lesser precepts if the community saw fit. If the community thought it right, they could abolish or
discard the lesser precepts. The Buddha also when asked by the monks(the monastic community) whether he has any instruction or to tell anything further to the community the Buddha said that he had given the Dharma to the Saṅgha and that is sufficient. The Buddha told all the monks, the nuns and the lay people to be lamp unto themselves, to be island unto
themselves, to rely on the teaching, to rely on the dharma.
The Buddha refused to appoint a successor to replace him and be the chief of the Buddhist community. On the other hand he left the responsibility with the community of monks, nuns and lay people. Probably the very last words of the Buddha are most important of all when he asked the community to work out their salvation and deliverance with diligent. Each and every one of the Buddhist community should take responsibility for their own salvation. So right at the end the Buddha told the monks that they should decide about the monastic codes. They should decide about the lesser precepts if they want to abolish them if they saw fit. Regarding the dharma he asked his disciples to be lamp unto them, to be refuge to themselves. He left the Dharma and it is the responsibility of his followers to work out for their salvation with diligence. “You have to do it, you are only responsible.” The responsibility is on the each members of the community. It is up to them to work it out. Of course one can refer to the teachings of the Buddha, one can refer to the masters, but at the end of the day one has to work it out oneself. The Buddha showed the way but one has to tread the path.
And that was the message the Buddha left with the community. He did not try to impose a
precise, narrow and a specific direction on the development and the evolution of the community and the teaching. He left it up to the understanding of the intelligence of his followers. All of these are important because they leave us with an impression of the climate during the
lifetime of the Buddha in the Buddhist community. They leave us with the impression of fluidity, an openness of the tolerance that allowed for further development. Nowadays in the modern
terminology it is called as ‘self empowerment.’ In that sense, the Buddha gave the power and authority to the members of the Saṅgha and the followers of his teachings to work out their own
salvation with diligence and to be lamp unto themselves. They can decide which precept were lesser and necessary to abolish.
So these are some points I wanted to make regarding the climate during the lifetime of the Buddha and they are important element because they help us to explain how is it that we have
such diversity of interpretations of the teachings of the Buddha and how it managed to develop
into different Buddhist schools expounding different interpretations and different traditions
recollecting the life, teachings and the message of the Buddha.
The second point I want to talk about the intellectual climate within the Buddhist community
during the lifetime of the Buddha. Actually, this intellectual climate was not limited to the
Buddhist community. It was common to other communities as well in India during 6th cen. B.C.E. This period was very dynamic time in India. It was the time of great intellectual, social, economic and political changes and upheaval. There were new ideas, new social institutions, new economic classes and new political form of organizations. That was a great time of change. A great time of ferment, a very fertile time so far as the ideas and social institutions and so forth were concerned.But particularly there were three factors or characteristics that were typical to Buddhist community during the lifetime of the Buddha.
3.3.1. The Monastic Discipline: pragmatism and flexibility The first aspect I want to mention is the flexibility of the Buddha with regard to the disciplinary codes, i. e., regarding the rules of the monastic discipline. First of all, it is important to know how the rules for the monks and the nuns were formulated during the time of the Buddha. How the Vinaya rules were formulated
originally. The rules were formulated as an event took place, because something happened and
someone came to the Buddha reporting the incident. So the Buddha formulated the rules. The
Buddha did not sit down and gave a discourse and enumerated the rules but he did it on the ad
hoc basis. As the problem arose, he formulated the rules to deal with that problem to avoid that issue might arise again.
But the other important thing to remember about the disciplinary rules (Vinaya) is that the
Buddha was in fact extremely flexible. If one carefully reads the Vinaya rules either from the
Theravāda canon or otherwise, one can see very clearly that for every rule, more or less there is
an exception except for the very basic rules, i.e. the four downfalls (Parajikas: not to kill, not to
steal, not to commit sexual misconduct and not to claim attainments). Apart from those the other rules are quite flexible. For example, regarding eating, there are strict rules but if one is sick, the rule can be relaxed. Similarly, the Buddha allowed the monks who lived in the far countries to wear sandals, because in the far countries the terrain was rough and not very easy to travel bare footed.
The Buddha’s attitude even with the living out in the open or
living under the trees was flexible. Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha wanted to make some rules obligatory like no one should eat meat and fish, no one should live in dwellings or no one
should receive cloth for robes and so on. He tried to create a schism in the Order by making the
austere practices compulsory rather than being flexible. The Buddha refused to make these rules
obligatory. His attitude was if anybody wants to follow more rigorous practices, he is free to do.
The Buddha’s own attitude was quite flexible. The Buddha’s attitude was, there were certain core
rules (which one should follow);other rules were formulated according to occasions. Those rules can be moderated. There can be exceptions. That was the attitude towards the disciplinary rules
during the time of the Buddha.
3.3.2. Free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings
With respect to the doctrines, the Buddha’s attitude was to put the responsibility on the disciples.
He put the responsibility on the members of the community to understand the doctrine to best
of their ability. This attitude is reflected in the Buddha’s method of teaching. Although the
Buddha delivered and expounded doctrines of InterdependentOrigination, the Five Aggregates
and so on but in most cases the Buddha taught through dialogue. The disciples asked question,
the Buddha asked some counter question and step-by-step the Buddha led his disciples to their
understanding of the dharma by means of questions and counter questions. He led his disciples
themselves come step-by-step to the correct understanding of the dharma.
The Buddha never dismissed his disciples by giving his own view rather he led his disciples gradually to a correct understanding of the dharma. So again, it was an interactive method of
teaching. And the method of this teaching allowed the disciples to come themselves to
their own conclusion. The most famous Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65), the instruction to the Kalamas is an example that verifies the fact. Kalama Sutta is sometime slightly misrepresented when one
thinks it allows one to do whatever one wants as long as one thinks it is right. It is not quite
that liberal. In general it does put the burden on the disciple to decide themselves what is truth.
It is one’s responsibility to examine and enquire about the truth in the light of their own experience. The Buddha said not to accept anything, which is not verified by one’s experience, not even the words of the Buddha. The truth must be verified on the basis of one’s own experiences and when one knows such and such thing is true, they are wholesome and they lead to happiness and peace, then they come to the right understanding and to the correct view. The Buddha encouraged his disciples to enquire about the truth and verify the truth by
themselves rather than accepting on the basis of blind faith, authority, hearsay and such other criterion.
3.3.3. Consensus and Democracy with regard to the organization of the
community
Apart from the principle of free enquiry, which was reinforced in the latter part of the Buddha’s
life there were whole questions of the political organization of the Saṅgha- the way the monastic
community was organized. The monastic community was organized on the basis of institutional
democracy. In fact it was not so much democracy, it was consensus, which is even more democratic than democracy. In democracy there is always a defeated minority, but for the
Buddha, democracy was the second best to choose for the monastic organization.
For the early monastic community democracy was an acceptable but not a desirable process. The best process was consensus. The point is, here everyone’s point of view was taken
into consideration. Again there was no authoritarian supreme head. There were always
consultations and discussions. To settle some matter there was always a desire to achieve consensus, that is mutual agreement among the members of the Order. So these are the features that characterize the monastic and to some extent even the lay community during the time of the Buddha. It was a climate in which there was flexibility with regard to the rules of the discipline and there was free enquiry permitted with regard to the doctrine. There was always free exchange of views, free debate, consensus and democracy in the area of the institutional organization.
These are important facts about the early Buddhist community that one should keep in mind.
One need to keep this in mind, because they give us a picture of what they were like? What the
intellectual life was? What the community life was like? It was not a rigid, authoritarian
community. It was not a situation, which was characterized by an authoritarian supremacy. It was a climate in which pragmatism and flexibility with regard to the rules of discipline were
present. There was free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings, and there were
consensus and democracy with regard to the organization of the community.
3.3.4. The Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist
community
I like to point out the Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist community.
There are several important indications are contained in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, which
describes the last days of the Buddha before his passing into Mahāparinibbāna. In this connection we recall the incident, which took place during the last days of the Buddha. The
Buddha told Ananda when asked by the latter that the community (order) is free to abolish the
lesser precepts if the community saw fit. If the community thought it right, they could abolish or
discard the lesser precepts. The Buddha also when asked by the monks(the monastic community) whether he has any instruction or to tell anything further to the community the Buddha said that he had given the Dharma to the Saṅgha and that is sufficient. The Buddha told all the monks, the nuns and the lay people to be lamp unto themselves, to be island unto
themselves, to rely on the teaching, to rely on the dharma.
The Buddha refused to appoint a successor to replace him and be the chief of the Buddhist community. On the other hand he left the responsibility with the community of monks, nuns and lay people. Probably the very last words of the Buddha are most important of all when he asked the community to work out their salvation and deliverance with diligent. Each and every one of the Buddhist community should take responsibility for their own salvation. So right at the end the Buddha told the monks that they should decide about the monastic codes. They should decide about the lesser precepts if they want to abolish them if they saw fit. Regarding the dharma he asked his disciples to be lamp unto them, to be refuge to themselves. He left the Dharma and it is the responsibility of his followers to work out for their salvation with diligence. “You have to do it, you are only responsible.” The responsibility is on the each members of the community. It is up to them to work it out. Of course one can refer to the teachings of the Buddha, one can refer to the masters, but at the end of the day one has to work it out oneself. The Buddha showed the way but one has to tread the path.
And that was the message the Buddha left with the community. He did not try to impose a
precise, narrow and a specific direction on the development and the evolution of the community and the teaching. He left it up to the understanding of the intelligence of his followers. All of these are important because they leave us with an impression of the climate during the
lifetime of the Buddha in the Buddhist community. They leave us with the impression of fluidity, an openness of the tolerance that allowed for further development. Nowadays in the modern
terminology it is called as ‘self empowerment.’ In that sense, the Buddha gave the power and authority to the members of the Saṅgha and the followers of his teachings to work out their own
salvation with diligence and to be lamp unto themselves. They can decide which precept were lesser and necessary to abolish.
So these are some points I wanted to make regarding the climate during the lifetime of the Buddha and they are important element because they help us to explain how is it that we have
such diversity of interpretations of the teachings of the Buddha and how it managed to develop
into different Buddhist schools expounding different interpretations and different traditions
recollecting the life, teachings and the message of the Buddha.
Comments