Mettavalokanaya_Buddhist_Magazine_March_2019

“The
Buddhist
Normative
Ethics”….
“Use Buddhist
Textual
Materials”….
Writing on normative ethics,
I have benefited a lot
from Western ethical
studies regarding the
establishment of ideological systems and
structures. However, Buddhism is more
than merely ontology or metaphysics. It
is based on its fundamental principle that
developed from experience – dependent
origination (s. pratītya-samutpāda, p.
paticca-samuppāda). This is the principle
that the Buddha realized through his
practical experience of contemplation
and discernment. It is based on this
principle that I discuss and explain the
various topics related to the study of
ethics.
Regarding specific books that
discuss the contemporary study of
Buddhist ethics, there are not any lengthy
works in Chinese, although there have
been some articles. In Japanese, there
are The Daily Ethics of Early Buddhism
and Sociological Thoughts of Early
Buddhism by Nakamura Hajime, which
discuss personal/individual ethics, and
group ethics respectively. Nevertheless,
the functioning aim of The Study of
Buddhist Ethics is not an abundance of
materials quoted and textual research,
but the digestion of the materials, and
the extraction of their essence, so as
to present a complete, Buddhist ethical
system.
In other words, my work here adopts
an analytical, philosophical methodology
and not textual research methods.
There is more logical evidence than
scriptural evidence, and there are more
deductions than summaries. However,
this does not mean that I do not regard
the teachings and making summaries
from materials as unimportant. Rather,
my aim is to present features that are
complementary to other approaches in
my other writing. This allows my written
works to supplement each other.
Theoretically, we cannot neglect
the history of Buddhist ethics if we wish
to provide a complete explanation of the
study of Buddhist normative ethics. For
example, after the Buddha’s parinirvāïa,
Mahākāśyapa and Pūrna, two of the
foremost disciples of the Buddha, varied
in their views regarding whether leeway
should be given to certain precepts
under special circumstances. Also, during
the period of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the
sūtras adopted a gentle yet mocking
attitude towards the Śrāvaka elders’
system of sangha hierarchy, while
at the same time harboring serious
discrimination and prejudice toward
women. In addition, during the Middle
Mahāyāna Period, the ideology of the
Tathāgatha-garbha gradually developed.
It often tended trespass on to the theory
of dependent origination. Moreover,
in ancient China, Venerable Dao An
(312-385) and Venerable Hui Yan (334-
416) also stated differing views of the
relationship between Buddhist religion
and politics.
Without a thorough understanding
of Buddhist history, we cannot easily
understand the moral judgments and
controversies of the fundamental
theories mentioned above, and will
therefore have difficulty mastering
the complete picture of the ethical
principles of the various schools. It
will also be difficult to understand the
internal thread of thinking and choices
explained in this book regarding these
controversies.
However, if I include historical
research as well as systematic analysis,
then I must introduce the ideologies
of the various schools, and repeatedly
compare and list their similarities
and dissimilarities, and then present
reasons for choices of selections. In
this way, the book’s categories and
sections will become enormous, petty,
and complicated. This could deter many
people from reading the book. The
adoption of both methods of research at
the same time hinders a well-organized
presentation of the complete outline
and direction of the questions regarding
Buddhist normative ethics. Thus, I have
decided to adopt only a systematic
analytical method in this book, and do
not here consider the historical study of
ethics.
How can we establish the
ideological system of Buddhist ethics in
accordance with the Buddha’s teachings
and, at the same time, make it acceptable
to Buddhists from all traditions? The
fundamental resources in establishing the
study of Buddhist ethics come from the
sūtras and scriptures. Without the sūtras
as the basis, even if the argument is very
reasonable, it can only be considered a
personal point of view, and, as such, how
can it be proved to be in accordance with
the Buddha’s teachings? Furthermore,
among the Buddhist sūtras, there are
sūtras of various schools such as the
Śrāvakayāna, Mahāyāna, and sub schools
of Mahayana, such as Vajrayāana. In
addition, the various schools and sects in
India and China tended to have diverse
views on various matters. With such
problems, how can we decide which to
accept or reject? This immediately leads
to an issue that cannot be avoided: the
issue of the analysis and classifications of
teachings.
However, if we wish to include
these teachings in the scope of scriptural
evidence, how can we use the Mahāyāna
sūtras as scriptural evidence to convince
everyone that this is a study of Buddhist
ethics that is acceptable to both the
southern and northern traditions, and
not merely a study of Mahāyāna Buddhist
ethics? To establish the teachings of
Mahāyāna, some of the Indian Mahāyāna
ùāstra masters used the legends and
stories from the Iron Bar Compilation to
prove that the Mahāyāna sūtras were
taught by Buddha. However, there is
little or no material evidence for these
proofs. We can only say that they are
beliefs or legends. Some of these points
would not be convincing to the Śrāvaka
scholars. Thus, why should I repeat the
old stories? After much consideration,
when I started writing The Study of
Buddhist Ethics, I decided to include the
Mahāyāna teachings in the Buddhist
ethics system. The reasons come from
considerations of two perspectives:
01 - From practical experiences in
propagating the dharma and benefiting
others, I deeply feel the greatness of
the Mahāyāna bodhisattvas’ aspirations,
the majestic atmosphere that develops
from Mahāyāna Buddhism, and the
boundless comfort it brings to suffering
sentient beings. These are the scopes of
mind with which those Śrāvakas, who
are renowned for having only aimed
for self-liberation, could not compare.
I sincerely believe that for Mahāyāna
Buddhism to have become popular in
ancient India there must have been
deep reflection and reviews among the
Buddhist disciples within the sangha
orders, and the public’s vast wishes and
hopes for Buddhism. I am also a part of
the ‘bodhisattva spiritual foundation’,
and therefore I cannot bear to see the
glorious works and enthusiastic vows
and practices of bodhisattvas be placed
outside the study of Buddhist ethics.
02 - Contemplating the internal
logic of the teachings and theories, we
can see that from the development
of Śrāvaka Buddhism to Mahāyāna
Buddhism, there has been a consistent
thread of thoughts linking them. They
are not two theories that are completely
disconnected. I do not wish to discuss
the question of whether Mahāyāna
was taught by the Buddha, in the study
of Buddhist ethics, as this would divert
us to a lot of tangential questions on
textual research. At the same time, it
would be impossible to satisfy everyone,
i.e., to enable both parties to agree to a
common agenda of discussion questions.
However, through long contemplation
and consideration, and repeated
investigation and authentication, I have
strong confidence that I can, without
using the scriptural evidence exclusively
from the Mahāyāna sūtras, hold onto the
consistent thread of logic directly, and
make a clear presentation of the unique
ethical ideology of Mahāyāna.
Therefore, I will follow the same
style in using scriptural evidence from
the texts of sūtras, as the source of
thoughts for the whole study of Buddhist
ethics. In addition, I will be using the law
of dependent origination (s. pratītyasamutpāda),
which is most commonly
acknowledged by the various schools of
Buddhism as the fundamental scriptural
evidence (found in the Āgama sutras).
Not only is it the fundamental formula
among all the Buddhist theories, it also
does not rely on faith or speculation. It
is a truth that everyone can experience
personally in life. In addition, with
dependent origination as the premise,
detailed logical evidence, from simple to
profound can be deduced.
Taiwan
Professor – Hsuan Chuang
University and Fu Jen
University, Head of the
Department of Religious
Studies in Hsuan Chuang
University, President of Hong
Shi Buddhist Cultural and
Educational Foundation,
Dean of the College of Liberal
Arts Hsuan Chuang University
in Taiwan
Most Venerable Bhikkhuni
Chao Hwei Shih
12 l Mettavalokanaya l March l 2019 l www.mettavalokanaya.com www.mettavalokanaya.com l 2019 l March l Mettavalokanaya l 13