By Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

My high school teacher, late professor Kotagama Wachissara Thero, told us that there is no “ism” in what the Buddha taught. “You are too young to grasp this, but think about it when you get a chance,” he advised. Now, after five decades of searching, I can relate to it; but as I have seen it repeatedly, saying it out loud is going against tradition. However, seeing the current situation in the Buddhist majority country, I thought, perhaps, the time has come to address this circular reasoning, however awkward and risky it may be.

The term Buddhism was coined by late nineteenth century western scholars to describe diverse practices that were based on the Buddha’s teaching. The suffix “ism” is mostly used to describe a religion, a set of organised beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being. We cannot find fault with those scholars; it is hard to deny that Buddhism as practised has many of those characteristics if not all: pantheon, mysticism, rituals, and beliefs. There is nothing wrong with religion if it fulfills the needs of the follower. In fact, being religious has many benefits that range from providing mental and physical wellbeing to forming social networks. Often, there are spiritual and cultural elements associated with religions as well. The snag here is that not only does the Teaching not include any of those characteristics, but it also eschews them.

What I would like to discuss here is how far away Buddhism has drifted from the teachings. Over two and a half millennia ago, the Buddha started an intellectual and ethical movement based on a set of truths he discovered about nature and the place humans occupy in it. This is often stated as “seeing things as they really are” (yathabutha nanadassana) and living accordingly. The premise is that once one understands this truth with wisdom, he or she will lead a harmonious life that is beneficial to themselves, society, and the entire world, both here now and hereafter. Nibbana is seeing things as they really are at the highest level (Karunadasa 2013).

What did the Buddha teach? Assaji, one of the first five disciples of the Buddha, was asked the same question by Upatissa, who later became known as Sariputta, one of the two chief disciples of the Buddha. Assaji replied “All phenomena arise from causes; Those causes have been taught by the Tathagata, and their cessation too has been proclaimed by the Great Samana” (Ye dhammaā hetuppabhavaā tesam hetum Tathagato āaha, Tesan-ca yo nirodho – evam vadi Mahasamano).

This statement by Assaji is the most concise yet complete description of the Teaching found in the literature. It was so illuminating that Upatissa became a stream entrant (sotapanna) upon hearing it. Some scholars fail to recognise the significance of this simple statement, but it captures the fundamentals of Buddha’s teaching in its entirety: Codependent Arising, Three Characteristics of Life, and the Four Noble Truths. Teaching is an in-depth analysis of the human mind, which modern neuroscience is just beginning to reinvent. There is nothing in the Teaching that is attributed to beliefs or supernatural powers. All that was the result of human intelligence. For the same reasons, the Teaching is accessible to the wise, here, and now (sanditthiko akaliko…). The path to develop the mind to “see things as they really are” as they relate to the human condition, has three requisites: conduct, tranquility or harmony, and wisdom. None of that has anything to do with beliefs, rituals, or mysticism.

If so, how did Buddhism acquire the beliefs, practices, and rituals that are extraneous to the Teaching? India was teeming with religious movements during the time of the Buddha. During the six years prior to enlightenment, Prince Siddhartha studied under several thought leaders of the time, and found their doctrines unsatisfactory. The enlightenment or the Buddha’s rediscovery of eternal truths was a response or a repudiation of the prevailing views, Brahmanism in particular. He gave new meanings to Brahminic concepts such as gods, karma, and rebirth. Even the Four Noble Truths was a repudiation of several contemporary theories on human condition.

This dynamical interaction of the Teaching with the prevailing theories, traditions, and beliefs of the societies that accepted it took place during the Buddha’s time; and this process has been ongoing ever since. For example, it is not difficult to identify the customs of Sri Lankan Buddhists that were added in reaction to Christian missionary activities, or the rituals started during the war years. The Buddha did not reject the acceptance or presence of other traditions among his followers for several reasons. First, his teaching is grounded in truths and can be empirically verified by the wise. Anyone can see if they benefit from the truth irrespective of their affiliations. Therefore, his Teaching prevailed, and will continue to be so in the future, at least among the wise. The operating word here is “wise,” and the Buddha emphasised this fact in his famous advice to the Kalamas:

“Now, 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.’ 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 and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.”

Second, the Buddha was able to reinterpret or give new meanings to existing beliefs and practices if they did not contradict the truth. Many Brahmins became his disciples after the Buddha convinced them that their practices and beliefs can have deeper new meanings. If the practices or beliefs were contradictory to the Teaching or futile, he rejected them. The Vedic practice of animal sacrifice was one of them. That is the key question: do our beliefs and practices do any harm?

It is not correct to conclude that all such acquisitions are detrimental. However, to make that determination, we must heed the advice to Kalamas, take a critical look at our practices and beliefs, and evaluate their validity or benefits. Admittedly, this is a difficult undertaking. The irony is that tradition prevents us from questioning tradition. One can say that this is a form of suppression of critical thinking.

It is noteworthy that the three main schools of Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana are all based on the Four Noble Truths, but their practices, customs, and beliefs vary widely. This diversity arose as a result of absorbing the practices, customs, and beliefs that existed in the lands that embraced the Teaching.  Theravadins reason that their school being the oldest, they are the closest to the Teaching. That may be the case, but when its history is examined, it cannot be denied that Theravada school had not been immune to the transformative forces that shaped the other schools over millennia. For example, the Abhayagiri and Jethavana monasteries had been thriving Mahayana centers. When they were consolidated with the Mahavihara monastery in the 12th century, the new Theravada tradition adopted most of the Mahayana practices and beliefs but kept the Pali Canon (Rahula 1956).

The glaring proof that the Teaching is lost on us is the moral bankruptcy of the nation that led to the equally horrific economic bankruptcy. Moral and ethical conduct is at the root of the Noble Path; however, it appears that this has been fully and completely ignored at all levels of society. For example, if two of the five precepts were adhered to at a minimum, would the country have ended up as the most corrupt and lawless one in the region? The second indication is the rapid rate of introduction of new rituals that are blatantly against the Teaching, and often criminal according to the law.  While the entire nation and the country’s future suffer due to ethical and moral failures, it is the innocent pious who fall victim to these scams disguised as meritorious actions.

It is difficult to pinpoint the origins of these malaises, but it is not surprising that they do exist considering the checkered history of Buddhism in the country. Even though we would like to think that there is an unbroken lineage between the canonical materials and the sangha to the Buddha’s times, that does not mean it is free of extraneous material. The canon that was brought to Sri Lanka had been supplemented for over two centuries under Brahminic influence, and there is no evidence that Emperor Asoka made any distinction between Sthavira and Mahasamghika sects that had different opinions. The original Sri Lankan texts do not exist, and only portions of their Pali translations survived in Sri Lanka. The missing sections were brought back from other countries in recent times. The Sri Lankan Bhikkhuni community disappeared, and the Bhikkhu community escaped near extinction thanks to repeated reintroduction of ordination from other countries, also in relatively recent times. There were many opportunities for the incorporation of extraneous materials into the tradition during this eventful history.

The most influential addition in this process was the belief that the Teaching cannot be comprehended beyond the first millennium after Parinirvana, even though the Pali stanza venerating the Teaching states quite the opposite. Once the original ideal became inaccessible under this premise, the followers were offered a new goal: collect merits so that one can assure rebirth in superior realms until the arrival of Maitreya Buddha when the liberation can be achieved, a concept not found in the Teaching. For more immediate needs, followers started turning to supernatural powers, as their ancestors did before the arrival of Buddhism. The merits gathering and petitionary prayers or offerings have turned into bartering systems: exchange of material things or services for some benefits in return. This is the opposite of giving (dana) to suppress attachment to worldly things as the Teaching prescribes.

There are two ways in which this mindset can harm society. One is the notion that the consequences of ethical or moral violations can be balanced or compensated by meritorious actions, like balancing withdrawals and deposits in a bank account. This gives the opportunity to cover nefarious activities behind bogus meritorious ones.  Another is the use of rituals by unscrupulous agents to exploit hapless devotees and depriving them of precious resources that can be used to improve the living conditions in these difficult times. In essence, merit has become a commodity item. Obviously, building shrines at every street corner, offering robes (kapruka pooja) and medicinal products (oushada pooja) to stupas, or having light displays on special days are no substitutes for lack of morals and ethics. The practice of offering material things and prayers to structures or trees predates the Buddha, and the Teaching eschews such rituals. Not only that, but the current trend has taken them to extremes: there is a belief that one can gain more merits by lighting more lamps or offering more flowers or broadcasting the chanting louder and falling victim to consumerism and commercialisation. Failing to see the practicality of offering the best food one can afford to the statue to be discarded later, compared to feeding a child that goes to school hungry. The Buddha never condoned giving offerings or praying to inanimate objects or higher powers. Most of these rituals are much later additions to the practice; what may have started as symbolic gestures are given new meanings that go against the teaching.

One may argue that these are academic matters that are devoid of any practical implications. That is far from the truth. The effects of these practices will add up over time, as happened with the economy. Aside from the spiritual aspects, they can cause major economic and social upheavals. A major concern expressed by certain parties is that Buddhism in Sri Lanka is under threat. The truth is that the threat comes from within. Those who cry wolf are the same people who cause it and prevent us from realizing it, because they have much to lose if we discover the truth. We the people are caught up in this circular reasoning: It is against tradition to challenge tradition.

As the Kalama Sutta states, we must think rationally, and escape from this circular reasoning. The reality is that our practices have drifted away from What the Buddha Taught. If we do not stop this drift, the connection could be lost forever. Ironically, we are supposed to be the people chosen to safeguard the Teaching. We as a nation have done a commendable job in preserving it. We have not lost the Teaching, but the Teaching is lost on us.