Buddhism vs. Dhamma

 If the followers are happy with their practices, whether they are fact based or pure myth, what is wrong with it?

When Buddha formed his intellectual and ethical movement in the 6th century BCE, the goal set for his followers was to explore those natural laws or the nature of the universe and the humans’ place in it, or to “see things as they really are.” This is a goal that is shared by modern science as well: to understand nature and use that knowledge to solve problems. Therefore, it is no coincidence that modern science is beginning to confirm that the eternal truths Buddha discovered are not beliefs or speculations

By Geewananda Gunawardana

The Guest Column of W.A. Wijewardene titled “Stories and true Buddha Dhamma: What do scholars advise?” published on 4 July (https://www.ft.lk/columns/Stories-and-true-Buddha-Dhamma-What-do-scholars-advise/4-750168), not only brought back fond memories of the great scholars of a bygone era but it also inspired me to share what I have learned from two of the three scholars mentioned in it: Venerable Professors Kotagama Wachissara and Walpola Rahula.  

As our teacher at Ananda, Wachissara thero was very particular about not using the term Buddhism: his timeslot in the schedule and the textbooks we used were titled Buddha Dhamma. The title of Ven. Rahula’s most influential book is What the Buddha Taught, and not Buddhism. They both imply a difference between Buddhism and the Dhamma. Wachissara thero advised us that while the terminology was not relevant for the O/L examination, we should take time to explore this topic when permissible as there are important life lessons to be learned from it. What follows is an account of what I have learned by following that advice, a lesson that I believe is more relevant today than ever.

My grandparents, and their contemporaries, who were a generation ahead of these two venerable scholars, used the Sinhala term “agama” only with reference to Christianity. They too recognised the difference between Buddhism and Dhamma. The term Buddhism was coined by early 19th century Western scholars to describe the practices of the people of Asia and the East, that were centred around a historical figure they referred to as Buddho or Budoo. Usually the words ending with “ism” refer to a doctrine, theory, system of belief, or a religion. A religion on the other hand is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. In that sense, Western scholars were correct to use the suffix “ism” to describe the practices of Buddhists they observed. What, then, is the basis for our venerable scholars rejecting this characterisation? 

Scholars who disagree that Buddhism is a religion attempt to define it as a philosophy, doctrine, or a way of life, etc. For example, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote, “Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. … It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter’s instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind” (Verhoeven 2001). Just as Russell observed, the efforts spanning over 150 years to “validate” Buddhism based on science has shown that some aspects of Buddhism are highly scientific while there are many others that are speculative or mere beliefs. The root cause of this discord is what was highlighted by both Ven. Wachissara and Ven. Rahula: Buddhism the religion has deviated from the Dhamma it was based on, over millennia. 

Then, we face the challenge of differentiating Dhamma from Buddhism. The famous dialog between Assaji, one of Buddha’s first five disciples, and Upatissa, later to become Sariputta, provides an excellent entry point to this discussion. Upatissa asked Assaji with whom is he training and what is his new teacher’s doctrine. Assaji replied that he is following Gotama, but he cannot describe the doctrine as he is new to the teaching. Upon Upatisa’s insistence, Assaji described the teaching as follows:

“Of those things that arise from a cause,

The Tathāgata has told the cause,

And also what their cessation is:

This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse.”

It can be simplified as “Tathagatha, the Great Recluse teaches that all phenomena arise from a cause, and when their causes cease, the phenomena also cease.” Assaji’s response is undoubtedly one of the most precise, yet accurate descriptions of the Dhamma. Knowing the contents of the first two sermons of Buddha, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta and Anattalakkhana Sutta, the source of Assaji’s information, it can be inferred that Assaji embodies the Four Noble Truths, Characteristics of Life, and Dependent Origination or the law of cause and effect in his two-sentence answer. The meaning is so profound that Upatissa became a stream entrant (sotapanna) upon hearing it.

It is this set of eternal truths embodied in Buddha’s first two sermons that forms the foundation of all three major schools of Buddhism extant today. The Pali stanza that Buddhists use to venerate the Dhamma clearly explains the nature of these truths thusly: ‘The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is consistent and teach the same truth, self-evident and can be understood in this life itself, and cannot be changed nor can they be altered over time. Buddha’s Dhamma is to be investigated and can only be understood by oneself. Dhamma is for the wise to understand and realise.’ 

When Buddha formed his intellectual and ethical movement in the 6th century BCE, the goal set for his followers was to explore those natural laws or the nature of the universe and the humans’ place in it, or to “see things as they really are.” This is a goal that is shared by modern science as well: to understand nature and use that knowledge to solve problems. Therefore, it is no coincidence that modern science is beginning to confirm that the eternal truths Buddha discovered are not beliefs or speculations. This is not the place to elaborate, but all elements of the said set of truths can be explained purely based on science. That does not mean to quote from quantum mechanics to “validate” Buddhism as some overzealous devotees try to do. 

Then the question arises how and when Buddhism acquired the materials outside of those set of truths or Dhamma. This transformative process spanning 2,500 years and several continents is a complex one, but it is well documented in a large body of historical documents. They include the Sri Lankan chronicles Deepawamsa and Mahawamsa and many other Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese documents. During the first 200 years after the Parinirvana, the sasana or the system Buddha put in place for disseminating his teaching had faced major challenges. The influence from other religious movements, especially Brahminism, was so strong that the sangha had allowed several transformations that introduced a pantheon, mythology, hagiography, and worship to Buddhist practices. 

The two most significant events among them are the deification of the Buddha and the introduction of the concept of Maitreya. The elevation of the sramana who walked in the Gangetic valley to the “extraordinary being with superhuman powers and features” culminated in the epic poem Budhacharitaya by Asvaghosha. Sadly, not many Buddhists realise that it is a poem. The introduction of the concept of Maitreya, a “Buddhist messiah,” was in response to the desire of laity to reach the ideals that are limited to the monastics. Even though the Sri Lankan Buddhists like to think that the version of Dhamma brought by Arhant Mahinda was free of these concepts, a careful examination of the history shows that these concepts were well established in the country by the middle of the 1st century BCE, i.e., well before the arrival of Buddhaghosha (History of Indian Buddhism, Lamotte 1958; English translation 1988). 

Buddhism is a religion complete with a pantheon, mysticism, rituals, and beliefs. There are some aspects of significant cultural value in it, but contrary to common belief, they have no salvific value. In fact, they can be contradictory to the Dhamma

The further transformation of Dhamma within Sri Lanka during the Anuradhapura period under the influence of political, cultural, and socioeconomic factors is described in the “History of Buddhism in Ceylon” by Ven. Rahula. Ven. Wachissara’s Ph.D. thesis (University of London 1961) describes similar events that took place during the Kandyan period (There are other works by various authors covering this same topic: some examples are Gombrich and Obeyesekere 1988; Southwold 1983; Bond 1988; Marasinghe 1974; Gombrich 2014 and 2018). Buddhism is a religion complete with a pantheon, mysticism, rituals, and beliefs. There are some aspects of significant cultural value in it, but contrary to common belief, they have no salvific value. In fact, they can be contradictory to the Dhamma.

If the followers are happy with their practices, whether they are fact based or pure myth, what is wrong with it? This can have far-reaching consequences as can be seen today. 

The basis of investigating history is to learn from it but not to assign responsibility. The most important lesson here is that the lack of free thinking can make people liable for exploitation by the purveyors of falsehoods irrespective of the nature of their wares. It is true that the placebo effect is real, but that is not a reason to sell sugar pills to gravely ill patients. 

Time, resources, and effort wasted on baseless practices can be used to gain real benefits, instead.

Buddha explained how one should approach his teaching in the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65 PTS: A i 188), which is described as “the Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry.” The oft quoted passage from this sutta is translated as follows:

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

If that is how we are supposed to treat Buddha Dhamma, what about the words of mere mortals whether they are well-meaning commentators or self-centred conmen? I believe that both Ven. Wachissara and Ven. Rahula were alerting us to the pitfalls of not being free thinkers. If we were trained to follow Buddha’s advice to Kalamas, instead of bowing to traditions blindly, there is no doubt that many aspects of the Sri Lankan life could have been very different.