Download MahŒyŒna Buddhism

The Justification for a Moral Life in Buddhism
Law , Chi Lim
Introduction
Most scholars of Buddhism agree that ethics play a very important part in Buddhist
soteriology1. In fact , there is no clear distinction between religion and ethics at the
time of the Buddha ------- religious beliefs were, in fact, moral systems at that time
(Ven Guang Xing,2007, personal communication). Early scholars like Poussin ( 927)
considers that “ Buddhism is, in its essence, an ethical discipline” 2 while
Wijesekara ( 1971: 49) claims boldly that “ It is universally recognized that
Buddhism can claim to be the most ethical of all religio-philosophical systems of
the world”. Keown ( 2001: 1) also points out that : “Buddhism is a response to
what is fundamentally an ethical problem--- the perennial problem of the best kind
of life for man to lead”.
However, in spite of the importance of ethics in Buddhism, many Buddhists
practise diligently the moral guidelines laid down in tradition without questioning
or understanding the real soteriological significance of these moral guidelines. It is
the purpose of this paper to examine how the Buddha justifies these moral
guidelines in his teachings to his followers.
For Want of a God
In most religions in the history of mankind, there is usually a divine entity such as
1
2
Soteriology is the study of “ salvation”. The word comes from two Greek words : soter ( meaning
“saviour”) and logos( meaning “word”, “principle”, and “reason”).Different religions emphasize or
promise salvation of different natures.
As quoted in Harvey ( 2000 :11)
an all powerful creator God. As an illustration, we shall now examine the
soteriological significance of the moral rules for the Vedic tradition and the
Abrahamic tradition.
Brahmanism/Hinduism3
In the Hindu Vedic-Upanisadic-Dharmasatric tradition, humanity was divided into
four classes ( brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra ) . It was a divine creation, or
rather the Supreme God Brahama or Prajapati had split himself into these four
segments ( Prasad, 2007:86-87). Each class could trace their present status and
condition to moral acts done in their past lives----- the so called karma-phala
principle. This was a totally deterministic tradition in that there was no chance of
social mobility in this life. One could only perform one’s moral obligation and
duties (svadharma) in preparation for the next life, or for the Brahmana, an
ultimate goal of union with Brahma. In time, this soteriological scheme had the
effect of creating inequality and injustice. In ancient times with limited access to
education and information, this scheme might have had the effect of sustaining the
solidarity and continuity of the Hindu society and civilization, but with human
progress and the spread of knowledge, Hinduism has to change to adapt to a new
humanity. In India nowadays, the caste system officially does not exist. But, human
nature being what it is, class discrimination still does exist.
Abrahamic tradition
For the three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), Man’s
3
. The term “Brahmanism” is often used as synonymous with Hinduism , although many Hindus find this term inappropriate in
that it does not reflect the complete nature and ideology of Hinduism . However, the early Buddhist Pali scriptures contain a
lot of debate with and references to various Brahmins ( the high priests at the time). “Brahmanism” seems to be a better term
to describe the prevailing, dominant religion at the time of the Buddha and this term is used here without any derogatory
meaning.
1
salvation depends entirely on divine grace from God. The Old Testament of the
Judeo-Christian tradition contains the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 3-17) from
God (as told by the prophet Moses to the people) which includes rules for social
behaviour ( such as killing, stealing, adultery, etc) as well as commands to worship
no other god then the one God. These are divine commands that must be followed
for salvation. As Jesus Christ has pointed out in the Gospel according to Mark (12:
29), the most important commandment is “Love the Lord your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength”. In
addition, in the Gospel according to Mathew (5:10), he says: “ Blessed are those
who are persecuted because of righteousness ,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”.
Thus the reward for the righteous person following the moral rules as recorded in
the Bible will be reaped in the after-life. In addition, Jesus Christ has spoken
incessantly about the right behaviour to follow to avoid being burnt in hell on
Judgment Day. In a similar vein, Islam also requires total submission to God’s
commands. In fact the word Islam is derived from the root s-l-m indicating “peace”
and “surrender”, the connotation of which is “the peace that comes when one’s life
is surrendered to God.” (Smith, 1991: 222). The reward for such surrendering is
none other than a place in the Kingdom of Heaven in one’s afterlife.
Buddhism is entirely different from the two ancient traditions mentioned above in
that it considers that Man’s salvation does not depend on divine grace4. As Prasad
(2007: 165) points out: “Buddhism is essentially a religion of ethics without any
God or divine metaphysical principle”. In Buddhism, be it the personal nibbana of
4
In later development of Mahayana Buddhism , the Buddha has been sometimes given a
transcendental and almost divine nature . With the appearance of the practice of transference of
merits ( in both Theravada and Mahayana schools ) , and sects like Pureland which teaches that one
can be saved by devotion to Amitabha Buddha) it can be argued that the concept of divine grace has
been introduced into Buddhism. However, most Buddhists would vehemently deny it ,as this concept
is ,in all honesty ,antithetical to the original Buddhist teachings.
2
the Arahat in early Buddhism or the altruism of the bodhisattva in later Buddhism,
the regulative principle is always ethical. Leading a moral life is the prerequisite to
the path to liberation. Man’s salvation depends entirely on himself. Such self-effort
involves a three–pronged strategy : 1) ethical practices ( sila) , 2) contemplative
attentiveness ( samadhi) to form an ethical attitude and to acquire 3) immaculate
wisdom( panna) about the true nature of things. It must be noted that the latter two
help to achieve excellence in the practice of the first one ( i.e. morality ). Thus
morality is linked inextricably to salvation.
The Nature of Buddhist Ethics
The Mahaparinibana Sutta ( Digha-Nikaya II , p 86,1-21)5 records the benefits of
a moral life as follows : A virtuous man :
1. is free from remorse
2. enjoys a great fortune and good reputation
3. is welcome in any assembly
4. is met with an unconfused or peaceful death
5. will have a life in the heaven.
On the other hand, a non-virtuous man without rectitude lives in penury, his bad
reputation spreads beyond the region, enters an assembly of men shyly and
confused, meets a painful death and suffers in hell after death.
This, and other similar passages in the Pali Canon, have led many western scholars
to conclude that Buddhist ethics is a form of Utilitarianism6. Thus in his Foreword
to Horner’s (1950) essay The Basic Position of Sila, G .P. Malalasekera suggests
5
6
As quoted in Prasad ( 2007 : 197)
Utilitarianism is the doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution
to the overall utility ( which would include such things as physical, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual
pleasures) of the individual or society as a whole.
3
that “ Buddhism has never regarded Sila as an end in itself but only as a means to
an end”, while Horner(1950 :25) herself speaks of moral conduct as “ no more than
the beginning , the A.B.C. of the process of development which culminates in the
Highest”. The “Highest” is, of course, Nibbana , the summumon bonum7
of
Buddhism8. At the same time many of these scholars interpret the Parable of the
Raft (Majjhama-nikaya.i.134f)9 to mean that ethical considerations are ultimately
to be transcended. Morality is to be left behind and the arahat is beyond good and
evil.
However, Keown ( 2001) in his book, The Nature of Buddhist Ethics ,argues
eloquently ( and , in my view, convincingly) that morality( sila) is an integral part
of the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, the ultimate goal is not just
intellectual excellence (panna), but also moral perfection (sila). The two go hand
and hand, and one would be deficient without the other. Keown ( 2001:38-39)
quotes a passage from the Discourse to Sonadanda ( Digha-nikaya ,1 . 123. ) which
reads ;
Where there is virtue , there is understanding, and where there is
understanding, there is virtue. Those who have virtue possess
understanding and those who have understanding possess virtue.
In this connection, it would also be illuminating to hear what Walpoa Rahula , a
monk of the Theravada tradition but also well-versed in the doctrines of Mahayana
Buddhism, has to say on this subject . He thinks that ethical conduct (sila) is based
on love and compassion and that :
according to Buddhism, for man to be perfect, there are two qualities that she
7
8
9
Latin , meaning the highest good--- which of course have different connotations in different religious
systems.
At least for some schools of Buddhism , like Theravada.
In this parable , the Buddha warns his followers not to grasp on to his teachings just as someone who
has just crossed a river on a raft should not carry the raft on his shoulder for the onward journey after
the crossing.
4
should develop equally : compassion ( karuna) on one side, and wisdom( panna)
on the other. Here compassion represents love, charity, kindness, tolerance and
such noble qualities on the emotional side, or qualities of the heart, while
wisdom would stand for the intellectual side or the qualities of the mind. If one
develops only the emotional neglecting the intellectual, one may become a
good-hearted fool; while to develop only the intellectual side neglecting the
emotional may turn one into a hard-hearted intellect without feeling for others .
Therefore, to be perfect one has to develop both equally. ( Rahula, 1978 : 46).
This view of the nature of ethics of Buddhism can be compared to that of ancient
Greek philosophers’. As Shundo Tachibana puts it: “Socrates …..taught the oneness
of knowledge and virtue . One seeks for knowledge…. not on its own account, but
that it may be put into practice. There is no break between knowing and doing; wise
men are always good men”. ( Tacchibana, 1926:1). One hundred years later in
Greece, Aristotle also advocates that “only the wise are virtuous and only the
virtuous are wise” ( Kenny, 1979: 80). However, it must be noted that, in contrast to
Buddhism, the Greek philosophers all believe in a divine entity as the giver of
moral doctrines and who sits in judgment as to what is good and bad. Buddhism
denies the existence of such an entity, and instead, rationalizes the value of morality
with the doctrine of Karma and Rebirth as a regulating principle.
Karma in Indic thoughts
In early Brahmanism, the term karma simply had the meaning of “ritual action”. In
this period of Brahmanism(pre-Buddhist and pre-Upanisadic), ritual sacrifices to
please the gods for worldly gains were very important to the faithful followers.
Karma at this time was neither ethical nor related to rebirth. As time went by, with
5
the appearance of Upanisadic literature10 , Indic religious thinkers began to ethicize
the value of karma and linked it to the concept of rebirth. Historian A.L. Basham11
points out that karma is conspicuous by its absence in the Vedas and that only brief
references are found in the early Upanishads. The first shift in the Vedic idea of
karma as “ritual action” to that of ethical action in relation to rebirth appeared in the
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (3.212-13) which reads “A man turns into something
good by good action and into something bad by bad action”
This obviously links karma to its ethical consequences and good karma includes
virtues like kindness and truthfulness. The idea that bad karma(action) could be
neutralized by other ritual acts like washing is also introduced. It has been pointed
out that the ethicization of karma was a result of the influence of non-Vedic
religious traditions, which might be pre-Buddhist, in ancient India (Obeyesekere,
2006 : 85), i.e. it may even be possible that the Buddhist idea of karma may have
been a development out of these traditions. Nevertheless, it must be noted that
within the Upanisadic theory of karma, there exists a self (atman) which is the
“doer”(kartr)
as
well
as
the
:
enjoyer(bhoktr)
of
the
consequences
( Kalupahana,1976 : 46). This is quite different from the Buddhist concept of karma
as we shall see below.
Karma in Buddhism
It can be said that the Buddha’s doctrine of karma is fundamental to the whole
structure of his thoughts12. Buddha himself has defined karma in the Pali Canon,
10
11
12
Hinduism’s sacred literature is known as Vedic literature. It is internally stratified into three strata:
the four Sambita texts, the Brahmans; and the Upanisads. Upanisads are also known as the
Vedanta(the conclusions of the Veda). Historians generally believe that the texts of Upanisads began
to appear in the late Vedic period, i.e. circa 1000 to circa 500 BCE which would overlap with the
time of the Buddha in India.
As Quoted in Obeyesekere, 2006 : 2
As Lamotte( 1935) puts it : “the doctrine of the act, karma, is the keystone of the entire Buddhist
edifice; the act is the ultimate explanation of existences and of the world; the Buddhist philosophies
as a function of karma”
6
Anguttara Nikaya(III, 415)13 in this way : “Monks, it is intention that I call karma.
By intending one performs karma through body, word or thought”. As such, the
Buddha gives karma a strong psychological element--- the thought behind any act
being more important than the act itself. In other words, it is the thought that counts.
Not only physical actions, but also what goes through one’s mind even without any
physical action, will have karmic consequences. This is in stark contrast to the early
Brahmanical concept of karma as “ritual action”14.
There are other characteristics of the Buddhist karmic theory which makes it unique
in relation to other religious thoughts:
1. Karma is the natural law that governs the universe. It is more like a concept
without physical form. It has been described as an energy force, an existing
universal law which has no religious label, ( Dhammananda, 1993 : 95)
2
There is no ‘giver’ ( ie. a higher God) of the karmic theory . It has been, is and
will be there in our universe all the time. The Buddha just discovered it and
propagated it.
3
Not everything is due to karma , there are other forces in the universe which can
result, for example, in the inequality of mankind ( Narada, 1995 :106)
4
The final end result of one’s karma depends on the circumstances. Thus,
pouring a glass of water into the Ganges River will have less effect than putting
the same glass into a bucket of water.
5
Life is a constant changing flux. One accumulates fresh karma with every
changing moment and as such, previous karmas are constantly being affected
13
14
All references to Pali texts are to the editions of the Pali Text Society, unless otherwise stated.
As Gombrich ( 2002:51) puts it “ the Buddha’s re-definition of ‘action’ as ‘intention’, an audacious
use of language, turned the Brahmin ideology upside down and ethicized the universe. I do not see
how one could exaggerate the importance of (this)…… which I regard as a turning point in the
history of civilization.
7
and modified15 .
6
Following the central theory of Dependent Origination( paticcasamuppada) in
Buddhism and the observation that everything in this universe is impermanent
and changing all the time, so it follows that there can be no permanent
individual “self”(atman) to “enjoy” the consequences of one’s karma in “the
next life”. However, one’s action in this life may still influence one, and others’,
when one “re-becomes” another individual in the next life. This is the important
doctrine of No-self( Anatta) which is generally accepted by all schools of
Buddhism.
Rebirth in Buddhism
It can be seen from the above that the Buddhist rebirth eschatology is not really the
same as that in other religious systems where the concept is for the dead person to
come back into this world whether as a human or other life forms16. In these
systems, rebirth signifies an uninterrupted continuity of the entire personality from
the previous life ( Kalupahana, 1995 :105) The fact that the new person will not
remember his/her past lives are often conveniently explained by various myths17 of
spirits consuming drinks which make them forget the past just prior to
re-incarnation.. The Buddha, however, will have nothing of this and, instead,
proposes
15
16
17
the
doctrine
of
Dependent
Origination(Paticcasamuppada)
and
Thus, the Buddhist theory of karma is not a deterministic or pessimistic one. One can certainly
cultivate “positive” karmic forces in one’s existence through moral discipline and purification of
the mind.
Eschatology comes from the Greek word “eschatos” which means “ last” and “logy” meaning
“study of”. Eschatology thus refer to “ the study of the ultimate destiny of mankind”. As
Obeyesekere( 2006) points out in his book , it is possible to have a rebirth eschatology without any
karma or ethicized karma. Thus, primitive tribes in the West Africa and the Northwest Coast
AmeriIndians do have rebirth eschatologies without linking them to karma at all------rebirth is just
something that happens. In more advanced civilization like the post-socrates philosophers and also
Brahmanism, rebirth is linked to ones deed/action in the past , ie. karma.
The most well know of such myths is of Plato’s Myth of Er where Er , a soldier returning from the
dead failed to take the drink which supposedly would make spirits forget their past lives.
8
No-self( Annata) to explain Karmic Rebirth. As Winston King( 1994) puts it
beautifully : “ every presently existing being is but one link in a chain of continuing
existences in various forms from a beginningless eternity in the past on into an
endless future eternity”. Lives in this universe are continuously appearing and
disappearing, and everything is linked inextricably to one another.
However, it must be noted that Buddhist scriptures contain just too many
description of the various aspects of rebirth which may be seen as contradictory to
this concept of No-self. Thus, the Itivutakka ( 2. 31) of the Pali Canon contains this
unequivocal description of the value of moral life in leading to rebirth in heaven :
Having abandoned bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, misconduct
of the mind, and whatever else counts as false, not having done what is
not skillful. Having done much that is , at the break-up of the body ,
the discerning one reappears in heaven.
Indeed, Theravada literature is full of reference to the idea of heaven and hell and
the benefit of practising the Path to have a good rebirth and avoid a bad one18.
Mahayana
literature
is
no
exception.
Chapter
22
(p262)
of
the
Saddharmapundarika( Lotus) Sutra states that anyone who promulgates the sutra,
even a little, will receive a favourable rebirth and be strikingly handsome. And in
Pureland Buddhism, rebirth in Sukhavati, the Pureland of Amitabha, can be
achieved just by diligent recitation of Amitabha’s name. It is, therefore, no wonder
that most people in Sri Lanka, monks included, devote themselves to acts of merit,
the aim of which is a good rebirth in heaven or on earth (Gombrich , 1971 : 322),
while in Burma, the most common reasons for keeping the precepts is fear of hell
and that the precepts were ordained by the Buddha ( Spiro, 1971 :449).
18
For details please see Bhikkhu Bodhi( 2005) Chapter V--- the Way to a Fortunate Rebirth.
9
It can safely be said that most lay followers of Buddhism, and many monks
included,
may in reality harbour a view of rebirth which does not reflect a real
understanding of the Buddhist doctrines of No-self and Dependent Origination. It
does not help when Nagasena
19
was questioned about the nature of rebirth by King
Milinda, his answer was : “ [when someone is reborn] , he is neither the same nor
different”. Such an answer only makes lay followers more confused about the
nature of karmic rebirth. .
However, one cannot really blame the lay Buddhist followers ( or even monks) for
having a misdirected notion of karmic rebirth. Rebirth without a self is, in reality ,
counter-intuitive and really hard to imagine for most people. As Prasad( 2007 : 253)
points out “ the Buddhist doctrine of karma [and rebirth] as an ethical theory is
radical, complex, incomprehensible, and inexplicable in the absence of soul and the
supervising God”. At the same time, it is really hard for modern (particularly
Western) scholars in Buddhism to accept karmic rebirth as a reasonable basis for
justification of the moral life. The idea of karmic rebirth is often relegated to the
position
of
an
“ancient
India
philosophical
relic
let
alone
by
the
Buddha”( Kalupahana, 1995 :103) or as “a piece of cultural baggage that the
Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age ( Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2001)20.
Thus Winston King( 1994) argues that emphasis on karmic rebirth is unnecessary
for the understanding and practice of the Buddha’s teaching. He even boldly
declares that “both Buddhism and Buddhist ethics may be better off without karmic
19
20
Nagasena was supposedly a Buddhist sage who lived about 150 BCE. His answers to the questions
posed to him by Kind Milinda, the Indo-Greek King of northwesteren India was recorded in the
Milinapanha ( Questions of King Milinda). It is quite possible that Nagasena and King Milinda are
both fictional characters and the Milinphanha was just composed by monks in the 1st century BCE
to try to explain the various aspects of the Buddha’s teaching.
It is only fair in passing to mention that in this article entitled “ Does Rebirth Make sense”, Bikkhu
Bodhi argues that , although it is not possible to empirically prove the existence of karmic rebirth, it
makes sense to believe in it because only then would the universe with its moral order make sense.
10
rebirth”.
The Buddha’s wager
The Buddha was not unaware that unless a person had developed the higher form of
knowledge such as retrocognition or clairvoyance, it would not be easy to convince
him of the validity of the doctrines of karmic rebirth as it was understood in the
way explained above. Hence, the threats of a hellish rebirth or reward of a heavenly
rebirth could not be used as strong arguments to convince ordinary people of the
need to follow a moral life. In Buddhism, there is no omnipotent God to regulate
morality and commandments for people to follow. The Buddha merely points the
way for a Path for people to follow in order to attain liberation. So, in order to
convince his followers, the Buddha’s strategy is to utilize the doctrine of karmic
rebirth as a wager21 ( Kalupahana,1995:106).
The Buddha’s wager differs somewhat from the famous Pascal’s wager22 to the
atheist about believing in God. While recognizing rebirth (better termed
“re-becoming) as an indisputable fact-----though not in a manner as is generally
understood by ordinary people without “higher knowledge”------ the Buddha is not
ready to wager on this alone. In a passage in the Majjhima-nikaya( 1.403), while
referring to a person who does evil and does not believe in retribution in an afterlife,
the Buddha says :
If there were to be a world beyond, then this person will face
calamity in both ways: the contempt of the intelligent ones in this
21
22
A “wager is some kind of bet or challenge.
The most famous religious wager is the one by Blasise Pascal( 1623-1662) . He challenges the
atheist to believe in God because if there is ultimately no God, they have nothing to lose . But if
there is indeed a God , the benefit is infinite. Finally , one stands to lose everything if there is indeed
a God and if one does not believe in Him.
11
life and , after death, rebirth in purgatory, evil bourn, fallen state”
Thus the Buddha also emphasizes the benefits of a moral life in this very life
without worrying about whether there is an after life after all :
“A noble disciple…..endowed with blameless conduct of body, speech
and mind……….experiences happiness and joy “ (Anguttara-nikaya 4:62)
Elsewhere in Majjhima-nikaya( 3 : 1) the Buddha compares the rarity of human life
in the cycle of rebirths by comparing it to the chance of success on the part of a sea
turtle, blind in one eye, to get its head through the hole of a single-hole yoke
floating back and forth on the surface of the ocean, in order to get a glimpse of the
open sky. Human life is a precious opportunity, not to be wasted away and one
should not let a moment pass by without achieving what can be achieved.
In any event, it is generally agreed that moral behaviour brings peace and
contentment in a person which is, by any standard, the definition of happiness. As
such, there is really no need for any more justification for leading a moral life from
the social and personal point of view.
Conclusion
The Buddha has no doubt that a moral life is a pre-requisite for attaining the highest
goal in life. At the same time, the state of liberation is also a state with moral
perfection. Thus, from a philosophical point of view as well, there is really no need
for any other further justification for one to follow the moral life. The Buddha,
however, is all too aware of the difference in the abilities in his followers to
understand his message fully. Thus in Buddhist literature, there are repeated
messages about the various benefits (present and future) of a moral life with karmic
rebirth being the most prominent reward. While karmic rebirth does not really
12
happen in the way most people think it does, the fulfillment and joy that one can
gain by leading a moral life just in this life is already well worth the effort. As the
Buddha points out: “…. that within this fathom-long body associated with
consciousness and mind is the world, its arising, its cessation, and the path leading
to its cessation….”( Majjhama-nikaya 1 : 82)
-------END--------
References
Bhikkhu Bodhi ( 2001) , Does Rebirth Make Sense? Newsletter cover essay No 46
and 47 , , Buddhist Publication Society. (available on Access to Insight website)
Bhikkhu Bodhi(2005) in In the Buddha’s Words---- an Anthology of Discourses from
the Pali Canon, published by Wisdom Publications, Boston.
Dhammanada, K S (1993), in What Buddhists Believe, pubished by the Corporate
Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation , Taiwan.
Gombrich , R F ( 1971) Precept and Practice—Traditional Buddhism in the Rural
Highlands of Ceylon , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gombrich, R F (2002) in How Buddhism Began—The Conditioned Genesis of the
Early Teachings, 2nd edition, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.Ltd, India.
Harvey, Peter ( 2000), in An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics , Cambridge University
Press.
Horner, I B ( 1950) The Basic Position of Sila , Colombo : Baudda Sahitya Sabha
Kalupahana D J ( 1995) Ethics in Early Buddhism , University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu.
13
Kenny, A ( 1979) Aristotle’s Theory of the Will,
London: Duckworth.
Keown, Damien ( 2001) in The Nature of Buddhist Ethics , Palgrave, New York.
King , Winston (1994) A Buddhist Ethic without Karmic Rebirth? , Journal of
Buddhist Ethics Vol. 1 , 1994
Lamotte, L (1935) as quoted by Gombrich, R F (2002) in How Buddhism
Began—The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, Munshiram Manoharlal
Publishers Pvt.Ltd, India, 2nd edition (2002) page 49.
Narada, Mahathera( 1992), A Manual of Buddhism, Publication of the Buddhism
Missionare Society Malaysia.
Obeyesekere, G ( 2006) in Karma and Rebirth--- a Cross Cultural Study, published by
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd, Delhi.
Prasad, Hari Shankar( 2007), The Centrality of Ethics in Buddhism, Exploratory
Essays, Motila Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd, Delhi
Rahula, Walpoa ( 1978) , What the Buddha Taught . Paperback edition, The Gordon
Fraser Gallery Ltd, London and Bedford.
Smith, Huston ( 1991) , The World’s Religions , Our Great Wisdom Traditions,
Harper San Francisco, U S A .
Spiro, M E ( 1982) Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese
Vicissitudes , 2nd expanded edt , Berkeley, University of California Press.
Tachibana, S ( 1926) in The Ethics of Buddhism Clarendon Press ( University of
Oxford)
The Holy Bible, New International Version published by the International Bible
Society, Hymnody and Bible House, U S A
Wijesekera, O ( 1971) ‘ Buddist Ethics’ in Nanaponika ( ed) Pathways of Buddhist
Thought (London: Bedford College Inaugural Lecture)
14