Musings on Buddhist Ethics

Does Buddhism have an ontology or metaphysics?

This past week we at the Center for Ethics at UM hosted David Webster from the University of Gloucestershire. Dave is a philosopher of ethics, religion, and contemporary society and learning. His ph.d. work focused on the nature of desire in the Pali Canon (early Buddhism), stemming from the often asserted and erroneous notion that Buddhism teaches the elimination of desires.

In his second talk at the University he described Buddhism in the academy as a bit of a trouble-maker in the world of comparative religion. Buddhism, he asserted, is not concerned with the same “Big Questions” asked by Western theisms. Western religions, by and large, aim at explaining “why” life, the world, and ourselves are the way they are. Buddhism, however, is more interested in “what” and “how”: what is the nature of life? How do we end all suffering?

Thus, while Western religions have a built-in tendency toward metaphysics, Buddhism is geared toward practical matters. This is seen as so much the case that some have said that Buddhism has no metaphysics, or that it has no ontology (Gombrich).

However, this I think is mistaken, perhaps grossly so. Buddhism definitely has a metaphysics, albeit perhaps a phenomenological one (based on cataloging fundamental dharmas or mental states). And in terms of ontology there is definitely a process-ontology, an anti-substantialism that is meant to be understood not in merely theoretical terms, but as a lived experience. But it is an ontology none the less. As Kenneth Inada stated some 20 years ago:

The perception of the nature of reality in Buddhism is a consequence of the Buddha’s original enlightenment. Failure to recognize this fact has caused many problems in the understanding of Buddhism…. There is no doubt that the content of the
enlightenment revealed a rare philosophic vision of reality.

The words “philosophic vision of reality” would likely make Gombrich and those who think Buddhism is completely anti or non-philosophical cringe. But to me it makes sense. The Buddha, in his day, utilized the philosophy, ontology, ethics, and so on of the (proto) Hindu or Brahmanical world around him. At times he taught to simply use good Hindu common sense: cultivate generosity, follow one’s duty to family and community, and so on. At other times the Buddha turned the Brahmanical worldview on its head.

A favorite such case is that of the Kevatta Sutta in which a monk goes to the highest God, Brahma, to ask where it is that the elements cease without end (where is the edge of the universe?). After asking a couple times, Brahma takes Kevatta aside, out of ear-shot from the lower Gods, and says, roughly, “I don’t know, but don’t tell these other guys… go ask the Buddha, he knows.”

So the Buddha at times incorporated ideas/beliefs and at times discounted them. It makes sense that we would do the same. He did not discount or ignore the belief in Gods, but instead showed their limitations. He re-mapped the cosmos with Gods inside the cycle of samsara rather than outside it. We too, in this age which is less mythic and more philosophical, should engage with the ideas/ideologies of our time. And this means ‘unpacking’ the metaphysics and ontology of Buddhism (even if it may be argued that early Buddhism had little or no metaphysics or ontology).

Metaphysics:

“What really exists? What is mere delusion or illusion? How can we truly know the difference?” These are some of the fundamental questions of metaphysics (although the last one shades strongly into epistemology). The Buddhist third question would more likely be, “how can we move from delusion to reality?”

yatha-bhuta-ñana-dassana — knowledge and vision of things as they [truly] are.

What really exists in Buddhism would likely be four things:

1. dharma, the totality, the truth, the final nature of all existence
2. dharmas, mental phenomena –as they are– momentary truths of experience
3. nirvana, the uncompounted basis of experience free of delusion
4. suññata, emptiness, the true nature of things

All of the rest, from our existence as individual beings to the teachings themselves (including the words above) are all within conceptual reality, within language and delusion.

Ontology:

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics concerning being in general, existence, and the categorical structure of reality. This too, Buddhism may speak on. I used to have a nifty diagram somewhere that discussed some Buddhist Ontological ideas, but I’ve lost it (anyone know where it is out there in the blog/web-world?).

Fundamentally, Buddhism speaks of a process-ontology, where even the tiniest moments of reality (dharmas) rise and fall like waves on the ocean. And, depending on which school of Buddhist Philosophy you read, even the dharmas are composed of parts (beginning, middle, end) and ultimately are empty – meaning they are essenseless. For more, see the above Kenneth Inada article.

Metaphysics, Ontology, and Ethics:

So what have these to do with Buddhist Ethics? I may have to give a raincheck for a future entry on this, as light is fading and I feel like going for a run – but the jist is that, as Kant declaired a while back, we must understand the underlying nature of reality if we want a system of ethics that isn’t built on shaky foundations. (yea – gotta run) 🙂

Until I return: Simply do good.