Professor Kristin Scheible, then of Bard College, is a scholar of Theravadan Buddhism and wrote on the Golden Rule in that tradition for the Neusner-Chilton conference.
She raises two points in her first few sentences that are both crucial to the Buddhist view of life and differentiate it from traditional western religious thinking.
1. The idea of reincarnation as a continuous and purposeful dynamic, and
2. The idea of karma, which finds an effect of every action on that continuous dynamic.
“The goal of a Theravada Buddhist is to cultivate oneself as a moral agent”, she writes, “The eventual goal is to become an enlightened being.”
It is immediately clear that this is not a deistic view of the world or of the purpose of life. Right behavior is to be pursued not to be obedient or to gain the favor of a supreme being. It is a matter of self-interest.
“Moral actions are skillful, unskillful or neutral and they accrue concomitant weight. Skillful moral actions accrue merit…unskillful actions accrue demerit.”
[Note: Given the issue of intention in our prior posts on Kant and on The 40 Hadiths of Nawwawi, it is interesting to read here the following:
“The canonical formulation attributed to the voice of the Buddha himself links moral actions with intention, ‘It is intention, O monks, that I call Karma; having willed, one acts through body, speech and mind.” While this might seem to say that intention is the key issue, that does not seem to be the conclusion as the subject is developed further.]
The impetus for right action in this system is ultimately self-interest.
“…the underlying sentiment running through Theravada…that individuals are compelled to do good acts and cultivate their own self potential for enlightenment…” suggests that the “other” is a means to the individual’s end.
In fact, Scheible writes:
“When each and every ‘other’ might have been your mother in a past life or might be your mother in a future one, what you do in this life that you have now matters.”
“There is one canonical passage that is often chosen to represent the Buddhist take on the Golden Rule…
On traversing all directions with the mind
One finds no one dearer than oneself.
Likewise everyone holds himself most dear,
Hence one who loves himself should not harm another.
(The Udana: Inspired Utterances of the Buddha.)
“Self-interest is simply a fact, and we can deduce that every other individual is similarly self-interested. It is on this basis that one should not harm another, because it would be a violation of an other’s self -interest.”
In assessing the importance of this passage in the Buddhist canon, Scheible points out that it is “buried in the midst of a composite text from a bulky section of a bulkier canon” suggesting that, while it is pointed to as a Golden Rule-like sentiment, it’s position in the canon is not as prominent as those Rule-like texts found in other traditions.
Implying, perhaps, that this is a text a Buddhist scholar might point to if charged with finding a text that fit the subject assigned.
Scheible brings another text from Chapter 10 of the Pali Dhammapada:
All tremble before violence.
All fear death.
Having done the same yourself,
You should neither harm nor kill.
All tremble before violence.
Life is held dear by all.
Having done the same yourself,
You should neither harm nor kill.
Whoever, through violence, does harm
To living beings desiring ease,
Hoping for such ease himself,
Will not, when he dies, realize ease.
Whoever does no harm through violence
To living beings desiring ease,
Hoping for such ease himself,
Will, when he dies, realize ease.
(The Dhammapada: Verses on the Way. Wallis, trans.)
In this text Scheible finds an explicit reward for right behavior and no reward for those who transgress. In contrast, in the prior text “one is expected to act purely on the recognition of the equal experiences of self-interest among all individuals.”
However, additional texts are then cited that lead Scheible to conclude that:
“Even good intentions that seem altruistic in fact have roots in self-preservation, self-interest, and self-cultivation…’And this whole world holds another dear solely out of self-interest…’”
Even the central and crucial doctrine of non-harm (ahimsa) “comes with a caveat…an escape clause” that is found in an interpretation of the text form the Udana. It is suggested that the phrase “one finds no one dearer than oneself” does not necessarily refer to all other humans.
“The Golden Rule formulation in the Udana can almost stand if the definition of a person is a narrow one, only a person who has entered the Buddhist path.”
While the author does say that the language in the Udana “can almost stand” there is enough wiggle room in that statement to remind us of the Islamic hadiths that limit concern to kinsmen or fellow Muslims.
“The Golden Rule of the Udana assumes that ‘the actor is an autonomous moral agent whose subjective and individual desires are the basis for the actions taken toward others.’ To determine how he wants or would want to be treated, the actor looks within and considers his own self-interest.”
“The Golden Rule as conveyed in the Udana verse certainly includes reflexivity as a component of reciprocity, but in a less stable form than that found in the Judeo-Christian formulae. The reason is the unstable nature of the self.”
“In Theravada Buddhism”, Schieble writes:
“…the Golden Rule is not equivalent to the precept to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, but rather ‘do no harm to your neighbor as you would do no harm to yourself…The Golden Rule’s basic reference point is the actor rather than the recipient of the action.”
“The consequences of ‘ignoring, disobeying, or otherwise failing to implement the Golden Rule’ are simple – the agent will pay for transgressions in future selfhoods.”
Unlike others, Schieble explicitly and usefully confronts the distinction between the injunction to love one’s neighbor and the command “to do” or “refrain from doing” acts.
What matters in the tradition that she studies is the action one takes.
The motive for the action is, within that community at least, understood and accepted as being less than altruistic. The law of karma as understood in that tradition is ultimately self-interested but, within that community, that is presumably accepted. It does not preclude acts that have altruistic appearance and results.
In fact, it’s not clear that the professed altruism of other traditions is actually any more altruistic than the self-interested, apparent altruism of the Theravadan community.
The Theravadan might more accurately understand the motivations of his fellows than might others in different communities.
©Charles R. Lightner