Theory and Practice of Buddhist Moral Life (Part 1) -- by Jeffrey Po

Buddhist ethical conducts are concerned with the moral behaviors of man and within the society in which he lives. It involves his interactions and interpersonal relationships with those living with and around him, be they people or otherwise (animals, devas, the environment, the eco-system etc). Not only does the behavior as expressed in his speech and actions important in determining his moral behaviors but the purifications of whatever mental proclivities (anussaya) deemed to create unwholesome/unskillful (akusala) acts in speech and action is looked upon as necessary in determining his moral conduct also.

Buddhism does not make distinctions between one's ethical and moral behavior and that of religious behaviors. They are taken as functioning and operating together. In other words, there is no contradiction between morality and religiosity of a person. Hence, what is considered "morally bad/evil" (e.g. war) cannot therefore be justified on religious grounds (e.g. holy war).

The Lord Buddha Gotama teachings on morality are based upon three foundations. They are:

a. Kamavada - this is the recognition or advocacy of moral life in a general sense. It is the acknowledgement that good and bad/right and wrong can be found within the operations of the community and society. It is the understanding by general consensus that certain actions are considered "unworthy" or "worthy". All religions are included under this category.

b. Kiriyavada - the recognition that the efficacy of moral acts. By this is meant to concede that every moral act bears results - whether good or bad (wholesome or unwholesome) and that there are casual relations between the very act and the consequences.

c. Viriyavada - the recognition of the need of human effort in discharging human moral life. It means that for actions to be considered as possessing "moral values", human efforts are required.

Thus according the early Buddhist doctrines, moral values collapse if any one or all of those three foundations (bases) are absent.

The Brahamajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya mentions the 62 different philosophical views prevalent during the time of the Lord Buddha Gotama.

He responded to them by pointing out that though they might have possessed the first foundation i.e. kammavada, the second and third factors were not present. Hence, He dismissed the claims that their philosophies and in the ultimate sense, their ideologies, contained any sort of moral values.

It is best to recall the three general views that tried to explain human existence then. They are:

a. Sabbam Issaramimmana hetu - everything is due to the part of the creator. This view can be termed as "theistic determinism". The Lord Buddha Gotama argues that if such were the case then there would no longer be the necessity of leading a moral life. Whatever good or bad/right or wrong befell man and the world in the past, present and future, were therefore the handicraft of the creator. Hence, those holding such beliefs cannot claim to possess the second and third foundation (factor) of morality i.e. both the efficacy of human act and human effort were not present.

b. Sabbam Pubbekata hetu - everything is due to past kamma. This view can be termed as "kammic determinism" and again the Lord Buddha Gotama, argues that if such were the case, then leading a moral life was meaningless. Again, any of those 62 different views holding such notions cannot claim to have possessed the second and third foundation (factor) of morality.

c. Sabbam ahetu appappaya - everything is due to chance. This view can be termed as "fortuitous origination". Once again, second and third ingredients were not present.

Buddhism therefore stood out amongst the 62 differing philosophical views because of its ability to connect all those three foundations. It constantly claims that the Path promulgated by the Lord Buddha Gotama contains the very elements of moral values and that it could be judged as having with it high ethical and moral standards.

It is said that human experiences are entirely "dependent upon origination".

It infers that the arising of every human experience (mental and/or physical) must necessarily depend upon other conditions. As such, Buddhists would view moral behaviors and standards as "not being determined" by past actions (kamma). Rather, it takes the stand that present situations are brought about by present actions (kamma), though past actions (kamma) could provide some influencing factors. If past actions (kamma) determines one's present state, then the concept of "voluntary action" i.e. the freedom to choose, select, judge (the play of the free will) becomes negated. Buddhists therefore maintain that all present actions (kamma) are in fact determined by one's volitions, motivations, free will (cetana). The Anguttara Nikaya - VI/63, mentions:

"Volitions (cetana), O Monks, is what I call action (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind".

Hence the moral actions of man are based on present volitions (cetana). He is therefore wholly responsible for his actions.

How then does Buddhism provide criteria for moral evaluation of man's actions? On what basis then does one's actions be judged as good or bad/right or wrong?

In theistic religion or way of life, moral judgments are under the purview of the creator and moral precepts are his commandments. In Buddhism, the criteria for moral evaluations of man's actions are purely psychological. One is judged through one's speech and bodily behaviors and based upon the consequences that happen. If those actions result in creating wholesome, congenial and acceptable situations then they are deemed to be morally "skillful" (kusala). Alternatively, if those actions result in creating unwholesome, uncongenial and unacceptable situations then they are frowned upon as "unskillful" (akusala) actions. Hence, Buddhism does not speak of "punishment and rewards". Rather, it speaks of "acts and consequences". It views human moral actions to have been initiated purely by human volitions and that operation of them by any other sort of agents (internal to himself, soul or external to him i.e. creator) to be invalid.

It is said that man's moral behaviors are caused and conditioned by his volitional acts (cetana kamma). Those very volitions (cetana), on the other hand, arise through the extremely strong influences of what Buddhists term as "roots" (hetus). 6 pertinent "roots" of special interest to Buddhists are those of "passion" (lobha), "aversion" (dosa) and "delusion" (moha) - considered as "unwholesome roots" (akusala hetus) and their opposite of "generosity" (alobha or dana), loving kindness (adosa or metta) and wisdom (adosa or panna) - considered to be "wholesome roots" (kusala hetus). Those six are usually referred to as "mulas" and they are looked upon as cardinal roots that lay buried deep in the human psyche. They accompany all volitional acts. "Wholesome" roots (kusala mula) generate "wholesome actions" (kusala kamma) that result in "wholesome consequences" (kusala vipaka) while "unwholesome roots" (akusala mula) generate "unwholesome actions" (akusala kamma) that result in "unwholesome consequences" (akusala vipaka). Hence, in Buddhist moral practice, the management of "unwholesome roots" is vital while the cultivation and expressions of "wholesome roots" are necessary.