Siddhartha Gauthama, our Budun Wahanse, in the Kalama Sutra, advocated that the Kalamas should not take things at their face value. In this discourse that can be taken as a Charter on Free Inquiry, this particular element of ‘not going by revelation or report’ contains very useful and pertinent lessons to the radical or would-be radical as well as to any other individual who seeks to engage in a better-informed and therefore more productive and wholesome manner, to him/herself and the relevant social or organizational context.
A couple of days ago I was privileged to come across a slim
volume titled ‘Critical Studies on the Early History of Buddhism’ authored by
the late Ven. Dhammavihari and published by the Buddhist Cultural Centre in
2003. The learned bikkhu clearly
well versed in the pitfalls that ignorance, arrogance and rank sloth construct,
pointed to several erroneous conclusions arrived at by well-known and highly
acclaimed scholars and showed in the eloquent, simple and genial manner that
characterizes his writing, the danger of uncritical acceptance of written word.
Ven. Dhammavihari goes further, in fact. He suggests that such conclusions and
subsequent claims could be the product of a determinism that defers to
preferred reading and outcome of political process against a defensible
construct of verifiable fact. What
happens thereafter is pretty common. The
error is repeated and magnified by interested parties and after this is done
over a considerable period of time and repeated frequently enough it acquires
or is accorded a halo and treated as ‘truth’.
Cross-referencing, checking for reasonable corroboration and even
dissecting claim to undress it of frill is tedious and moreover can prove to be
inconvenient. The easier course of
action is to take the written word (especially if it is authored by a
fellow-traveller and buttresses strongly held views) as the final authority on
the particular issue.
This is true of all things, not just history and reading of
history. People swear by a ‘theory’
until someone comes along and discovers that the premises upon which it was
constructed are false or have been misread or exaggerated or else that the
theory holds only in particular contexts.
Newton’s
laws, for example, were taken as ‘final word’ until Einstein came up with his
formulation. Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ is an admirable treatise on how theories
get constructed, worshipped, found to be flawed and replaced by others which
have greater explanatory and predictive power.
Ignorance, naiveté, umbrage and even a sense of justice and
fairplay can fire someone to object to something. The source of the agitation is not our
concern here. It is in the ‘what should
be done’ that free inquiry becomes necessary, if not for anything because
erroneous interpretation, analysis and consequent ‘logic’ of response can be
counter productive. Typically, those who
have little experience and for reasons of youth or something else answers
blood-call as opposed to careful consideration of all available information and
reflection on all pertinent factors. A
theory is picked and held on to with dear life, discarding as unnecessary even
the occasional investigation of claims pertaining to its predicates. All windows are closed save this theoretical
aperture. Arrogance is a natural
product. It is only when life hits the
word for a six that sobriety returns, often after a lot of water has gone under
the bridge, carrying with is blood and dead bodies.
It is of course useful to have a ‘Book of Revelations’ as a
kind of reference manual, but it can be useful only if it is taken as guide and
recognized as a human construct and as such prone to flaw. ‘Reports’ are not value-free. They are often made of exaggerated claims
with little or no substantiation which are then quoted as ‘fact’ and used to construct
overall picture and formulate response.
A recent example would be that of Iraq having ‘Weapons of Mass
Destruction’. It was a carefully
constructed lie. It was a flag that was
waved. It legitimated a genocidal war. Today, almost a decade later, not a single
WMD has been discovered in that unhappy country. Only those who were not ready to take
‘report’ as fact could surmise intention, predict outcome and attempt
reversal. Sadly their numbers were small
and their capacities to correct error limited.
This goes for reports/revelations that take the form of
‘doctrines’ as well. Accounts are
written by human beings. Even claims that there are of divine authorship are
made by human beings, who we know are flawed.
All texts, especially those that are of the voluminous kind, are made
for misinterpretation and abuse simply because they make for selective and
convenient reference and arbitrary interpretation. All the more reasons for
adherents to exercise circumspect, constantly investigate premise and verify
claim in practice and in terms of the overall wholesomeness to self and social
overall.
What we see instead is the quick and easy option of
name-dropping and text-naming. ‘So and
so said this,’ we are told. ‘As so and
so has pointed out,’ claims are often underlined. ‘In such and such a book,’ some would use the
bibliographical convenience as substitute for plain and straightforward logic.
This is not ‘radicalim’.
It is sloth. It is a pandering to
the ‘herd instinct’. For all the claims
of righteousness and insistence of selfless sacrifice for the betterment of the
collective or the championing of the disposed, mindless faith in ‘The Book’
(whatever the book may be) or ‘The Report’ or ‘The Revelation’ amounts to
embracing the Sloth-Option. The Kalama
Sutra is an invitation to inquiry and one which does not exclude a questioning
of Buddha Vachana or the Doctrine of the Buddha.
All words are useful, even those in texts that make
exaggerated claims and are based on supposition and fantasy. They are useful only to the extent that they
are read critically. This is the
recommendation embedded in the Kalama Sutra. Let’s meditate on it for a moment:
Kalamas, when you yourselves know [that] 'these things
are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the
wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,
abandon them. Kalamas, when you know for
yourselves [that] these are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these
things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to
benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.’
Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukitatta. May all beings be happy.
Malinda Seneviratne is the Editor-in-Chief of 'The Nation' and can be
reached at msenevira@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment