|
As seen by some observers of the relationship between Buddhism
and society, Buddhism advocates a worldview that promotes the lone
pursuit of escape from suffering by means of developing an attitude
of indifference towards everything outside oneself. The Buddhist
ideal is seen as non-engagement in the conflicts and turmoil characteristic
of social living so that individual seekers °f inward peace
could strive to achieve their goal in the cloistered environment
of the forest hermitage. It is seen as promoting a |jfe of total
withdrawal from social concerns for the pursuit of self-interest
This way of looking at the Buddhist ideal is based on the assumption
that there is a fundamental incompatibility between one's own well-being
and the well-being of others.
The Buddha classified persons into four kinds on the basis of one's
attitude towards one's own interest and one's attitude towards the
interest of others. The first type of person is referred to as one
who adopts a way of life that conduces, neither to the welfare of
oneself nor to the welfare of others (neva attahittaya Patipanno
no parahitaya). The second type of person is one who adopts a way
of life that does not conduce to one's own welfare but conduces
to the welfare of others (parahitiya patipanno no attahittaya).
The third adopts a way of life that conduces to one's own welfare
but not to the welfare of others (attahitaya patipanno no parahitaya).
The fourth is one who adopts a way of life that conduces, to one's
own welfare and the welfare of others, (attahitaya ca patipanno
parahitaya ca). According to the Buddha, it is the fourth type of
person who is most praiseworthy. The first kind of person is the
most blameworthy. In the comparative evaluation of the second and
the third type of person, the Buddha takes the position that the
third one is better than the second. The question is whether in
view of such an assessment of the worth of persons in terms of their
way of life, Buddhism expresses a preference to the pursuit of self
interest over the pursuit of the welfare of others.
What is Meant by "Welfare?"
In order to understand the significance of the above classification
it is important to consider what Buddhism means by 'welfare' in
this context. In the Kalama Sutta it is noted that there are three
mental qualities that arise in people, which are detrimental to
their welfare. They are greed, hatred and delusion. Overwhelmed
by these three mental qualities people destroy life, they steal
the belongings of others, and they indulge in the wrongful enjoyment
of sense pleasures and speak what is false. They commit acts that
produce suffering to themselves and suffering -to others. According
to Buddhism, the self-interest of a
oerson consists in the- cultivation of a personality that is perfect
in moral goodness and insightful understanding of reality. The influence
of such persons on society is twofold. On the one hand the behaviour
of such persons does not have the consequence of producing suffering
to the rest of the society because they are never motivated in their
behaviour by what Buddhism describes as the roots of unwholesome
action. On the other hand by virtue of the fact that they have perfected
the qualities of mind that are considered as wholesome _(Kusala)
such as mindfulness, equanimity, kindness and compassion whatever
they do is beneficial to the rest of the society.
Such persons are considered in Buddhism as the ethical models that
the rest of the society should emulate. According to the Sigalovada
Sutta, a community of such persons is an essential component of
a harmonious and prosperous society."'' Wherever such persons
live that location is said to be delightful. They are not to be
conceived as persons who have escaped from the dutiful engagements
of the social life to live an indolent, self centred and care free
life which is supported by others who have to toil in order to procure
the material needs of their life. They are looked upon as the rich
fields for others who live the lower life of sense-pleasures to
sow their seeds of meritorious deeds.ix Social well-being requires
the maintenance of such a community paying high respect and veneration
to, members of that community.x The implication of these ideas is
that Buddhism does not conceive of the possibility of promoting
the welfare of a community in the absence of a social structure
and a network of social relationships in which there is adequate
provision made for the giving and receiving of moral guidance in
the conduct of its affairs.
Traditional Buddhist societies have shown the highest veneration
to members of this community and some aspects of the current social
crises experienced by such-societies under the rapid social changes
that have recently taken place may be attributed to the break down
of the structure and relationships that existed in the past. Coming
back to the issue of giving priority to one's own welfare over the
welfare of others, Buddhism is evidently drawing attention to the
necessity of dealing with a person's inner nature as a prerequisite
for 9enuine social commitment. This is in recognition of the fact
that Persons whose inner nature is defiled produce more harm to
society *nan good when they interact with society. Social action,
if it is to be Productive of social welfare has to be motivated
by what Buddhism describes as the roots of wholesome action (Kusalamula).
The cultivation of kusala is what ultimately benefits the individual
as well as the society. Hence Buddhism defines kusala as that which
does not result in harm to oneself, harm to others and harm to both
(attabyabadhaya na samvattati, parabyabadhaya na samvattati ubhayabyabadhaya
samvattati), and is conducive to the production of happiness (sukhudrayam
sukhavipakam). In the Sallekha Sutta the Buddha points out that
it is not possible for someone who is stuck in the mud to pull out
another who is stuck in the mud. > |
