|
It would appear from the above four types of religion condemned
as false that Buddhism upholds survival, asserts moral values, teaches
causation without implying Strict Determinism and maintains the
freedom of the will in the sense defined.
Now the first of the four religions, condemned as unsatisfactory,
but not necessarily false is a religion which claims omniscience
for its teacher or in other words deifies its teacher. It is argued
that what is unsatisfactory about this type of religion is that
the lack of omniscience on the part of such a teacher would be evident
from a historical account of his life and teaching.
The second such unsatisfactory religion is any religion based on
a revolutionary tradition. It is said that such supposed revelations
may be true or false. It is evident that in the face of mutually
contradictory claims to revelation on the part of different religions
that all such claims cannot be true. The validity of a claim to
revelation has to be tested in the light of verifiable facts before
such a claim can be established. But if so, verification would take
the place of revelation as the criterion of the truth of a revelations
claim. It is interesting to note that of a predominance the priority
of revelationed claims when it says that the validity of such claims
can be established only when they are validity of such claims can
be established only when they are borne out by observable facts.
"When a prophet speaks the in the name of the Lord, if the
thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the
Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously;
thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy).
The third type of unsatisfactory religion which is not necessarily
false is any religion based on mere "logical reasoning and
metaphysical speculation (takka-pariya-hatam vimamsanu caritam)"
on the grounds that such reasoning may be true or false. Logic,
as we now know, can only help metaphysics or mathematics to construct
self-consistent systems. It does not by any means guarantee that
any such system had applicability to the real world and is therefore
true, a fact which can only be established independently of logic
by seeing which system can best explain and account for verifiable
facts.
The fourth such unsatisfactory religion is any religion which is
inconsistent. This is unsatisfactory for the obvious reason that
truth must be self-consistent and not self-contradictory, though
this does not mean that any self-consistent system of belief is
necessarily true for it may have the defects of the third type.
In contrast to the above types of false and unsatisfactory religions
Buddhism is stated in the from of a verifiable scientific theory,
whose truth is said to have been verified by the Buddha and hundreds
of his disciples and can be personally verified by anyone who adopts
it. As such its truth is independent of the founder who like a scientist
merely discovers it and proclaims it for the guidance of others;
and it is left to others to test its validity and worth.
It should be clear from the above that the Buddhist attitude to
other religions cannot be classified as one of dominance, fulfillment
or cooperation. The attitude would depend on the nature of the religion
dealt with. Buddhism would in the light of the facts of existence
condemn some religions as false, uphold others as partially true
and would not rule out the possibility of another religion being
entirely true, since truth need not be the monopoly of any particular
individual or religion. But this condemnation or appraisal would
not be done with the intention of abusing or flattering others but
in the hope that in the process of mutual inquiry and criticism
people would acquire a better vision of the truth. And it is of
the nature of truth that it need not be and cannot be forced down
the throats of others by exploiting their poverty, ignorance, or
weak state of health or by using threats or claiming powers from
above over the lives of others. It is also of the nature of truth
that it brings people together but it is a unity that has to be
achieved by a common quest flowering in a common vision.<<Back
Introducing The Writer
Professor K. N. Jayatilleke PhD. (Lond) Born 1 Nov. 1920 Educated at the Royal College Colombo. University
of Ceylon, and at Christ College Cambridge (1946-49) Prof, of Western
and Eastern Philosophy. University of Ceylon. Read papers at Oxford,
Harvard (USA) Published: Early Buddhist Theory of knowledge. Died
23 July 1970.
|
