Opinion
Buddhism sans rituals?
The growing attention to the discussion on holiness versus hollowness of rituals of Sri Lankan Buddhists has raised a legitimate question: is Buddhism without rituals possible? Even though one can produce a rational answer based on canonical material, presenting it in its entirety in a short article like this can be a stretch. Therefore, if readers see this write up as a collection of clues, they are not wrong.
The Pali canon says that those who are obsessed with words go nowhere, like an elephant stuck in mud. The solution offered is to see things without words or labels. As we puthujjana have not achieved that level of wisdom and are stuck with words for communication, it pays to make sure that we all are on the same page by defining the key words: Buddhism, Dhamma, and Ritual.
Buddha rediscovered a set of truths when he became enlightened; we can refer to them as Buddha Dhamma, even though the Pali word dhamma has other meanings. Western scholars use terms like ‘What the Buddha Taught’ and ‘Early Buddhism,’ instead. Buddha described the Dhamma or the set of truths this way: “Whether tathagatas arise or not, this order exists, namely, the fixed nature of phenomena, the regular pattern of phenomena or conditionality. This the tathagata discovers and comprehends. Having discovered and comprehended it, he points out, teaches it, lays it down, establishes, reveals, analyses, clarifies it, and says ‘look’…” (Karunadasa 2013). The all too familiar verse we recite to venerate Dhamma describes six qualities, two of which are ‘timeless’ (akalika) and ‘to be realised by the wise’ (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhiti).
In other words, they are universal truths, which do not change over time, and are valid anywhere in this universe. They can be affirmed as the truth by critical analyses. Over the last 150 years, western science has scrutinized what the Buddha taught, and has concluded that Buddha was right (Wallace 2003, Lopez 2008, Wright 2013, for example). An oft used catch phrase is that ‘Religion and Science do not mix.’ That, in fact, is exactly the point I wish to make here. However, I brought up science not to seek its affirmation of Dhamma, which it does not need as it is far ahead of science, and if anything, the reverse is the case, but to show another utility. Buddha said that one is free to elaborate the truth anyway they wish to enable their followers understand it. That is how the Pali canon has become so voluminous, thirty-three volumes and 20,000 printed pages covering over 10,000 discourses and exegesis. On the other hand, Assaji captured the truths in two sentences, which was sufficient for Upatissa to gain stream entry. In my experience, science is one of the best tools available to explain the truths to the denizens of this AI age. Besides, science and Dhamma share the common goal of ‘seeing things as they really are,’ even though the methodologies are different: one is experimental while the other is experiential.
Concluding that Dhamma is true from a scientific perspective is an enormously weighty undertaking; a truly deep understanding of both Dhamma and the relevant science is necessary to make that judgement. It is not like invoking quantum entanglement to “prove” rebirth, as some writers do, without understanding either. If I may put it differently, Dhamma can be derived from first principles (One should not assume that the present author has the in-depth knowledge of all these fields to make this assessment. The truth is that he is fortunate to have access to many generous thought leaders in a variety of fields). What I wish to make clear, without any doubts or ambiguity is that there are no beliefs, mysteries, magic, or higher powers associated with Dhamma; they only explain the regular pattern of phenomena or conditionality. They were discovered by pure human intelligence and, for the same reason, accessible to humans here, and now without any rituals, magical powers, or third parties – real or imaginary.
Now, to the second word, Buddhism. This is a term that late 19th century western scholars coined to describe practices followed in the name of Boodh. They used “ism” to show that such practices are based on beliefs in and worship of a superhuman power or powers. We can empathise with the limited knowledge of western scholars of the day, but we know that Buddha never claimed to be anything other than a human being. However, even with that knowledge, it is impossible to say that Buddhism as we practice does not fit the dictionary definition of a religion. To say otherwise is a sacrilege; for example, those of us old enough may recall that, in the nineteen sixties, a government was forced out for saying that Buddhism is not a religion; unfortunately, they did not define their words.
We must agree that Dhamma and Buddhism are two different things, even though they are intertwined in many ways. I have written about the origins of these practices, beliefs, rituals, and mysticism that makes Buddhism what it is in this paper recently (The Island 2023-12-05). However, it is sufficient to say that everything that is extraneous to Dhamma were acquired from many sources: Brahminism, Hinduism, and pre-Buddhist cults in historical times, and Christianity in recent times (Rahula 1956, Marasinghe 1974, Gombrich 1988, 1997, Obeyesekere 2018). This is where the catch phrase ‘Religion and science do not mix’ becomes relevant: those elements that are extraneous to Dhamma are neither empirical nor rational; they are based on beliefs, myths, or hearsay, and have no scientific basis.
The ability to model the future is an evolutionary driving force; while some animals have limited capabilities, it is the humans who have the highest skill in doing so. However, the quest to know, predict, and safeguard one’s destiny continues; we humans are not comfortable with unknowns. Throughout history people have presented creative ways to cater to this insatiable quest (for e.g., see Harari 2018). During Buddha’s time, it was Brahminism that fulfilled this need. It was in repudiation of these beliefs that Buddha presented the Four Noble Truths. While Buddha did not reject religions of the time, he categorically denied the ability of higher powers of any nature in safeguarding one’s destiny, here, or here after (Dhammapada verse 160). This is where following rituals or beliefs of any nature that are claimed to be salvific become contradictory to Dhamma. Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha cannot liberate anyone, they only show the way; one reaches salvation by purifying one’s own mind. In fact, one of the shackles (samyojana) that must be broken on the path to liberation is the attachment to rites and rituals (silabbata paramasa).
Buddha set up the order of Monks, or the Sangha, as the mechanism to teach, spread, and perpetuate Dhamma for the benefit of all. Buddha also assigned distinct roles and responsibilities to Sangha and his lay followers. The role of Sangha was to teach the Dhamma to the laity, in addition to striving for their own salvation. Laity, in return, is expected to supply food, shelter to the Sangha, and follow the Dhamma leading to a happy and harmonious life. Unfortunately, his advice to the laity has been overlooked over the millennia (B. Rahula 2008), and today, we are being prescribed the formula intended for the Sangha or the monastics. Supporting the Sangha, or generosity, is just one aspect of the path to purifying the mind, but that alone is not sufficient to reach the goal.
Just as we take care of schools, universities, museums, or hospitals for our own benefit, supporting the Sangha and the place of worship is a social responsibility. The definition of ritual is any repetitive and patterned behaviour that is prescribed by or tied to a religious institution, belief, or custom, often with the intention of communicating with a deity or supernatural power. Therefore, supporting Sangha and places of worship, especially those with archeological value, should not fall under the category of rituals. One must explore the Forth Nobel Truth to get clarity on this subject.
Worship of trees, for example, predates Buddha, and Buddha statues did not exist until third century CE. Therefore, worship of either is not part of the salvific path prescribed in Dhamma. However, there is a third aspect: Buddhism is also associated with Buddhist arts, literature, and architecture. They are part of our heritage, and we have an obligation to preserve, protect, and perpetuate them to the best of our ability. This is a hard pill to swallow, but such activities have nothing to do with the path to purification. The poets, artists, and craftsmen have the artistic freedom, and they can express their version of Buddha’s life or his teaching to make the best impression on the audience. Mistaking artistic expressions for truths, historical facts or assigning any salvific value to their creations can have unintended negative consequences.
The challenge facing us is correctly understanding what Dhamma is, what activities belong to the Path (magga), what are social and cultural responsibilities, what are meaningless rituals, and, most importantly, what are frauds. We can ask the same question in a separate way: Should we live according to Dhamma or delegate our fate to beliefs, mysticism, false views, or quackery? Once we find the answer, we will see that elimination of rituals becomes a non-issue. Therefore, if Buddhism means the practice of Dhamma and continuing Buddhist arts, crafts, and traditions with the correct understanding, it can do without rituals.
As I alluded to at the beginning, convincing oneself that it is the true answer is not a trivial matter; and there are no short cuts. This leads to more relevant questions: Why do we, the ill trained laity, must fight this battle using our rusty, blunt weapons when there is a professionally trained, well equipped force whose duty is just that? Aren’t they the ones who should explain the fundamental importance of critical thinking? Has their inaction contributed to the crumbling of other social institutions, including the economy, when they ignore the issues and condone the ills for personal gains? Why do their supreme leaders stay silent when they can direct their troops to go out and spread the truth as their founder intended, instead of engaging in self-serving activities? On the other hand, with my humble apologies to the handful of troops who do just that, I must ask: are we, the laity, ready to heed the truth and give up the “short cuts” to liberation if it comes to that?
Geewananda
Gunawardana