Controversies Related to Buddhism

A Book Review:

By Professor N.A.de
S Amaratunga

Publisher – Motilal Banarsidass International, Delhi
Reviewed by
Professor Chandima Wijebandara

I was surprised, when I received this scholarly treatise on the controversies related to Buddhism, noticing that the writer was a professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. After reading it I am amazed at the skill he has displayed in handling the Buddhist concepts and his familiarity with the way intellectual giants battled in the field of Buddhist Philosophy, even turning the Buddha’s original teachings topsy-turvy. It is a wonderful and encouraging gift from an academician of an unrelated field, not only to the students of Buddhism but also to the scholars in the field who may definitely enjoy reflecting on many controversial issues related to Buddhism in a new perspective. They may definitly admire Professor Amaratunga’s intellectual treat, thanking him heartiestly.

Professor Amaratunga’s approach to the subject is scientific, critical and comparative. Even though we come across endless writings on Buddhism almost everyday most of them are either simple “faith-laden sermons” or pseudo-scholarly attempts. In such a context a genuine attempt of scholarly analysis like this is warmly welcome by scholars and serious students of Buddhist Philosophy and culture.

The book contains 36 chapters covering many controversies ranging from Buddha’s personality to the decline of Buddhism in India and its survival in other countries like Sri Lanka. The main focus, however, is on the transformations taken place in the context of India. The writer has surveyed how the concepts like three signata, knowledge, reality, morality, rebirth and nibbana, etc., had been differently interpreted by Buddhist philosophers of sectarian camps in India. The writer, in order to help us understand the contextual value of Buddhist concepts properly, has provided parallel teachings of Vedic, Upanisadic and Jain traditions. As a matter of fact, some of the Buddhist concepts like anatta could not be properly evaluated if taken out of the religio-philosophic concepts prevailed during the time of the Buddha.

Professor Amaratunga’s critical and comparative study of controversies among the sectarian Buddhists has covered the essential branches of philosophy like Epistemology, Ontology, Ethics, Logic and Psychology. How the later day Buddhist intellectuals aggressively defended their interpretations has fascinated him as he has dealt with them in comparative light. Thus, it looks like that he has left no stone unturned. And he, as an intellectually honest scholar, has extended due honour to the views of modern scholarship on the issues he has discussed. Of course, there are occasions he has rationally disagreed with some of them as well.

I find his discussions on Impermanence, soullessness and Sunyata are of extreme importance to new comers to the Buddhist studies. Not only the Westerners but some Sri Lankan students also have misunderstood these teachings to the extent of branding Buddhism as a pessimistic, nihilistic and negative philosophy. These illogical labelings are carried out mainly due to out of context analysis. A careful study of discourses found in the Scripture would prove that The Buddha engaged in dialogues with outsiders only after obtaining the way they define their terms. Refuting or accepting their views were strictly on the definitions. If we take the Buddha’s remarks out of context the real accurate and philosophical implications of them could not be grasped. Western misinterpretations of anatta is a good example to this kind of misunderstanding. The Buddha obtained the philosophical definition of atta used by brahmins and crystalised it as permanent, unchangeable, indestructible, substantial entity. If the most important ingredient in our being is such unchangeable entity it is impossible even to know that we survive! Are we such undynamic useless frozen entities? Is our self absolutely unmanageable by ourselves or anyone else? The implication of the definition given by Brahmins is none other than that. However, philosophically immature ordinary people may also hold to that irrational definition and refuse to agree on the Buddhist teaching of anatta and go for a permanent soul. Or, choose to adopt a nihilistic view, mistaking it as the Buddhist position. They do not realize that there is a Buddhist way of using the term atta safely, as implied in statements like Attanam Damayanti pandita and attanava sudantena natham labhati dullabham ,etc. Vatsiputriya personalism and Sarvastivada all-exist theory are attempts to provide life-boat-ontologies to respond to nihilistic charges with affirmative concepts. So, the chapters on such topics given in Professor Amaratunga’s book are of utmost importance to enlighten the reader on the relevant controversies.

I do not, even the author of the book may not, believe that all the controversies related to Buddhism are resolved with the publication of this book. Twenty-six centuries of religio-philosophical controversies are not to be settled just by one book. They may continue and some more controversies might arise. That is the nature of discursive human thinking. In fact the Dhamma is something that wise people should realise by themselves and for themselves (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi). Even the Buddha claimed himself as a Maggakkhayi – a guide of the road. We have to do the walking ourselves. So, Professor Amaratunga has brought the controversies to limelight for us to study, reflect over and get properly aware of them. We will probably find the solutions proper only when we also sit under ‘our’ Bodhi tree and get enlightened.