The Foundation of Buddhist Ethics

　　In a nutshell, the Bodhisattva Ideal expresses the foundation of Buddhist ethics.  The Mahaayaana texts are replete with reference to the so-called “Twin Doctrines” of supreme insight (praj~naa) and compassion (karu.naa), the essence of the Bodhisattva nature.  These two doctrines then depict what the Bodhisattva is and ought to be.  Literally, Bodhisattva refers to the “enlightened being,” but more philosophically it projects to a being whose efforts are geared toward the enlightened realm of existence.  Thus, when a text makes a simple statement that the “streets are full Buddhas,” it

P.258

really refers to the fact that the community is full of potentially enlightened beings or that the way to enlightened existence is open to anyone.  The statement also reminds us that Buddhism is an open, catholic, and natural way of life.  There is nothing foreign or alien in terms of its quest for the enlightened realm of existence.  Anything alien, in brief, would not fit into the natural scheme of things.  Thus, all masters or great figures in Buddhism, such as Naagaarjuna, Asa^nga, and Vasubandhu, are referred to as Bodhisattvas and not Buddhas.  Each of them, or all collectively have taught us the way of life that brings us closer to what a Bodhisattva is or ought to be.  It is then as much a challenge to achieve Bodhisattvahood as it is to work diligently to embody the doctrines of insight and compassion.  These doctrines manifest in the following ways:

(1)They depict a complete and holistic presence of a potentially perfect being in humankind.

(2)They are inter-penetrative and mutually involving doctrines, such that to speak of one is to introduce the other.  In this sense, they are mutually defining each other.

　　Let us explore the implications further.  Insight (praj~naa) is of course intuitive, clear, sharp and sustaining.  Technically, praj~naa is contrasted with vij~naana, where the latter term refers to knowledge that is the result of analysis or discrimination but the former is not the result of desultory or indirect function.  Thus praj~naa is direct and vij~naana is indirect knowledge.  This difference is carried over to its sister doctrine, compassion (karu.naa).

　　Compassion is of the nature of direct contact and direct knowledge.  If it were not direct, it would not be compassion but something less, indirect and limited.  Thus compassion cannot apply to one’s own existence or to one’s one-way

p.259

contact with another or others.  This shows plainly that compassion, true to its word, is a total, all-involving phenomenon.  To be compassionate, then, is to be aloof from any discriminative knowledge and be in contact with all beings, including nonbeings, without drawing any borders in existence.  The contact must be resilient and pliable so that it could at any time expand and include new or novel elements and situations.  The Buddhist masters have been keen over the ages to keep these twin or dual natures as a goal of the aspirations to become the Bodhisattva.

　　As it should be clear by now, Buddhist ethics is total involvement of all beings, inclusive of nonbeings, in constructing an ideal life of harmony among humankind in the here and now.  In this respect, there is no necessity of involving alien forces, small or large, into the picture.  If anything, Buddhism abhors the alien forces, just as science abhors a vacuum.  Indeed, any alien force would be a burden imposed on the way in which we understand the nature of things.  Here is a good example where Buddhism and science have a common ground and goal: take nature for what it is and seek an understanding within the realm of what is there──no more, no less.

　　Buddhist ethics is then a quest for the supreme dual nature of Bodhisattvahood in a dynamic sense.  It is the realization of an ideal humankind within the proper setting of a viable community of human beings surrounded by nonsentient beings of all kinds.   As a result of his enlightenment, he saw reality for what it is, i.e., without the exterior trims imposed by human contrivance which only brings on suffering in all its dimensions, physical as well as mental.  The conquest of suffering was most natural in the sense that it was derived through wholly natural means.  Critics may differ here and argue that the meditative discipline of the times had awkward, if not unnatural, elements that cannot be understood in natural terms.  I believe this is an area that needs to be explored and discussed further by those who are adept and learned in the area of meditation, but I still pin hopes that meditative elements are purely natural and the results of its utilization must be considered to be natural phenomena.

p.260

The Three Marks

　　Let us now return to certain principles that taken together sharply distinguish Buddhism from other prevailing systems of thought.  More specifically, they are called the three marks (trilak.sa.na) which are (1) the universal nature of suffering (du.hkha), (2) the impermanent nature of things (anitya), and (3) the doctrine of nonself (anaatman).