by Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga PhD, DSc, DLitt
Prof. Sasanka Perera’s important article dealing with the vital subject of discipline of Buddhist monks published in the Midweek Review of The Island on 23 Sept., 2026 needs a response with regard to its reference to faith, mythology and rituals. He says, “One must concede that it is mythology and rituals that hold any core set of philosophical ideas such as the dhamma together as a religion. It is through these practices that religion as a matter of faith emerges from abstract ideas. This is common to any religion. It is through these practices that Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Islam become religion”. First, it may not be correct to say that it is mythology and rituals that hold together the core set of philosophical concepts of Buddhism. Second, it may not be correct to infer that Buddhism has emerged as a matter of faith through the practices of rituals. Further, it is not through practice of rituals that Buddhism becomes a religion.
First of all, we must determine what constitutes the core philosophy of Buddhism and find out to what extent it depends on mythology. We must also examine the origin of rituals in Buddhism to see whether or not the dhamma could exist without rituals. Then, we must look at the nature of faith and its role in Buddhism.
The core philosophy of Buddhism is empirical in nature, which means it is based on, or derived from, observation, experiment, or sensory experience and it has nothing to do with mythology. The word “Ehipassiko” that prominently appears in Prof. Perera’s article cannot have any relevance in Buddhism if it depends on mythology to be held together. “Ehipassiko” is not applicable to religions based on mythology. The Buddha requested everybody interested to “come and see for yourself” because it could be known by experience. Same could be said about the discourse to the Kalamas, which Prof. Sasanka Perera has quoted. Theistic religions that are based on mythology cannot be examined by such means.
Prince Siddharta, before he attained Nibbana, experienced “Dukha” or suffering and “Anicca” or impermanence in his surroundings and found that such an existence cannot have a permanent self, (“Anatta”). Thus, the three signs of existence “Anicca, Dukha, Anatta” are empirical in origin and they form the core philosophy of Buddhism on which the doctrine is based. The “Four Noble Truths” are developed on this basis, and these also have no mythology whatsoever.
Prince Siddharta realised the fallacy of the Vedic thesis and rejected it entirely when he composed the three signs. Therefore Prof. Perera’s theory that “it is through these practices that religion as a matter of faith emerge from abstract ideas” does not hold where Buddhism is concerned. Buddhism is neither a “matter of faith” nor did it emerge from abstract ideas.
The fourth Noble Truth has no myth basis and is not dependent on blind faith or rituals. It is the path to the final goal in Buddhism; that is freedom from suffering. It is entirely based on morals which is central to Buddhism. Three factors in the Arya Astanghika Marga, deal with morals that prepare the mind for the final stages, “Sati” and “Samadhi”. These three factors which are concerned with right speech, right action and right livelihood, do not involve the practice of rituals. Unlike in theistic religions Buddhism does not require rituals in the practice of morals. None of the other factors in the Arya Astanghika Marga prescribe rituals. Therefore, one wonders, if the path to the final goal does not need rituals, where else could they be required to be of any significance.
“Nowhere else” is the obvious answer. What Buddhists have to do instead, is to live by the five precepts, eight precepts or ten precepts, or practice the Arya Astanghika Marga as far as possible, none of which have rituals. In such practice even if one does not reach the ideal, one would be immensely benefitted including peace of mind and satisfactory existence without too much suffering. This could be attained without the practice of rituals.
The Buddha rejected the practice of rituals in Sámaññaphala Sutta of the Dìgha Nikáya, where he declares all blessing rites and rituals as animal sciences (tiraccháanavijjá). Such was the attitude of the Buddha towards rituals. Ven. Kekirawe Sudassana was abiding by the Buddha’s word when he made the bold and correct statement that rituals were unnecessary in the practice of Buddhism. Ven. Sudassana should not be penalised for attempting to reject rituals.
Early Buddhism there was no mention of rituals. The four major Nikayas, Digha, Majjima, Anguttara and Samyutta comprise Early Buddhism. These were the only Nikayas in the Sutra Pitaka that were assigned to the Bhanaka monks to be preserved by the oral tradition, at the First Buddhist Council held three months after the Parinirvana of the Buddha and therefore considered to be closest to Buddha’s preaching. At the Third Buddhist Council held under the auspices of King Asoka, Ven. Moggalliputtatissa cleansed the Dhamma of all impurities that had crept into it and this was the Dhamma that was brought to Sri Lanka in the 3rd Century BCE. This Dhamma did not advocate the practice of rituals to the Sri Lankan community and there was no rituals in the country until the 5th Century CE.
It was Ven. Buddhagosa in the 5th Century CE, who probably had come under the influence of Mahayana when he was in South India on his way to Sri Lanka, who in his translations of the commentaries introduced dividend carrying rituals.
Sri Lankan monks came to accept the practice of rituals as a necessary method to attain Nibbana. Eminent Buddhist scholar Prof M. M. J. Marasinghe says: “The hard work of Buddhagosa and the Mahavihara fraternity culminated in the formulation of a new ritual structure with attractive advantages to keep both the lay followers and the members of the Sanga happy and content As a result, when we pass from the canonical Pali texts to the Pali commentaries we come into a totally new teaching different from the original” (Beyond Ritualistic Realm, 2018).
In Buddhism, faith is quite different. There has to be faith in the path that will finally lead to the goal, for otherwise there may not be total commitment. However, love and devotion to the Buddha is not required. This is understandable as the final goal, Nibbana, is development of wisdom (“paññâ”) for which there is no need for the personal involvement of the Buddha.
Though not conclusively proved, there seems to be new evidence in neuroscience that points to the possibility of consciousness emitting out of the body. Further, recent advances in theoretical physics show that matter could be converted to energy and energy to matter. If stream of consciousness is a stream of energy, it being integrated into matter is not difficult to accept. Man is nothing but a conglomerate of energy. In such a system, continuity of consciousness in a samsaric cycle may not be implausible.
However, Ven. Sudassana may be correct in saying that belief in karma and rebirth may not be essential for the practice of Buddhist morals. One may practice five, eight or ten precepts or even Arya Astanghika Marga without feeling compelled to believe in karma and rebirth.
Without saying there is absolutely no presence of faith, mythology or rituals in Buddhism, which are in fact later intrusions, it could unequivocally be stated that neither mythology, faith nor rituals played a role in the origin of early Buddhism and nor are they needed to hold together the core philosophy of Buddhism as a religion. They are not necessary to practice Buddhism and be benefitted by it.
from The Island https://ift.tt/h5czpft
