A Buddhist-inspired Theory of Critical
Somparn
Promta
I
We
are talking about the reading that we have found in people everywhere. The
Buddha says that wisdom sometimes comes from the listening to the persons who
have profound wisdom. At the time of the Buddha, we have some evidence to
believe that the writing of texts exists at that time already. But there might
be some reason that prevents the Buddha from writing his thought. At that time,
in the Greek civilization, thinkers like Plato and Aristotle like to write more
than to speak. The Buddha likes to speak more than to write.
In
terms of the content, and not in terms of physical process, reading is a medium
that man uses to transfer something in the mind of some person to the mind of
other person. I use the word ‘mind’ in the broadest sense. This includes the
brain (the mind can be interpreted as the activity of the material brain, but
this has no sense of rejecting the immaterial mind believed in some religion
and philosophy.) The great difference between reading and listening, even
though I think they are the same activity of man, lies in that the talking and
the listening, as done by the Buddha with people, could be highly real-time
action. This means that in case there is some misunderstanding by the listener
that speaker can add more explanation or information to correct
misunderstandings of the listener immediately. I think this is why the
Buddha chooses to talk more than to write. However, some authors of the
books are alive. This means that we can send them the questions for things that
we do not understand in their books. But the communication between the reader
and the writer is not a real-time action, compared with speaking. One of the
important problems in reading books, especially highly important books such as
religious or philosophical books, lies in that the authors are dead, and we
cannot question them for the things that we do not understand in their books.
The theory of reading happens in this world to use as a tool for the solution
of the problems in reading
which include the problem
that comes
from the fact that the authors of the books are dead.
Even
in case the writer or the speaker is still alive, sometimes we still have to
face the serious question concerning the authority of the meaning of the texts.
Something in a book is a personal matter, and the meaning of these things can
be put in the hand of the writer or the speaker without any problem. A thinker
writes in his book, “According to my taste, this kind of food is better than
that kind of food.” It seems that the reader has no necessity to argue for or
against this statement. But something in the books is not a personal matter of
the author, it could be problematic that can the author alone claim that it is
he or she only deserving the position of the meaning-giver for the statements. For example, the writer says, “According to universal truth, this
kind of food is better than that kind of food.” This statement does not refer
to the personal belief of the author, but refers to the thing that he calls the
universal truth. Universal truth is not a personal property of anyone in the
world. On the contrary, it is public property in a sense that anyone in the world
has the right to say that “the universal truth is not the same as you say, I do
not agree with you” or “I think like you, I agree with you.”
Religious
books such as the Bible and the Tipitaka have the contents which
are mostly concerned with universal truths of the universe. From this
perspective, we can question whether or not Jesus or the Buddha are the only
persons to give the meanings to important concepts existing in the texts. We
have two choices for this problem. First, think that the master is the owner of
the truths that exist in the religion. To think like this is possible if we
accept that religion is nothing but personal experience of the master with some
mysterious things in the universe such as God and Nirvana. If the highest goals
in religion are the things that the masters of religion have attained with
their personal experience, it is the master alone
to point out that whether or not this is the right way to
meet God or Nirvana.
In case
of Buddhism, it is interesting that it seems that many times the Buddha has
done something which suggests that he does not think that he is the owner of
Buddhism and the truths given by him to the people are universal and these
things exist in the universe before his birth. In modern Buddhist books written
by Buddhist scholars, they like to say that the truths taught by the Buddha in
Buddhism are natural in a sense that these truths exist naturally and the
Buddha is not the creator of these truths. The Buddha just ‘discovers’ the
truths. And they believe that these truths, as natural things, can be attained
or understood by anyone in the world. Certainly, these truths have been kept
secretly by
nature for some reason. They do not appear to the sense of ordinary people.
There must be someone in the world who is highly intelligent and trained enough
in terms of the moral and spiritual training to find these truths first and
then talks to people who need to see the truths how to find them. This culture
of understanding Buddhism seems to be widely accepted among Buddhist scholars
in the modern world. And this could be understood as the result of the choice
of the Buddha himself not to accept that he is the owner of Buddhism. We are
talking about the second way chosen by the Buddha concerning the understanding
of the contents of Buddhism. According to this second way, the Buddha discovers
the truths that exist in nature before his birth. These truths are useful as the guiding light for people to solve the suffering
in their life. The Buddha is a person who deeply knows and understands these
truths. He knows the way how to make these truths disclosed in a person’s life.
And he talks with people about that way. The Buddha can explain what is the
proper way. But he is not the owner of the way. But we have the question: even
though the Buddha is not the owner of the truths. And he is not the owner of
the way to these truths, in a sense that the way itself really exists in nature
before his birth. But there are two meanings of the way. First, the way as
something existing in nature already before the Buddha’s birth into this world.
Second, the way as the methodology invented by the Buddha. The two meanings of the Buddhist way can be compared with cooking. Suppose there is a kind of food, called X. This food
is composed of a, b, c, d, and f. The truth that X is composed of these five
things is the universal truth, and it exists in nature before the happening of
man in this world. One day, there is some man bringing these five things
together to make the food, and the result is X. Even though it is true that X
in terms of ontology exists in this world before the person to discover it, can
we say that the first man, who brings five things together and that making
results in X, is the owner of the method of the making of X? For many people in
the world, the answer is yes.
The
main point that I would like to suggest from our above discussion is that (1) it is true that according to the belief shared by most Buddhists
in the world the Buddha is not the creator of the dhamma, the dhamma as
ontological being exists in the universe so long before the happening of our
earth and the Buddha, but (2) the method to lead people to
the truths of dhamma has been kept secretly by nature, and that makes ordinary
people in the world do not know the dhamma, the Buddha is a special man in the
world who knows that secret way. As the person who knows this secret way, the
Buddha has to be morally acknowledged as the owner of the way. It is true that
the way itself exists as part of natural truths and the Buddha does not create the way. But we are not talking about the way in that sense. We
are talking about the way in the form of words. These words do not exist in
nature. They are the words of the Buddha. Can we say that the Buddha is the
owner of these words?
Some
of thinkers in modern hermeneutics think that the author who publishes his or
her books can be interpreted as the person who needs their work to be the
property of public. Certainly, in terms of the copyright owner, the author must
be accepted both morally and legally to be the owner of the work. But the
contents of the book are different in that as soon as the book has been
published the contents of the book which try to present the author’s view
concerning truths in the world would become the public property in a sense that
the author cannot claim he alone knows the truths of the world better than
other people. The reader has the moral right to agree or disagree with the
author. It could be possible that some readers could say that things given by the author in the book are false. The role of
the books according to this theory has nothing to do with giving the truths
from the perspective of the author, but concerned with being the starting point
of public discussion to have deeper and deeper knowledge of the truths
concerning the world.
II
The
Buddha in my personal belief can be compared with the author of the books who
fully understands that what is the role of the author of the books. The Buddha
knows well that Buddhism comes from his enlightenment, and his enlightenment
leads him to the truths which are concerned with the nature of the human life
and the world. Personal experiences tell him that the way that leads him to the
truths of the human life and the world is a way, and in terms of logic there
could be ways other than his way to the realization of the truths concerning
the nature of the human life and the world as said. In Buddhist texts which are
developed after the death of the Buddha, there are some sources which say that the
way that was discovered by the Buddha is the only way for the purification
of the human mind (Nirvana). I think that this belief seems to be different
from the things done by the Buddha during his lifetime. The Buddha always says
that he is just the way-teller who tells the way that he used to follow and see
something very valuable. He talks with people about the way, but he encourages
people to agree or disagree with him freely. For me, this means that even
though the Buddha is the writer of the book, but he never thinks that the
contents of the book belong to him as the owner and the owner alone has the
right to judge which is right and which is wrong in the book. In the Kalama
Sutta, the Buddha even says to people that the master of religion and religious texts could be wrong. This is the free
spirit of the Buddha, and this free spirit is needed in the moral system given
to people by the Buddha. Good and evil in Buddhist philosophy form the bondage
of life. The highest development in the human life in the view of the Buddha is
not goodness, but freedom. Freedom as intended by the Buddha might not
be found if the system of morality given by the Buddha is not the free system
in a sense that everyone involved in Buddhism, starting from the Buddha
himself, equally plays the free role in listening to the master, thinking, and
judging whether or not the saying of the master is reasonable and worth
practicing. In the Kalama Sutta, mentioned above, the Buddha finally
says to the people that you yourself are the person to judge everything in your
life.
The
free reading seems to be one of the essential activities in the life of a
thoughtful Buddhist. Free reading would lead to autonomy, and that is the
starting point of personal freedom.
Somparn
Promta
August
27, 2019