Saturday, 31st July 2010 5:59pm.

The paper was first appeared in “Arakanese Research Journal ii”, in the year 2003 published by Arakanese Research Society of Bangladesh.

Certain scholars of Dhamma believe that language is likely a crucial instrument of Dhamma understanding. Such belief has thus stimulated a scholarly method, aimed at scriptural explanation and a proper textual knowledge, called hermeneutics. The word “hermeneutics” derives from Greek – “hermeneutikos” which means “interpretation”. The hermeneutical method, one can say, plays an important role in analysing and interpreting religious texts philosophically and linguistically.(1)

For the field of Dhamma studies, the hermeneutical method is particularly indispensable since Dhamma teachings are always expressed in metaphors, symbolism and riddles. It helps scholars of religion establish the basic categories, principles and norms for religious concepts so that they can recover the hidden meanings of religious texts and practices.(2)

The sages of the East have said that the truth is but one, the wise express it in different ways. Hence, by getting to know the art of interpretation, one can get rid of all dilemmas and attain the true meaning of the teachings.

In ordinary speech, we make very simple statements such as ‘sunrise’, ‘sunset’ and the like. But in Nature there is no such thing as the rising or setting of the sun. In the sky there is no distinction of east and west. It is the people who create the distinction out of their own minds and then believe them to be true. The so-called sunrise and sunset are but phenomena brought about by the rotation of the earth on its axis.

We hope that we all agree to this, so that we can speak and listen to each other without formality and rituals, even if our discussion here becomes somewhat different or unusual. If we find the subject strange or incomprehensible or if we don’t agree please take the time to think it over. But, remember it isn’t necessary to believe or subscribe to what it is written right away.

The hermeneutics in the teachings of the Buddha began its role right after the parinibbāna (3) – demise of the Master when his followers tried to understand the final view and position of their great teacher. The cause of the ambiguity of the Buddha’s words can be stated as follows:

1. The Buddhadhamma scriptures, the texts, were compiled, more than two millenniums ago during the First Sangha Council held at Rajgir. They had been learned by heart until they were first recorded on palm leaves during the Fourth Sangha Council in Sri Lanka in 1st Century BC. From council to council (4) and up till today, the Buddha’s words have been referred to and reinterpreted time and again. Besides many schools have made posthumous attributions of many discourses of the Buddha. The popular Dhamma (religion) has become like a dense forest where thorny plants prevent us from recognising the beautiful park it once was and from moving forward. Once a deep, wide river, has now become shallow and narrow due to centuries of silting-up and sedimentation, and quite unable to carry the monsoon water that flows, thus recklessly eroding both the banks and flooding the low lying grounds yet un-navigable. Thus, it is may be difficult to ascertain what the true teachings of the Buddha would be.

2. In the history of Buddha’s dispensation [sāsanam], “the Buddha is said to have taught different things to different people based on their interest, dispositions, capacities and level of intelligence”(5). And due to such approach (upāya) of his teachings, his words need to be scrupulously and wisely examined.

3. Since the Buddha’s words have lived through many varied times, their meanings are considered and taken according to the eyes of the age. Though contemporary Buddhologists and Buddhists have carefully studied the Buddhist teachings, they still cannot avoid their own subjectivity and prejudice and thus can hardly attain essence of the teachings.(6)

4. Nowadays, there are quite a number of scholars who study Buddhism, however, most of them simply read the words of the sutras and commentaries seeking arguments and rationalisations to prove that they are versed in the Dharma (7). The Dhamma is first and foremost a practice, not scholarship, if scholars, who only study discourses and commentaries, but do not engage in practice may betray the true spirit of the Master.

5. The language is twenty-five centuries old, and meaning change. Even if they do not, what the Buddha said with his experience cannot be understood without that experience. Many translators have never practised……….commentaries were written on the Buddha’s words, some over 1,000 years after his death……….they were again translated into Pāli, but with the translators’ own interpretation. (8)

6. A few hundred years after the Buddha’s passing away (parinibbāna), there arose nearly twenty different schools or sects all of which claimed to represent the original teachings of the Buddha. The result of such conflict over 2000 years resulted in the arising of many sects, some large, some insignificant, as offshoots from the original teachings. Some sects have even become involved in mythologising Buddha’s dispensation to suit their own purpose. Some even advocate in favour of materialism and consumerism, thereby, encouraging the growth of wealth, fame, honour, promotions, titles and what not! It would be foolish to grasp at the outer shell, and become attached to the various rituals and ceremonies since the real object became quite lost. It would be unwise to think that such-and-such is Buddhadhamma just because everyone says it is. This sort of things is a tumour (9) and excrescent – abnormal or morbid outgrowth – which has developed and spread constantly since the day the Buddha’s parinibbāna, expanding in all directions right up to the present day, so that it is now quite sizeable, taking hundreds of different forms too numerous to name. Thus, these excrescent must not be misidentified as Buddha’s teachings itself. It is equally wrong for the people of other faiths to come and point at these shameful and disgraceful growths as being the original teachings of the Buddha.

7. Buddhadhamma is look upon, in broad spectrum, as a growing organism whose scriptures are of many kinds as the organism has developed under different racial, temporal and cultural conditions. Some are concerned with the Dharma, some have to do with the rules of the Brother-hoods, some are philosophical, some psychological, some are commentaries and some are commentaries on commentaries. On the top of that, there is no Hierarchy or Ecclesiastic Council to pass upon the authenticity of different scriptures, and as to their canonicity (10).

8. The southern school (Theravādin) like their northern brethren (Mahayana) conceived Buddha as a historical human being, but has magnified his qualities and powers so much that one is led to regard their conception of Buddha as that of the Creator (God) or gods. That certain magical powers are acquired during the course of the ascetic practice (tapas sādhana) is recognised in the early Buddhadhamma literatures, though Buddha himself set aside the pursuit of those powers as unfavourable to perfection.

9. The Theravādin claimed to have their Dhamma Texts bases itself on the Pāli canon, Tipitaka, while many of the Sanskrit works of Buddhadhamma belong to the Mahayana schools. The Mahayana Buddhism [Buddhadhamma] possesses no canon, since it does not represent any homogeneous sect. (11)

Consequently, the art of interpretation is crucial for studies and practice. However, as in all other faiths, Buddhdhamma texts cannot claim to be free from these human errors and shortfalls. But there is less excuse for it in the Buddha’s dispensation, for it teaches, from the start, that we should keep our minds open, and investigate things clearly and thoroughly, instead of just believing and accepting the words of others without question (12). The Buddha in his Brahmajāla-suttam (13) had advised that the true follower of his teachings should uphold unbiased attitude thus, “If anyone were to speak ill of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, he should not be upset or agitated or perturbed, for this kind of reaction will only cause his harm. On the other hand, if anyone were to speak highly of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, not to be inflated or enchanted or elated or thrilled, for this kind of reaction will only be an obstacle in making correct and wise judgment. If inflated or elated he will fail to make proper judgment whether or not the quality praised is real and actually present in him.”

As a critic of superstitious and popular beliefs, Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu (1906 - 1993), a monk whose nontraditional ideas transformed Thai Buddhdhamma and earned him an international following, innovates an exegesis of the Buddha’s doctrine. Buddhadāsa demythologised the texts in order to be practically useful to the contemporary world. He said, “It has to be borne in mind that in general a word can have different meanings according to the context. Two principal cases can be recognised: (1) language referring to physical things, which is spoken by the average person; and (2) language referring to mental things, psychological language, Dharma language, which is spoken by people who know Dharma (higher Truth, Buddha’s teaching). The first type may be called ‘everyday language’, the language spoken by the average person; the second may be called ‘Dharma language’, the language spoken by a person who knows Dharma.” (14)

Buddhadāsa in another book said, “I feel there is something, which prevents us from understanding each other and this thing is simply the problem of language itself”. “You see”, he said “there are two kinds of language. One is the conventional language that ordinary people speak what I call ‘people language’. People language is used by the ordinary people who don’t understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that they are blind to everything but material things. Then there is the language that is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma), especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate sense.... We can call it ‘Dhamma language’. You always must take care to recognize which language is being spoken.” (15)

According to Buddhadāsa, the misconceptions of the Buddha’s words arise from the use of language. Everyday language is the language used in our daily life. It arises from sense experiences and mundane expectations. Thus, it cannot penetrate the profound spiritual meanings of the Buddha’s doctrine. Dhamma language, on the other hand, possesses the meaning beyond the literal sense of a word.

Louis Gabaude, a French scholar of Buddhadāsa’s work, considers Buddhadāsa’s theory of everyday language - dhamma language the differentiation between “le discours anthropomor-phique” (puggalādhitthāna) and “le discours doctrinal” (dhammādhitthāna) which signifies the levels of language expressions: lokiya-vohāra and lokuttara-vohāra. (16) Thus, in other words, lokiya-vohāra and lokuttara-vohāra are methods of Buddha’s art of interpretation – the Buddha’s hermeneutics. They reveal two different kinds of truth: the conventional truth (sammutti sacca) and the absolute truth (paramattha sacca). The conventional truth is the truth according to human consensus and invention where one is trapped in the eternal cycle of birth and death. The absolute truth, on the other hand, is the truth of things spiritually discerned and above the human inventions.

To make it clearer, let us take the example of a ‘box’. What is a box? Some pieces of timber are prepared and arranged to be put together in a particular way to give a certain form or shape, and then it is called a ‘box’. Suppose the so-called box is disjoined and the timber pieces are put together to give them the appearance of a bench. It will no longer be called a box. The materials remain the same, but as the form or shape changes, the name changes too. The box and the bench are mere names given to the shapes, which are conceived in the mind of their maker.(17) Thus, chair, desk, house, man, woman, baby, child, adult, old, river, sea, hill, mountain and etc. all are but concepts – the everyday language invented in the human mind.

Than what are they from the absolute or ultimate point of view, the Dhamma language? If we examine deeply the thing we call ‘box’, we will come to a conclusion that it is a combination of atoms. The Buddha’s teaching further illustrates that every atom is a combination of still smaller particles and every smallest unit consists of four primary elements or qualities (dhātu or mahā-bhūtā). They are (i) extension or solidity - the earth element (pathavi-dhātu), (ii) cohesion or fluidity - the water element (āpo-dhātu), (iii) heat - the fire element (tejo-dhātu) and (iv) vibration or motion - the wind element (vāyo-dhātu). All four are present in every unit, though in varying degrees, and are in the state of constant flux. The aforesaid four primary elements are indivisibly bound together and there is no material thing in the universe, which is devoid of it. Thus, from the Dhamma language, the box is a compound or combination of units of matter, a collection of ever changing material states.

Buddhadāsa has given us a simple example of people language, the language of materialism. ‘Water’ (18) will suffice, he added. People who don’t know much about even the simplest things think that there are many different kinds of water. They view these various kinds of water as if they have nothing in common. They distinguish rain-water, well-water, underground-water, canal-water, swamp-water, ditch-water, gutter-water, sewer-water, toilet-water, urine, diarrhea, and many other kinds of water from each other. If left standing, water slowly evaporates and turns into vapour, an invisible gas. And when cooled down enough, it freezes solid and turns to ice. The average people will insist that these waters are completely different, because such people take external appearances as their criteria.

A person with some knowledge, however, knows that pure water can be found in every kind of water. If you take rain-water and distil it, we get pure kind of water. If we take river-water and distil it, we will get pure water. If we take canal-water, sewer-water, or toilet-water, and distil it, we will still get pure water. A person with this understanding knows that all those different kinds of water are the same as far as the water compound is concerned. As for those elements, which make it impure and look different, they aren’t the water itself. They may combine with water, and alter water, but they are never water itself. If we look through the polluting elements, we can see the water that is always the same, for in every case the essential nature of water is the same. However many kinds of water there may seem to be, they are all the same as far as the essential nature of water is concerned. When we look at things from this viewpoint we can see that all Dhamma are the same. If they appear different it’s because we are making judgments on the basis of external forms.

On an even more scientific level we can take that pure water and examine it further. A drop of water contains about 3000 million million million molecules. In each molecule there are two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. There’s no water left, but only a pattern of energy, everything being composed of atoms, which are forever in motion. That substance which we call ‘water’ has disappeared, it’s void. The same is true everywhere. For one who has penetrated to this level of understanding, there is no such thing as ‘water’.

Buddhadāsa in another instance said, “Kill your father and kill your mother, then you shall attain Nibbāna”. “Kill your father and mother, be an ungrateful child, then you shall attain Nibbāna”, again he added. Here the Buddha didn’t mean that we should take this literally and kill our flesh and blood parents. Instead, he meant that ignorance is a kind of father and craving is a kind of mother. The two give birth to ego-consciousness and subsequently all forms of selfishness and sin. “There’s no reason to feel any gratitude toward them; destroy them immediately and Nibbāna is realized,” Buddhadāsa added. (19)

Let us cite one more sensitive aspect of Buddhadāsa, where he said, “in people language, the word ‘birth’ means to be born from a mother’s womb (20). In Dhamma language, however, the word ‘birth’ means some form of attachment is born (21). This kind of birth happens every time we allow the arising of a thought or feeling which involves grasping and clinging to something as ‘I’ or ‘mine’, such as, ‘I am’, ‘I have’, ‘I think’, and ‘I do’. This is the birth of the ‘I’ or the ego.” The meaning of ‘birth is suffering’ in Dhamma language the egoistic kind of birth is always painful and ugly; in other words when ‘I’ is allowed to born in any manner, suffering occurs immediately. So we see that word ‘birth’ has different meanings between people language and Dhamma language. The mistaken assumption that this word ‘birth’ refers only to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha’s teaching. So does with the word ‘death’.

The same situation exists in the scriptures of the other faiths, just as - the birthright [popular]Buddhists, do not understand our own scriptures, so do they. Thus, whenever members of different faiths meet, they end up arguing until they are blue in the face. We may cite one relevant Pāli quotation from the Buddha’s teachings, Ekanhi saccam na dutīyamatthi, yasmim pajā no vivade pajānam (22) which means ‘The truth is but one, there is no second – those who know the truth would not dispute with one another’.

In regard to the words ‘mine’, ‘I’ and ‘soul’, the unskilled people (puthujjano) using their people language would say: This is mine (etam mama), this is I (eso hamasmi) and this is my soul (eso me attā). In this context it would be befitting to cite the Buddha’s words how Rāhula was reprimanded. One day the Venerable Rāhula was following the Buddha in quest of alms. As the Buddha went along, followed by Rāhula, it seems that the pair was like an auspicious royal swan with its beauteous cygnet, a regal lion with its stately cub. Both were golden in complexion, almost equal in beauty; both were of the warrior caste; both had renounced a throne. Rāhula, admiring the teacher [and father] thought: ‘I too am handsome like my parent the Exalted One. Beautiful is the Buddha’s form, and mine is similar.’ The Buddha reading his evil thought, and looking back, addressed him thus: “Whatsoever form there be, should be regarded thus: ‘This is not mine (netam¬ mama); this am I not (neso hamasmi); this is not my soul (na meso attā)’”.(23)

The word of conventional truth (sammutti sacca) and the word of absolute truth (paramattha sacca) can be found widely contrasting in the Angulimāla Suttam(24) regarding the use of words ‘stop’ and ‘run’. When Angulimāla saw the Buddha, he was very happy and with his sword in his hand, he chased for the Buddha but could not reach him. Finally he shouted to the Buddha, “Stop!” The Buddha said, “I have already stopped long ago”. Angulimāla said, “ But you were walking”. The Buddha then said, “The meaning of ‘stop’ (tittha & titthati) is that I have stopped committing evil deeds.” Then Angulimāla asked, “Why, I could not catch you after running such a long distance?” The Buddha replied, “You could not catch me because you ran. If you stop running, you can catch me!” Angulimāla asked again, “What do you mean?” The Buddha said, “The meaning of the word ‘run’ (dhāvantam & dhāvati) means you are committing evil deeds for you to suffer a long time in your life.” Angulimāla understood and gave up his cruel acts and followed the Buddha to become one of his disciples.

In Majjhima Nikāya the Buddha while giving discourse to Arittha uttered that the common (puthujjano) people say thus: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my soul’. While the eminent (ariyānam¬) people say, “This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my soul.” (25)

According to people language, nothing can be gained without prior investment. So they invest money, silver, and gold or invest their labour and wish to gain merit to be enjoyed in their future lives, more or less like hoarding assets [earned through wholesome and unwholesome means] in this life so that they can have good feasts in their future birth(s). If we listen to Dhamma language, however, the reality is quite different. The Buddha said that Nibbāna is unconditional–Asankhata, is not dependent upon external causes and supporting factors. Hence it could be attained free of charge and in this very life. Because the Dhamma expounded by the Buddha is Akāliko – immediately effective, fructifies immediately and not subject to time. (26)

In the Udāna and Itivuttaka the Buddha refers to Nibbāna as follows: There is, O Bhikkhus, an unborn (ajāta), unoriginated (abhūtā), unmade (akata) and non-conditioned state (asankhata). If, O bhikkhus, there were not this unborn, un-originated, unmade and non-conditioned, an escape for the born, originated, made and conditioned, would not be possible here. As there is an unborn, un-originated, unmade, and non-conditioned state, an escape for the born, originated, made, conditioned is possible” (27).

The most concise way to assess Buddhadāsa’s application of the ordinary language/truth language distinction to the Buddha is to look at the treatment of the term in his, ‘Everyday Language and Dhamma Language’. Although his discussion repeats many of the previous points, our analysis of this statement will be based on Buddhadāsa’s epistemic distinction, “As you know, the Buddha in everyday language refers to the historical Enlightened Being, Gotama Buddha. It refers to a physical man of flesh and bone who was born in India over two thousand years ago, died, and was cremated. This is the meaning of the Buddha in everyday language.

“Considered in terms of Dhamma language, however, the word Buddha refers to the Truth that the historical Buddha realised and taught, the Dhamma itself...Now the Dhamma is something intangible. It is not something physical, certainly not flash and bones. Yet the Buddha said it is one and the same as the Enlightened One. Anyone who fails to see the Dhamma cannot be said to have seen the Enlightened One. Thus, in Dhamma language the Buddha is one and the same as the Truth by which he became the Buddha, and anyone who sees the Truth can be said to have seen the true Buddha...”

“Again the Buddha said, The Dhamma and the Vinaya which I have proclaimed...these shall be your teacher when I have passed away. ‘ In the Mahāparinibbānasuttam (28) he advised thus: yo vo, ānanda, mayā dhammo ca vinayo ca desito paññatto so vo mamaccayena satthā – Ānanda, what I have taught and promulgated (Dhamma and Vinaya) will be the Teacher, Master, Guide when I am gone’, so the real Buddha has not passed away, has not ceased to exist. What ceased to exist was just the physical body, the outer shell. The real teacher, that is, the Dhamma-Vinaya, is still with us. This is the meaning of the word Buddha in Dhamma language.” (29) Whether this deeper meaning is perceived, however, depends on the level of insight of the reader as well as the mode of representation.

Gabaude believes that Buddhadāsa’s art of interpretation has become an innovation in contemporary Thailand is an attempt to protect the Buddha’s doctrine from being corrupted by animism and [popular] religion. In this respect, Buddhadāsa agrees with Zen masters, especially the Venerable Bodhidhamma (ca 500 C.E.), that textual knowledge cannot sufficiently help us understand the essence of the Buddha’s teachings and that we should examine our own mind.(30)

Most [popular] Buddhists of the East are hereditarily acclaimed Buddhists – as if having inherited a piece of property from their forefathers, and are not interested in the true essence of Buddha’s teaching. They do not practise that lead towards the end of suffering as prescribed by the Buddha. Rather they are fond of reciting his prescription hundred and thousands of time but refraining from taking the medicine. As a sick man who repeats the pharmaceutical and generic names of the medicine, the name of the factory, praising its employers, the manufacturer etc., like mantras - mystic or esoteric or magical formula, incantations – one after the other, without actually taking the medicine can hardly expect a remedy or cure. They consider nibbāna too far to reach and too profound to understand.

They hold to [popular] Buddhism, being devoid of enlightened (Bodhi) wisdom (ñāna), which allows animistic, superstitious, mystic, ritualistic irrational beliefs and practices. Their understanding of all phenomena-Dhamma, is limited in terms of everyday language. Since they are accustomed to the unhealthy Dhamma education, they are unable to detect the true meaning of the Dhamma texts themselves. Their know-how of Buddha teachings merely comes from others and is more or less confined in the contexts of rites, rituals, ceremonies and tradition, an afterlife merit-accumulating enterprise. Thus, it cannot help them solve their problems, get rid of their defilement, and bring them to the final goal – nibbāna.

Therefore, the Buddha’s Ancient Path can only be attained through proper practice based on the perfect-vision -samma ditthi, urged by the art of interpreting the Buddha’s doctrine – be it any form of canonical scriptures (pitaka), texts, or in hearing religious discourse (dhamma desanā). In doing so we ought to dispel blind faith instead we have to have firm confidence – knowing the art of interpretation may help get rid of doubts and riddles. The Buddha in one of his verses said thus: yo kho dhammam passati so mam passati, yo dhammam na passati so mam na passati (31) which means – indeed, only the one who sees the Dhamma sees me (32), one who does not see the Dhamma does not see me; the polarity of everyday language and Truth language make a unique contribution to the ongoing Theravāda interpretation of the meaning and significance of the Buddha sāsanam.

Our present time has been one of spiritual dryness, where truth hardened into tradition, and morality stiffened into routine. Life has become a series of observances. The mind of man moved within the iron circle of prescribed formulas and duties. The atmosphere was choked with ceremonialism. One could not wake up or rise from his bed, bathe or shave, wash his face, or eat a mouthful, without muttering some formula or observing some rite. It was an age when a petty and barren creed set too much store by mere trifles and hollow superstitions. An arid and heartless philosophy, backed by a dry and dogmatic religion, full of affection and exaggeration, could not satisfy the thinking few for any time or the masses for a long time.(33)

By its emphasis on the ‘right of free inquiry’ the intellectual stir of the age weakened the power of traditional authority and promoted the cause of truth. Doubt was no longer looked upon as menace. In the well-known discourse, the Kesamutti suttam(34) , the Buddha exhorted the Kālāmas thus, “Do not be led by reports or traditions, or hearsay. Do not be led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by speculative opinion, nor by seeming possibilities, nor because one’s own teacher has said so. O Kālāmas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are wrong, unwholesome, bad, then give them up; when you know for yourselves that certain things are right, wholesome, good, then accept them, follow them.”

On the attitude of accepting or rejecting any opinion or belief, the Buddha in his Chabbisodhana Suttam(35) said that when any bhikkhu claimed to the attainment of the Path of Holiness (Arahattaphala), his claim should not be admitted or rejected outright. His claim should be carefully scrutinised according to the guiding principles mentioned in this discourse.

The Cūla-hatthi-padopama Suttam(36) gave us a fleshing light on the limitation of the interpreting the ‘ultimate truth’ by the ordinary men (Puthujjana). In this discourse the Brahmin Jānussoni asked the wandering ascetic Pilotika, who had just come back from the Buddha, whether he knew all the virtues and accomplishments of the Buddha. The ascetic replied that only a Buddha who could match another Buddha in attainments could know all the virtues of the other. As for him, he could only exercise his imagination in this respect just as a hunter would judge the measurements of an elephant from the size of its footprints. Later when the brahmin went to see the Buddha, and recounted his conversation with the ascetic the Buddha told him that the size of an elephant’s footprint might still be misleading. Only when one followed the footprints, and the animal was seen grazing in the open, its true measurements could be accurately judged. So also the virtues of the Buddha and his Teaching could be fully appreciated and understood only when one followed his Teaching and practised as taught by him until the Path of Holiness (Arahattaphala) was reached.

Buddha’s message of Perfect Vision (samma ditthi) which could come down to the common life of man was what the time were waiting for. Before a true synthesis could be obtained, the elements artificially combined required to be torn away from the connection into which they have been brought and set in abstract opposition to each other.

Notes and references:

* The author in this paper considers worthwhile using the words of the Buddha, rather than applying its popular terminology such as ‘Buddhadhamma’ or ‘Teachings of the Buddha’ instead of Buddhism, ‘the follower of the Buddha’ instead of Buddhist and ‘Dhamma’ instead of religion, except when quotations are applied.

** The President of the Arakanese Research Society of Bangladesh, General Secretary of Buddhist Peace Fellowship of Bangladesh, Light of Sangha and also involved with various organisations. Formerly, (while he was a layperson) he was known as Maung Than Aye, B.Com. (Honours), M.Com. Since his ordination as a bhikkhu (monk) he has been a leading proponent of Engaged Dhamma [Engaged Buddhism] in Bangladesh. He can be reached at email: u_bodhinyana@yahoo.com

1. Reese 1980: 221.
2. Klemm 1986: 3.
3. In Sanskrit parinirvāna.
4. According to Chattha Sanghyana CD-ROM, the 1st council was held in 544 BC, 2nd council in 444 BC at Vaisali, 3rd council in 326 BC at Pataliputta (Patna), 4th council in 29 BC at Tambapanni (now Sri Lanka), 5th council in 1871 AD at Mandalay, Burma (now Myanmar) and 6th council from 1954 to 1956 AD at Rangoon (now Yangon), Burma (now Myanmar).
5. Lopez 1988: 14.
6. Sirikanchana 1990: 246.
7. Smith (ed.) 1993: 24.
8. Goenka 1999: 101.
9. Buddhadāsa 1988: 6.
10. Goddard (ed.) 1938: V.
11. For detail see Radhakrishnan 1966: 585.
12. Beachcomber 2000: 157.
13. Dīgha Nikāya, i: 1-2.
14. Buddhadāsa Why were we born: 38. The word Dharma and Dhamma are synonymous, the former is a Sanskrit while the later is a Pāli word.
15. Buddhadāsa 1993: 2.
16. Gabaude 1988:85-90. quoted in Sirikanchana 1990: 247.
17. Anandamaitreya 1993: 64.
18. Buddhadāsa 1993: 4.
19. Buddhadāsa 1993: 10. In Pāli killing father is pitaram and killing mother is mātaram; for more detail see Dhammapada:294 & 295.
20. In Pali jalābuja-jāti. Buddhism states that there are four modes of birth-namely, egg-born (andaja-jāti),womb-born (jalābuja-jāti), moisture-born (samsedaja-jāti) and being spontaneously born (opapātika-jāti). For detail see Narada 1998:435.
21. Synonymous to spontaneously-born (opapātika-jāti).
22. Khuddaka Nikāya, Suttanipātapāli-890: KN, Mahāniddesapāli-119 and Visuddhinagga-mahātika 2, Indriyasaccaniddesavannanā-2: 534.
23. Mijjhima Nikāya, ii:118 in Narada 1998: 136.
24. Mijjhima Nikāya, ii: 4, 6.
25. Mijjhima Nikāya, i: 241.
26. Vajiranāna 1975: 200.
27. Narada 1998: 495-6.
28. DN ii: 3, 216.
29. Swearer 1990: 240.
30. Suzuki 1956: 54, quoted in Sirikanchana 1990: 248.
31. In Dhammapada-atthakathā 381.
32. In this verse the word me has been meant to understand Buddha in the Dhamma language – the ultimate truth.
33. Radhakrishnan 1966:266.
34. Ańguttara Nikāya, iii: 7, 2, 5. Popularly it is known as Kālāma suttam.
35. Mijjhima Nikāya, iii: 2,2. For discourse at length, see Twenty-five Suttas from Uparipannāsa 1990: 55-65.
36. Mijjhima Nikāya, i: 3, 7. For concise version of the discourse see U Ko Lay 2000: 49.

Bibliography

1. ANANDAMAITREYA, Balangoda 1993. Buddhism lectures and essays, Samayawardhana, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
2. BEACHCOMBER, 2000. Early Morning Rain, Buddha Dhamma Society, Singapore. [Note – Breachcomber is the pseudonym or pen-name of Ven. Abhinyana.]
3. BUDDHADĀSA, Bhikkhu 1988. Handbook for mankind, Kowah Printing & Publishing, Singapore.
4. BUDDHADĀSA, Bhikkhu 1989. Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Donald K. Swearer, Albany: State University of New York Press, quoted in Donald K. Swearer, “Buddha, Buddhism and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, in Radical Conservatism”.
5. BUDDHADĀSA, Bhikkhu. Why were we born, Buddha Dhamma Centre, Bendemeer, Singapore.
6. BUDDHADĀSA, Bhikkhu 1993. No Religion, Buddhadharma Meditation Center, Hinsdale, IL.,USA.
7. GABAUDE, Louis 1994. Buddhadāsa’s contributions as a human being, as a Thai, as a Buddhist, in “The Quest for a just society” Sulak Sivaraksa (ed.), Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development, Bangkok.
8. GABAUDE, Louis 1988. Une Hermeneutique Bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Paris: Ecole Française d’Extreme-Orient, quoted in Sirikanchana, “Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and the Buddhist Hermeneutics” in “Radical Conservatism”,
9. GODDARD, Dwight (ed.) 1938. The Buddhist Bible, Thetford, Vermount, USA.
10. GOENKA, S. N.1999. Discourses on Satipatthāna Sutta, Vipassana Research Institute, Igatpuri, India.
11. KLEMM, David E.1986. Introduction, in Hermeneutical Inquiry Vol. 1, David E. Klemm (ed.), Atlanta: Scholar Press.
12. LOPEZ Donald S, Jr. 1988. “Introduction” in Buddhist Hermeneutics, quoted in Sirikanchana, “Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and the Buddhist Hermeneutics” in “Radical Conservatism”.
13. NARADA Mahathera 1998. The Buddha and His Teachings, Buddhist Missionary Society, Malaysia, reprinted in 1998 by: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, Taiwan, R.O.C.
14. NARADA, Thera 1993 The Dhammapada-PĀLI text & translation with stories in brief & notes, reprinted by CBBEF, Taiwan, R.O.C.
15. RADHAKRISHNAN 1966. Indian Philosophy, Vol: 1, George Allen & Urwin, London.
16. REESE, W. L. 1980. Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press Inc.
17. SIRIKANCHANA, Pataraporn 1990. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and the Buddhist Hermeneutics, in “Radical Conservatism”.
18. SMITH, Forrest G. (ed.) 1993. Pure-Land Zen, Zen Pure-Land, translated by Master Thich Thein Tan, Sutra Translation Committee of USA. & Canada.
19. SIVARAKSA, Sulak (ed.) 1990. Radical Conservatism: Buddhism in the Contemporary World, The Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, Thailand.
20. SUZUKI, D. T. 1956 Zen Buddhism, quoted in P. Sirikanchana, “Buddhadassa Bhikkhu and the Buddhist Hermeneutics” in “Radical Conservatism”.
21. SWEARER, Donald K.1990 Buddha, Buddhism and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, in “Radical Conservatism”.
22. Twenty-five Suttas from Uparipannāsa 1990. Myanmar Pitaka Assosiation, Yangon, Myanmar.
23. U Ko Lay 2000. Guide to Tipitaka, Selangor Buddhist Vipassana Meditation Society, Malaysia. Also referred to Guide to the Tipitaka An Introduction to the Buddhist Canon, White Lotus Co., Ltd., Thailand, 1993.
24. VAJIRAÑĀNA Mahathera, Paravahera 1975. Buddhist Meditation in theory and practice, Buddhist Missionary Society, Malaysia.
Notes
The reference numbers of Pāli Tipitaka quotations has been synchronised and adhered to by following Chattha Sangāyana CR-ROM, Version 3, Vipassana Research Institute, Dhammagiri, Igatpuri, India.

Getting to know the Art of Interpreting Buddhadhamma Ven U Bodhinyana