5. On Buddha

Buddhism has been a source of inspiration for rationalists-humanists in India and to some extent in other parts of the world. As far as I am concerned, what I find attractive in Buddhism is its negative part, that is, the doctrines, which it rejects such as the infallibility of the Vedas, God, soul and the varna-vyavastha. I also favor its relative stress on rationality and self-effort. These aspects of Buddhism, I think, will be acceptable to any rationalist-humanist. However, as far as the positive side of Buddhism is considered, mainly the Buddhist diagnosis of the suffering in human life and its prescriptions for its removal, it is very difficult to accept it as fully satisfactory. Buddhism mainly regards birth, old age, disease and death as suffering. It considers birth (and rebirth) and desire as the main causes of suffering in this world.[1] Attaining a stage of desirelessness and freedom from the alleged cycle of birth and death is considered the highest end (nirvana). This view, apart from involving the untenable assumptions of rebirth, amounts to saying “No” to this life. Life, on the whole, is regarded as something bad, which we ought to get rid of. Buddhism takes a one sided, negative and pessimistic view of life when it exclusively emphasizes dukha or suffering and pays inadequate attention to the role and place of sukha or happiness in human life. If we take a realistic view, we have to admit that we have both suffering and happiness in human life. If happiness is not considered worthy of recognition because it is transitory and impermanent, the same is true about unhappiness or suffering. Therefore, we must recognize the existence of sukha (happiness) in human life along with dukha (suffering). Our aim in life should be to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. As far as I can see, we have this one and only one life in this one and only one world, and we should try to make the best of it by working for our own happiness and for the happiness of others. In other words, we should say “Yes” to life.  Running after an imaginary nirvana or trying to attain a state of desirelessness in this life is not going to help. There is no need for us to eliminate our desires fully in order to lead a happy life, assuming that it is psychologically possible to do that. We only need to control our desires so that to bring harmony among them, and so that we do not do anything which transgresses on the freedom of others to work for their own happiness. Sometimes we have conflicting desires, which cannot be satisfied together, so we must find out or decide which of our desires are more basic and bring our other desires in harmony with them. Sometimes we might have to drop some of our desires, in other words, we might be forced not to encourage them or act on them. Besides, we must remain realistic and not unnecessarily multiply our desires, because if we go on chasing one desire after another we will not be able to lead a happy life. We can lead a happy life, and work for the happiness of others, if in addition to bringing harmony in our own desires; we bring our desires in harmony with the fundamental desires of others. We all desire life, happiness and freedom. So we must recognize and respect similar desires of others. The aim of any rational ethics should be to maximize the freedom of each individual to work for his or her happiness without transgressing on the similar freedom of others.

Another weakness of Buddhism as traditionally understood and interpreted is that it has not paid adequate attention to the social and political aspects of human problems. Buddha, for example, was interested in removing human suffering, which indeed is a laudable aim, but his diagnosis of human suffering left much to be desired. Buddha has identified birth, old age, disease and death as major sufferings. I have already stated that it is wrong to treat life itself as bad. Death is certainly a cause of human suffering but it cannot be eliminated by human effort. It can be and should be delayed as far as possible, but ultimately we have to minimize suffering caused by death by taking a realistic view of death and changing, as far as possible, our attitude towards it. If we realize that there is no prospect of anyone going to hell (or, for that matter, heaven) or being reborn as an owl or hog (or even as a Brahmin) after death, this greatly reduces the fear of death. To the question what happens to the dying person after death? We may realistically reply: nothing, since the person concerned simply ceases to exist. So, death, after all, does not seem to be such a bad prospect for the dying person. As far as the suffering caused by the death of others, particularly the near and dear ones, is concerned, it is to some extent unavoidable. The only way it could be avoided is by having no love, compassion or attachment for anyone. However, the remedy of advocating a loveless world in order to avoid suffering caused by the death of the near and dear ones, seems to be worse than the disease. Therefore, there is no alternative to boldly enduring this suffering. The knowledge that nothing bad is going to happen to our near and dear ones after their death may help us in enduring the grief caused by their death. Nevertheless, the grief caused by not being able to see them, talk to them or touch them is bound to remain, and has to be endured.

As far as suffering caused by disease and old age is concerned, only following a healthy life style can mitigate these. The government or the state can do much here by providing better medical care, particularly for poor. Here we need both advancement in medical science and an efficient social and political mechanism for reaching medical facilities to everyone. Besides, society in general needs to change its attitude and cultivate a compassionate attitude towards old or diseased persons. In any case, trying to achieve a stage of desirelessness will not help in solving these problems.

Moreover, there are many other causes of human sufferings that have being ignored by Buddha, for example, poverty. For a person who does not get two square meals, or does not have a proper roof over his or her head, or adequate clothes to wear; this itself is the biggest cause of suffering. We cannot prescribe for a starving person that he or she should start mediating and try to reach a stage of desirelessness! What she or he really needs is food, shelter and clothes.

Similarly, we have the problem of lack of adequate freedom to pursue one’s happiness. In a dictatorial state lack of freedom for citizens and repression by the state machinery becomes a big cause of human suffering. In authoritarian patriarchal families, the patriarch denies freedom to other members of the family.

 Again, social inequality or lack of equal respect or status in society is another cause of human suffering.  In short, problems like poverty, illiteracy, absence of freedom, inequality and lack of proper medical care can be solved only by social and political action. Buddha has concentrated on causes of human suffering like death and old age for which much cannot be done, beyond a limit, by human effort. However, there are so many other causes of human suffering, which human beings face when they are alive (human beings do not face any problems when they are dead) and for which much can be done by human effort. We should concentrate on removing such causes of suffering instead of just brooding over old age and death. 

Back to Contents Page