The Justification for a Moral Life in Buddhism

Law , Chi Lim

Introduction Most scholars of Buddhism agree that ethics play a very important part in Buddhist

soteriology1. In fact , there is no clear distinction between religion and ethics at the

time of the Buddha ------- religious beliefs were, in fact, moral systems at that time

(Ven Guang Xing,2007, personal communication). Early scholars like Poussin

( 927) considers that “ Buddhism is, in its essence, an ethical discipline”2 while

Wijesekara ( 1971: 49) claims boldly that “ It is universally recognized that

Buddhism can claim to be the most ethical of all religio-philosophical systems of

the world”. Keown ( 2001: 1) also points out that : “Buddhism is a response to

what is fundamentally an ethical problem--- the perennial problem of the best kind

of life for man to lead”.

However, in spite of the importance of ethics in Buddhism, many Buddhists

practise diligently the moral guidelines laid down in tradition without questioning

or understanding the real soteriological significance of these moral guidelines. It is

the purpose of this paper to examine how the Buddha justifies these moral

guidelines in his teachings to his followers.

For Want of a God

In most religions in the history of mankind, there is usually a divine entity such as

an all powerful creator God. As an illustration, we shall now examine the

1 Soteriology is the study of “ salvation”. The word comes from two Greek words : soter ( meaning “saviour”) and logos( meaning “word”, “principle”, and “reason”).Different religions emphasize or promise salvation of different natures.

2 As quoted in Harvey ( 2000 :11)

soteriological significance of the moral rules for the Vedic tradition and the

Abrahamic tradition.

Brahmanism/Hinduism3

In the Hindu Vedic-Upanisadic-Dharmasatric tradition, humanity was divided into

four classes ( brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra ) . It was a divine creation, or

rather the Supreme God Brahama or Prajapati had split himself into these four

segments ( Prasad, 2007:86-87). Each class could trace their present status and

condition to moral acts done in their past lives----- the so called karma-phala

principle. This was a totally deterministic tradition in that there was no chance of

social mobility in this life. One could only perform one’s moral obligation and

duties (svadharma) in preparation for the next life, or for the Brahmana, an

ultimate goal of union with Brahma. In time, this soteriological scheme had the

effect of creating inequality and injustice. In ancient times with limited access to

education and information, this scheme might have had the effect of sustaining the

solidarity and continuity of the Hindu society and civilization, but with human

progress and the spread of knowledge, Hinduism has to change to adapt to a new

humanity. In India nowadays, the caste system officially does not exist. But, human

nature being what it is, class discrimination still does exist.

Abrahamic tradition

For the three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), Man’s

salvation depends entirely on divine grace from God. The Old Testament of the

Judeo-Christian tradition contains the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 3-17) from

God (as told by the prophet Moses to the people) which includes rules for social

behaviour ( such as killing, stealing, adultery, etc) as well as commands to worship

3 . The term “Brahmanism” is often used as synonymous with Hinduism , although many Hindus find this term inappropriate in that it does not reflect the complete nature and ideology of Hinduism . However, the early Buddhist Pali scriptures contain a lot of debate with and references to various Brahmins ( the high priests at the time). “Brahmanism” seems to be a better term to describe the prevailing, dominant religion at the time of the Buddha and this term is used here without any derogatory meaning.

1

no other god then the one God. These are divine commands that must be followed

for salvation. As Jesus Christ has pointed out in the Gospel according to Mark (12:

29), the most important commandment is “Love the Lord your God with all your

heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength”. In

addition, in the Gospel according to Mathew (5:10), he says: “ Blessed are those

who are persecuted because of righteousness ,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”.

Thus the reward for the righteous person following the moral rules as recorded in

the Bible will be reaped in the after-life. In addition, Jesus Christ has spoken

incessantly about the right behaviour to follow to avoid being burnt in hell on

Judgment Day. In a similar vein, Islam also requires total submission to God’s

commands. In fact the word Islam is derived from the root s-l-m indicating “peace”

and “surrender”, the connotation of which is “the peace that comes when one’s life

is surrendered to God.” (Smith, 1991: 222). The reward for such surrendering is

none other than a place in the Kingdom of Heaven in one’s afterlife.

Buddhism is entirely different from the two ancient traditions mentioned above in

that it considers that Man’s salvation does not depend on divine grace4. As Prasad

(2007: 165) points out: “Buddhism is essentially a religion of ethics without any

God or divine metaphysical principle”. In Buddhism, be it the personal nibbana of

the Arahat in early Buddhism or the altruism of the bodhisattva in later Buddhism,

the regulative principle is always ethical. Leading a moral life is the prerequisite to

the path to liberation. Man’s salvation depends entirely on himself. Such self-effort

involves a three–pronged strategy : 1) ethical practices ( sila) , 2) contemplative

4 In later development of Mahayana Buddhism , the Buddha has been sometimes given a transcendental and almost divine nature . With the appearance of the practice of transference of merits ( in both Theravada and Mahayana schools ) , and sects like Pureland which teaches that one can be saved by devotion to Amitabha Buddha) it can be argued that the concept of divine grace has been introduced into Buddhism. However, most Buddhists would vehemently deny it ,as this concept is ,in all honesty ,antithetical to the original Buddhist teachings.

2

attentiveness ( samadhi) to form an ethical attitude and to acquire 3) immaculate

wisdom( panna) about the true nature of things. It must be noted that the latter two

help to achieve excellence in the practice of the first one ( i.e. morality ). Thus

morality is linked inextricably to salvation.

The Nature of Buddhist Ethics

The Mahaparinibana Sutta ( Digha-Nikaya II , p 86,1-21)5 records the benefits of a

moral life as follows : A virtuous man :

1. is free from remorse

2. enjoys a great fortune and good reputation

3. is welcome in any assembly

4. is met with an unconfused or peaceful death

5. will have a life in the heaven.

On the other hand, a non-virtuous man without rectitude lives in penury, his bad

reputation spreads beyond the region, enters an assembly of men shyly and

confused, meets a painful death and suffers in hell after death.

This, and other similar passages in the Pali Canon, have led many western scholars

to conclude that Buddhist ethics is a form of Utilitarianism6. Thus in his Foreword

to Horner’s (1950) essay The Basic Position of Sila, G .P. Malalasekera suggests

that “ Buddhism has never regarded Sila as an end in itself but only as a means to

an end”, while Horner(1950 :25) herself speaks of moral conduct as “ no more than

the beginning , the A.B.C. of the process of development which culminates in the

Highest”. The “Highest” is, of course, Nibbana , the summumon bonum7 of

5 As quoted in Prasad ( 2007 : 197)6 Utilitarianism is the doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its

contribution to the overall utility ( which would include such things as physical, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures) of the individual or society as a whole.

7 Latin , meaning the highest good--- which of course have different connotations in different religious systems.

3

Buddhism8. At the same time many of these scholars interpret the Parable of the

Raft (Majjhama-nikaya.i.134f)9 to mean that ethical considerations are ultimately to

be transcended. Morality is to be left behind and the arahat is beyond good and

evil.

However, Keown ( 2001) in his book, The Nature of Buddhist Ethics ,argues

eloquently ( and , in my view, convincingly) that morality( sila) is an integral part

of the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, the ultimate goal is not just

intellectual excellence (panna), but also moral perfection (sila). The two go hand

and hand, and one would be deficient without the other. Keown ( 2001:38-39)

quotes a passage from the Discourse to Sonadanda ( Digha-nikaya ,1 . 123. ) which

reads ;

Where there is virtue , there is understanding, and where there is

understanding, there is virtue. Those who have virtue possess

understanding and those who have understanding possess virtue.

In this connection, it would also be illuminating to hear what Walpoa Rahula , a

monk of the Theravada tradition but also well-versed in the doctrines of Mahayana

Buddhism, has to say on this subject . He thinks that ethical conduct (sila) is based

on love and compassion and that :

according to Buddhism, for man to be perfect, there are two qualities that she

should develop equally : compassion ( karuna) on one side, and wisdom( panna)

on the other. Here compassion represents love, charity, kindness, tolerance and

such noble qualities on the emotional side, or qualities of the heart, while

wisdom would stand for the intellectual side or the qualities of the mind. If one

develops only the emotional neglecting the intellectual, one may become a good-

8 At least for some schools of Buddhism , like Theravada.9 In this parable , the Buddha warns his followers not to grasp on to his teachings just as someone

who has just crossed a river on a raft should not carry the raft on his shoulder for the onward journey after the crossing.

4

hearted fool; while to develop only the intellectual side neglecting the emotional

may turn one into a hard-hearted intellect without feeling for others . Therefore,

to be perfect one has to develop both equally. ( Rahula, 1978 : 46).

This view of the nature of ethics of Buddhism can be compared to that of ancient

Greek philosophers’. As Shundo Tachibana puts it: “Socrates …..taught the oneness

of knowledge and virtue . One seeks for knowledge…. not on its own account, but

that it may be put into practice. There is no break between knowing and doing; wise

men are always good men”. ( Tacchibana, 1926:1). One hundred years later in

Greece, Aristotle also advocates that “only the wise are virtuous and only the

virtuous are wise” ( Kenny, 1979: 80). However, it must be noted that, in contrast to

Buddhism, the Greek philosophers all believe in a divine entity as the giver of

moral doctrines and who sits in judgment as to what is good and bad. Buddhism

denies the existence of such an entity, and instead, rationalizes the value of morality

with the doctrine of Karma and Rebirth as a regulating principle.

Karma in Indic thoughts

In early Brahmanism, the term karma simply had the meaning of “ritual action”. In

this period of Brahmanism(pre-Buddhist and pre-Upanisadic), ritual sacrifices to

please the gods for worldly gains were very important to the faithful followers.

Karma at this time was neither ethical nor related to rebirth. As time went by, with

the appearance of Upanisadic literature10 , Indic religious thinkers began to ethicize

the value of karma and linked it to the concept of rebirth. Historian A.L. Basham11

points out that karma is conspicuous by its absence in the Vedas and that only brief

10 Hinduism’s sacred literature is known as Vedic literature. It is internally stratified into three strata: the four Sambita texts, the Brahmans; and the Upanisads. Upanisads are also known as the Vedanta(the conclusions of the Veda). Historians generally believe that the texts of Upanisads began to appear in the late Vedic period, i.e. circa 1000 to circa 500 BCE which would overlap with the time of the Buddha in India.

11 As Quoted in Obeyesekere, 2006 : 2

5

references are found in the early Upanishads. The first shift in the Vedic idea of

karma as “ritual action” to that of ethical action in relation to rebirth appeared in the

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (3.212-13) which reads “A man turns into something

good by good action and into something bad by bad action”

This obviously links karma to its ethical consequences and good karma includes

virtues like kindness and truthfulness. The idea that bad karma(action) could be

neutralized by other ritual acts like washing is also introduced. It has been pointed

out that the ethicization of karma was a result of the influence of non-Vedic

religious traditions, which might be pre-Buddhist, in ancient India (Obeyesekere,

2006 : 85), i.e. it may even be possible that the Buddhist idea of karma may have

been a development out of these traditions. Nevertheless, it must be noted that

within the Upanisadic theory of karma, there exists a self (atman) which is the

“doer”(kartr) as well as the : enjoyer(bhoktr) of the consequences

( Kalupahana,1976 : 46). This is quite different from the Buddhist concept of karma

as we shall see below.

Karma in Buddhism

It can be said that the Buddha’s doctrine of karma is fundamental to the whole

structure of his thoughts12. Buddha himself has defined karma in the Pali Canon,

Anguttara Nikaya(III, 415)13 in this way : “Monks, it is intention that I call karma.

By intending one performs karma through body, word or thought”. As such, the

Buddha gives karma a strong psychological element--- the thought behind any act

being more important than the act itself. In other words, it is the thought that

counts. Not only physical actions, but also what goes through one’s mind even

12 As Lamotte( 1935) puts it : “the doctrine of the act, karma, is the keystone of the entire Buddhist edifice; the act is the ultimate explanation of existences and of the world; the Buddhist philosophies as a function of karma”

13 All references to Pali texts are to the editions of the Pali Text Society, unless otherwise stated.

6

without any physical action, will have karmic consequences. This is in stark

contrast to the early Brahmanical concept of karma as “ritual action”14.

There are other characteristics of the Buddhist karmic theory which makes it unique

in relation to other religious thoughts:

1. Karma is the natural law that governs the universe. It is more like a concept

without physical form. It has been described as an energy force, an existing

universal law which has no religious label, ( Dhammananda, 1993 : 95)

2 There is no ‘giver’ ( ie. a higher God) of the karmic theory . It has been, is and

will be there in our universe all the time. The Buddha just discovered it and

propagated it.

3 Not everything is due to karma , there are other forces in the universe which can

result, for example, in the inequality of mankind ( Narada, 1995 :106)

4 The final end result of one’s karma depends on the circumstances. Thus,

pouring a glass of water into the Ganges River will have less effect than putting

the same glass into a bucket of water.

5 Life is a constant changing flux. One accumulates fresh karma with every

changing moment and as such, previous karmas are constantly being affected

and modified15 .

6 Following the central theory of Dependent Origination( paticcasamuppada) in

Buddhism and the observation that everything in this universe is impermanent

and changing all the time, so it follows that there can be no permanent

individual “self”(atman) to “enjoy” the consequences of one’s karma in “the

next life”. However, one’s action in this life may still influence one, and

14 As Gombrich ( 2002:51) puts it “ the Buddha’s re-definition of ‘action’ as ‘intention’, an audacious use of language, turned the Brahmin ideology upside down and ethicized the universe. I do not see how one could exaggerate the importance of (this)…… which I regard as a turning point in the history of civilization.

15 Thus, the Buddhist theory of karma is not a deterministic or pessimistic one. One can certainly cultivate “positive” karmic forces in one’s existence through moral discipline and purification of the mind.

7

others’, when one “re-becomes” another individual in the next life. This is the

important doctrine of No-self( Anatta) which is generally accepted by all

schools of Buddhism.

Rebirth in Buddhism

It can be seen from the above that the Buddhist rebirth eschatology is not really the

same as that in other religious systems where the concept is for the dead person to

come back into this world whether as a human or other life forms16. In these

systems, rebirth signifies an uninterrupted continuity of the entire personality from

the previous life ( Kalupahana, 1995 :105) The fact that the new person will not

remember his/her past lives are often conveniently explained by various myths17 of

spirits consuming drinks which make them forget the past just prior to re-

incarnation.. The Buddha, however, will have nothing of this and, instead, proposes

the doctrine of Dependent Origination(Paticcasamuppada) and No-self( Annata) to

explain Karmic Rebirth. As Winston King( 1994) puts it beautifully : “ every

presently existing being is but one link in a chain of continuing existences in

various forms from a beginningless eternity in the past on into an endless future

eternity”. Lives in this universe are continuously appearing and disappearing, and

everything is linked inextricably to one another.

However, it must be noted that Buddhist scriptures contain just too many

description of the various aspects of rebirth which may be seen as contradictory to

16 Eschatology comes from the Greek word “eschatos” which means “ last” and “logy” meaning “study of”. Eschatology thus refer to “ the study of the ultimate destiny of mankind”. As Obeyesekere( 2006) points out in his book , it is possible to have a rebirth eschatology without any karma or ethicized karma. Thus, primitive tribes in the West Africa and the Northwest Coast AmeriIndians do have rebirth eschatologies without linking them to karma at all------rebirth is just something that happens. In more advanced civilization like the post-socrates philosophers and also Brahmanism, rebirth is linked to ones deed/action in the past , ie. karma.

17 The most well know of such myths is of Plato’s Myth of Er where Er , a soldier returning from the dead failed to take the drink which supposedly would make spirits forget their past lives.

8

this concept of No-self. Thus, the Itivutakka ( 2. 31) of the Pali Canon contains this

unequivocal description of the value of moral life in leading to rebirth in heaven :

Having abandoned bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, misconduct

of the mind, and whatever else counts as false, not having done what is

not skillful. Having done much that is , at the break-up of the body ,

the discerning one reappears in heaven.

Indeed, Theravada literature is full of reference to the idea of heaven and hell and

the benefit of practising the Path to have a good rebirth and avoid a bad one18.

Mahayana literature is no exception. Chapter 22 (p262) of the

Saddharmapundarika( Lotus) Sutra states that anyone who promulgates the sutra,

even a little, will receive a favourable rebirth and be strikingly handsome. And in

Pureland Buddhism, rebirth in Sukhavati, the Pureland of Amitabha, can be

achieved just by diligent recitation of Amitabha’s name. It is, therefore, no wonder

that most people in Sri Lanka, monks included, devote themselves to acts of merit,

the aim of which is a good rebirth in heaven or on earth (Gombrich , 1971 : 322),

while in Burma, the most common reasons for keeping the precepts is fear of hell

and that the precepts were ordained by the Buddha ( Spiro, 1971 :449).

It can safely be said that most lay followers of Buddhism, and many monks

included, may in reality harbour a view of rebirth which does not reflect a real

understanding of the Buddhist doctrines of No-self and Dependent Origination. It

does not help when Nagasena 19was questioned about the nature of rebirth by King

Milinda, his answer was : “ [when someone is reborn] , he is neither the same nor

18 For details please see Bhikkhu Bodhi( 2005) Chapter V--- the Way to a Fortunate Rebirth. 19 Nagasena was supposedly a Buddhist sage who lived about 150 BCE. His answers to the questions

posed to him by Kind Milinda, the Indo-Greek King of northwesteren India was recorded in the Milinapanha ( Questions of King Milinda). It is quite possible that Nagasena and King Milinda are both fictional characters and the Milinphanha was just composed by monks in the 1st century BCE to try to explain the various aspects of the Buddha’s teaching.

9

different”. Such an answer only makes lay followers more confused about the

nature of karmic rebirth. .

However, one cannot really blame the lay Buddhist followers ( or even monks) for

having a misdirected notion of karmic rebirth. Rebirth without a self is, in reality ,

counter-intuitive and really hard to imagine for most people. As Prasad( 2007 : 253)

points out “ the Buddhist doctrine of karma [and rebirth] as an ethical theory is

radical, complex, incomprehensible, and inexplicable in the absence of soul and the

supervising God”. At the same time, it is really hard for modern (particularly

Western) scholars in Buddhism to accept karmic rebirth as a reasonable basis for

justification of the moral life. The idea of karmic rebirth is often relegated to the

position of an “ancient India philosophical relic let alone by the

Buddha”( Kalupahana, 1995 :103) or as “a piece of cultural baggage that the

Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age ( Bhikkhu Bodhi,

2001)20. Thus Winston King( 1994) argues that emphasis on karmic rebirth is

unnecessary for the understanding and practice of the Buddha’s teaching. He even

boldly declares that “both Buddhism and Buddhist ethics may be better off without

karmic rebirth”.

The Buddha’s wager

The Buddha was not unaware that unless a person had developed the higher form of

knowledge such as retrocognition or clairvoyance, it would not be easy to convince

him of the validity of the doctrines of karmic rebirth as it was understood in the

way explained above. Hence, the threats of a hellish rebirth or reward of a heavenly

rebirth could not be used as strong arguments to convince ordinary people of the

20 It is only fair in passing to mention that in this article entitled “ Does Rebirth Make sense”, Bikkhu Bodhi argues that , although it is not possible to empirically prove the existence of karmic rebirth, it makes sense to believe in it because only then would the universe with its moral order make sense.

10

need to follow a moral life. In Buddhism, there is no omnipotent God to regulate

morality and commandments for people to follow. The Buddha merely points the

way for a Path for people to follow in order to attain liberation. So, in order to

convince his followers, the Buddha’s strategy is to utilize the doctrine of karmic

rebirth as a wager21 ( Kalupahana,1995:106).

The Buddha’s wager differs somewhat from the famous Pascal’s wager22 to the

atheist about believing in God. While recognizing rebirth (better termed “re-

becoming) as an indisputable fact-----though not in a manner as is generally

understood by ordinary people without “higher knowledge”------ the Buddha is not

ready to wager on this alone. In a passage in the Majjhima-nikaya( 1.403), while

referring to a person who does evil and does not believe in retribution in an

afterlife, the Buddha says :

If there were to be a world beyond, then this person will face

calamity in both ways: the contempt of the intelligent ones in this

life and , after death, rebirth in purgatory, evil bourn, fallen state”

Thus the Buddha also emphasizes the benefits of a moral life in this very life

without worrying about whether there is an after life after all :

“A noble disciple…..endowed with blameless conduct of body, speech

and mind……….experiences happiness and joy “ (Anguttara-nikaya 4:62)

Elsewhere in Majjhima-nikaya( 3 : 1) the Buddha compares the rarity of human life

in the cycle of rebirths by comparing it to the chance of success on the part of a sea

turtle, blind in one eye, to get its head through the hole of a single-hole yoke

floating back and forth on the surface of the ocean, in order to get a glimpse of the

21 A “wager is some kind of bet or challenge.22 The most famous religious wager is the one by Blasise Pascal( 1623-1662) . He challenges the

atheist to believe in God because if there is ultimately no God, they have nothing to lose . But if there is indeed a God , the benefit is infinite. Finally , one stands to lose everything if there is indeed a God and if one does not believe in Him.

11

open sky. Human life is a precious opportunity, not to be wasted away and one

should not let a moment pass by without achieving what can be achieved.

In any event, it is generally agreed that moral behaviour brings peace and

contentment in a person which is, by any standard, the definition of happiness. As

such, there is really no need for any more justification for leading a moral life from

the social and personal point of view.

Conclusion

The Buddha has no doubt that a moral life is a pre-requisite for attaining the highest

goal in life. At the same time, the state of liberation is also a state with moral

perfection. Thus, from a philosophical point of view as well, there is really no need

for any other further justification for one to follow the moral life. The Buddha,

however, is all too aware of the difference in the abilities in his followers to

understand his message fully. Thus in Buddhist literature, there are repeated

messages about the various benefits (present and future) of a moral life with karmic

rebirth being the most prominent reward. While karmic rebirth does not really

happen in the way most people think it does, the fulfillment and joy that one can

gain by leading a moral life just in this life is already well worth the effort. As the

Buddha points out: “…. that within this fathom-long body associated with

consciousness and mind is the world, its arising, its cessation, and the path leading

to its cessation….”( Majjhama-nikaya 1 : 82)

-------END--------

References

12

Bhikkhu Bodhi ( 2001) , Does Rebirth Make Sense? Newsletter cover essay No 46 and 47 , , Buddhist Publication Society. (available on Access to Insight website)

Bhikkhu Bodhi(2005) in In the Buddha’s Words---- an Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, published by Wisdom Publications, Boston.

Dhammanada, K S (1993), in What Buddhists Believe, pubished by the Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation , Taiwan.

Gombrich , R F ( 1971) Precept and Practice—Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands of Ceylon , Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gombrich, R F (2002) in How Buddhism Began—The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, 2nd edition, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.Ltd, India.

Harvey, Peter ( 2000), in An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics , Cambridge University Press.

Horner, I B ( 1950) The Basic Position of Sila , Colombo : Baudda Sahitya Sabha

Kalupahana D J ( 1995) Ethics in Early Buddhism , University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Kenny, A ( 1979) Aristotle’s Theory of the Will, London: Duckworth.

Keown, Damien ( 2001) in The Nature of Buddhist Ethics , Palgrave, New York.

King , Winston (1994) A Buddhist Ethic without Karmic Rebirth? , Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 1 , 1994

Lamotte, L (1935) as quoted by Gombrich, R F (2002) in How Buddhism Began—The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.Ltd, India, 2nd edition (2002) page 49.

Narada, Mahathera( 1992), A Manual of Buddhism, Publication of the Buddhism Missionare Society Malaysia.

13

Obeyesekere, G ( 2006) in Karma and Rebirth--- a Cross Cultural Study, published by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd, Delhi.

Prasad, Hari Shankar( 2007), The Centrality of Ethics in Buddhism, Exploratory Essays, Motila Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd, Delhi

Rahula, Walpoa ( 1978) , What the Buddha Taught . Paperback edition, The Gordon Fraser Gallery Ltd, London and Bedford.

Smith, Huston ( 1991) , The World’s Religions , Our Great Wisdom Traditions,Harper San Francisco, U S A .

Spiro, M E ( 1982) Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes , 2nd expanded edt , Berkeley, University of California Press.

Tachibana, S ( 1926) in The Ethics of Buddhism Clarendon Press ( University of Oxford)

The Holy Bible, New International Version published by the International Bible Society, Hymnody and Bible House, U S A

Wijesekera, O ( 1971) ‘ Buddist Ethics’ in Nanaponika ( ed) Pathways of Buddhist Thought (London: Bedford College Inaugural Lecture)

14