Did the Buddha advocate morals and ethics?
It may come as a surprise to some, but the early discourses of the Buddha (as represented in the Khandhaka) do not involve any discussion of moral principles or ethical frameworks.
Of course, many people assume the Buddha taught about virtue, morality, and ethics. After all, don’t all religious teachers do that?
The Buddha was not necessarily a religious teacher. Yes, he did talk about generosity (dānakathaṃ), ethical behaviour (sīlakathaṃ), heaven (saggakathaṃ) to early converts such as Yasa in Pabbajjākathā (The Account of the Going Forth), but nowhere in the early discourses are such talks elaborated. One suspects the Buddha started by talking about generosity, ethical behaviour and heaven because he thought potential converts expected him as a wandering renunciant (samaṇa) to give such talks. He quickly steered the conversation to the four realisations. Crucially, the potential convert’s gaining of dhammacakkhu - insight into the dhamma (“phenomenal nature of experience”) - only comes after the exposition of the four realisations, thus emphasising that the Buddha’s teachings weren’t really about generosity, ethical behaviour or heaven.
The root cause of dukkha is ignorance, not bad or unethical behaviour., or even “evil” thoughts. In this, the Buddha is clearly very different from religious practitioners. Dependent origination does not prescribe a set of rituals or exemplary behaviours, or even attitudes. Indeed, it prescribes the opposite - the cessation of non optimal thoughts, behaviours and activities that inevitably lead to dukkha.
Although the Buddha has not spelled out what these non-optimal thoughts or behaviours might be, it is clear that after extensive analysis and reflection, he no longer had any kaṅkhā (doubts) about what they were and also the efficacy of the cessation process in eliminating dukkha.
In other words, any mental construction that may result in dukkha is a non-optimal construction and should not be generated. It would be tempting to regard these non-optimal mental constructions from a moral perspective. “Bad” thoughts lead to “bad” consequences. But who gets to define what is “bad” and what is “good”?
Obviously, these sub-optimal mental constructions would differ from individual to individual, hence the Buddha did not articulate what they were. Therefore there can be no universal moral principles or ethical frameworks that would apply to everyone. This is consistent with the Buddha’s phenomenological framework - clearly this framework instantiates uniquely for each individual and therefore what is considered optimal or non-optimal is also unique to that individual. However, this did not stop later generations of Buddhists from inventing a set of moral principles, or “precepts”, or even spending time classifying what is “good” and what is “bad.” However, as can be noticed from this narrative, these principles and classifications were not established nor articulated in the Buddha’s awakening process.
āsava (non optimal mental “flows”)
Section titled “āsava (non optimal mental “flows”)”Some of the suttas augment the Buddha’s early teachings by referring to a concept called āsava. This concept is often linked to negative or non-ethical behaviours, and the “destruction” of the āsavā is sometimes cited as a requirement before liberation. I suspect these suttas are later additions trying to link the Buddha’s teachings to virtuous or moral conduct.
āsava is quite difficult to translate. Norman in A Philological Approach To Buddhism1 notes:
One such word is āsava, for the Buddhist usage does not fit the etymology of the word, while the Jain usage does. The etymology of this word (the preposition ā “towards” + the root sru- “to flow”) implies something flowing in, and this suits the Jain usage well, since there the āsavas are influences which flow into a person, and discolour his soul. We find illustrations of this in Jain manuscripts, with people ranging from white, through yellow, red, blue and green to black, depending on the amount of āsavas which has flowed into them. This does not suit the Buddhist idea, where the āsavas are not attributes which are capable of flowing into a person. They are, in fact, identical with the four oghas “floods”, and it seems clear that in Buddhism the word has lost its original meaning. So, although the translation “influence” or “influx” suits the Jain usage well, on etymological and exegetical grounds, it is not entirely satisfactory for Buddhism. This accounts for the number of translations which have been suggested for the word, including “passions”, “intoxicants”, “cravings” and “cankers”. The latter to me is a disease of dogs’ ears and of roses, and I am always surprised when I find the arahat, the one whose āsavas have been destroyed (khināsava), being described as “canker-waned”.
Within the context of dependent origination, āsava represents non-optimal mental “flows”, or established patterns of thought and behaviours that will inevitably lead to dukkha.
It is important to understand that āsava does not necessarily refer to “bad” or “non-ethical” thoughts, as dependent origination is not necessarily an ethical framework. Perhaps the closest analogy is “bad habits or tendencies” rather than “evil thoughts”. We encounter dukkha because past events and phenomenological experiences have led us to dissatisfaction and pain, so over time similar events and experiences (“inflows”) trigger established patterns of thought leading to similar mental constructions, perceptions, feelings and ultimately consciousness.
The key to ceasing or avoiding dukkha is to break these established ways of thinking and habits. Anyone who has tried to break a bad habit, such as smoking, or tried to lose weight knows how difficult this can be. Although the concept is easy to understand (“Just Stop Doing It”) many people realise it requires a lifetime of commitment and constant vigilance.
In the same way, the Buddha’s path to soteriology requires a lifetime commitment and constant vigilance, to guard against the the occurrence or re-occurence of these non-optimal flows.
brahmacariya (the disciplined, or optimal conduct or state of life)
Section titled “brahmacariya (the disciplined, or optimal conduct or state of life)”Some of the suttas also mention brahmacariya which has also been linked to virtuous or moral conduct, through adherence to the code of conduct (vinaya) of the community (saṅgha).
Strictly speaking, brahmacariya is a Vedic reference to leading a virtuous life that is aligned with Brahmā (the Supreme Creator) but the Buddha has skillfully redefined this to living an optimal life in accordance with his soteriology. Some translate this as meaning “leading a holy life” or “following a spiritual path” but I prefer not to associate the Buddha’s teachings with a spiritual or religious goal.
brahmacariya in the context of the Buddha’s teaching refers to the disciplined way of living, or optimal conduct or state of existence, in order to eliminate āsava, or non optimal mental flows that lead to non-optimal mental constructions and eventually dukkha. This is a lifetime commitment and “practice”. Later on in 6. Pañcavaggiyakathā (The Account of the Group of Five) the Buddha prescribes the Eightfold Path, a guide to this practice and establishes the saṅgha, a community of like-minded “practitioners” who will support each other in living the optimal life.
Norman1 writes:
In its basic brahmanical sense brahma-carya means “the practice of a brāhmana”, i.e. the living of a celibate life, learning the Vedas. The Buddha used the phrase in the more general sense of “to live the best life, i.e. a holy, celibate (or in the case of married couples, a chaste and moral) life”. In the Upaniṣads brahma-patha means “the way to brahman or Brahmā”. The Buddha used it in the sense of the way to the best, i.e. nibbāna, and it is explained as being the same as brahmavihāra.
It is possible that brahma-vihāra was in origin a brahmanical term. It would literally mean “dwelling in brahman or with Brahmā”, although it is not attested in that usage in Sanskrit. It perhaps shows a trace of its original meaning in a sutta in which the Buddha speaks to young brahmans who were disputing the correct way to obtain brahma-sahavyatā. In the context this would seem to mean “union with brahman”, but the Buddha, perhaps jokingly, interprets it as meaning a state of union with the god Brahmā. He explains that someone who practises the four types of concentration called brahma-vihāra is reborn as a Brahmā in the Brahma-world. It is to be noted that this means only being born in the same heaven as Mahā Brahmā, not union with the Upaniṣadic brahman.