Notes on Walpola Rahula,

What the Buddha Taught

(1907 - 1997)

The Three Jewels of Buddhism

Buddha = a title not a personal name (Awakened

One) especially Siddhartha Gautama (born c. 563 BCE
in Lumbini, modern Nepal; died c. 483 BCE [or 411400 BCE] in Kushinagar, modern Uttar Pradesh, India)
Dharma = teaching about the way things are (from
linguistic root dhr = to fasten, support, or hold)
Sangha = the community of Buddhists, especially
monks and nuns
For an excellent overview of the Three Jewels (and
the historical development of Buddhism), watch the
BBC documentary Seven Wonders of the Buddhist World:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQRCGBeXiow&feature=youtu.be

The Buddha as a Teacher

The Buddha was not a computing machine
giving answers to whatever questions were
put to him by anyone at all, without any
consideration. He was a practical teacher,
full of compassion and wisdom. He did not
answer questions to show his knowledge and
intelligence, but to help the questioner on
the way to realization. He always spoke to
people bearing in mind their standard of
development, their tendencies, their mental
make-up, their character, their capacity to
understand a particular question (Rahula,
p. 63).

Buddhist Ontology:
The Three Signs/Marks of
Existence

Anitya/Anicca = impermanence
Anatman/Anatta = not-self
Dukkha = suffering, unsatisfactoriness,
anxiety, distress

The Four Noble Truths

Dukkha (= suffering, unsatisfactoriness,

distress)
The Cause of Dukkha (= thirst, craving,
attachment, excessive desire; forms of
greed, hatred, and delusion)
The Cessation of Dukkha (= Nirvana/Nibbana,
blowing out of excessive desire)
The Way leading to the Cessation of Dukkha
(= The Noble Eightfold Path)

The Noble Eightfold Path

Wisdom

Virtue

Right Understanding
Right Thought

Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood

Meditation

Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

Four Sublime States (or Supreme

Virtues)

Unlimited, Universal Love and Good Will (or

Lovingkindness) = seeking the well-being of
others
Compassion = feeling the suffering of others
Sympathetic Joy = sharing in the happiness
of others
Equanimity (or Impartiality) = maintaining a
calm, steady mind and avoiding extremes
(e.g., of expressing too much or too little
of the previous three virtues)

The Buddhas Theory of Antta

(No Soul or Not-Self)

According to the Buddha, every human being is

composed of physical and non-physical
components that can be categorized as
belonging to one of the following five
categories or aggregates:
Matter
Sensations
Perceptions
Mental Formations/Volitions
Consciousness

The Buddhas Argument for No Permanent

Self

1. If any of the five aggregates (matter,

sensations, perceptions, mental formations, or
consciousness) were (an aspect of) a permanent
self, then it could be controlled, and so it
would not lead to suffering.
2. But none of these aggregates can be controlled,
and so each of them does lead to suffering.
3. Therefore, none of the five aggregates is (an
aspect of) a permanent self.
4. But every individual human being is comprised of
nothing but a combination of these five
aggregates.
5. Therefore, no individual human being has a
permanent self.

Some Objections to Buddhism

Nirvana is self-contradictory (one cannot desire
to overcome desire).
Nirvana is unattainable (some forms of dukkha
cannot be overcome).
Nirvana is not desirable (some forms of dukkha
are good; focus on the present moment
undermines the possibility of individual or
collective transformation).
Backsliding from nirvana is possible (through
moral weakness).
Buddhism ignores collective nirvana (an
enlightened individual might still ignore the
dukkha of others).
Buddhism is impractical (the institutional
obstacles to nirvana are too great) .

The Buddhas Social Thought

Those who think that Buddhism is interested only in
lofty ideals, high moral and philosophical thought, and
that it ignores the social and economic welfare of
people, are wrong.
The Buddha was interested in the
happiness of men.
To him happiness was not possible
without leading a pure life based on moral and spiritual
principles.
But he knew that leading such a life was
hard in unfavourable material and social conditions.
Buddhism does not consider material welfare as an end in
itself;
it is only a means to an end--a higher and
nobler end.
But it is a means which is indispensable,
indispensable in achieving a higher purpose for mans
happiness.
So Buddhism recognizes the need of certain
minimum material conditions favourable to spiritual
progress--even that of a monk engaged in meditation in
some solitary place (Rahula, p. 81).

The Buddha on War and Peace

It is too well known to be repeated here that
Buddhism advocates and preaches non-violence and
peace as its universal message, and does not
approve of any kind of violence or destruction
of life. According to Buddhism there is nothing
that can be called a just war--which is only a
false term coined and put into circulation to
justify and excuse hatred, cruelty, violence and
massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust?
The mighty and the victorious are just, and
the weak and the defeated are unjust. Our war
is always just, and your war is always
unjust.
Buddhism does not accept this
position (Rahula, p. 84).

Rahulas Response to the Objection

that Buddhism is Impractical
There can be no peace or happiness for man as long as he desires and thirsts
after conquering and subjugating his neighbour. As the Buddha says, The victor
breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery.
He who renounces both
victory and defeat is happy and peaceful. The only conquest that brings peace
and happiness is self-conquest. One may conquer billions in battle, but he who
conquers himself, only one, is the greatest of conquerors.
You will say this is all very beautiful, noble and sublime, but impractical. Is
it practical to hate one another? To kill on another? To live in eternal fear
and suspicion like wild animals in a jungle?
Is this more practical and
comfortable?
Was hatred ever appeased by hatred?
Was evil ever won over by
evil?
But there are examples, at least in individual cases, where hatred is
appeased by love and kindness, and evil won over by goodness. You will say that
this may be true, practicable in individual cases, but that it never works in
national and international affairs.
People are hypnotized, psychologically
puzzled, blinded and deceived by the political and propaganda usage of such
terms as national, international, or state. What is a nation but a vast
conglomeration of individuals?
A nation or a state does not act, it is the
individual who acts. What the individual thinks and does is what the nation or
the state thinks and does. What is applicable to the individual is applicable
to the nation or state. If hatred can be appeased by love and kindness on the
individual scale, surely it can be realized on the national and international
scale too.
Even in the case of a single person, to meet hatred with kindness
one must have tremendous courage, boldness, faith and confidence in moral force.
May it not be even more so with regard to international affairs?
If by the
expression not practical you mean not easy, you are right. Definitely it is
not easy.
Yet it should be tried.
You may say that it is risky trying it.
Surely it cannot be more risky than trying a nuclear war (Rahula, pp. 86-7).

The Buddha on Freedom and

Determinism

According
to
the
Buddhas
concept
of
conditioned genesis (what Thich Nhat Hanh
calls interbeing), nothing exists as a
separate individual;
everything exists in
relation to others, interdependently.
As a result, the Buddhas position on the
problem of free will and determinism would
seem to be that of compatibilism.
(See
Rahula, pp. 54-55.)