The Buddhist Conceptions of Subject and Object and Their Moral Implications - Report Example

Buddhas teachings remain perpetually relevant throughout the changing times even unto this postmodernera. In the entire human history, they have shaped the perspectives of the religionists as well as the philosophers. Buddha’s message has not been a mere pass-time but it has always had a message categorical of the truth and knowledge, which have been very cardinal of his numerous discourses. He is known to have disseminated certain core truths about the philosophical subjects as well as religious. His aim was to awaken others and draw them to his point of view. He maintains that the fundamental human truths do not change despite the varying schools of thought and the changing times. In his many discourses, he sometimes took very unsuspecting stances concerning certain subjects. Such times are, I may say, critical because the subjects such as the existence or none-existence of God and the topics of subjectivity and objectivity drew debates so much that as the Awakened one, he could not ignore, but give opinion to. This paper takes the role to explore these subjects and the reasoning he gave in support of his position. Introduction The tragic-comic debate is certainly a very interesting but hot debate. It is a purely philosophical debate rather than a religious one. It is a debate about God’s existence. Such are the topics that Buddha gave a cold shoulder on. This is contrary to the common belief that well-informed personalities should give themselves into creating and facilitating in discourses of like manner. However, Buddha remarked that after so much wavering and faltering between the existence of God and His non-existence, he found out that avoiding being a contributor of the tragic-comic debate could put him on a firmer ground for apparently, he was agnostic about God’s existence. Therefore, as Guardian.co.uk records, Buddha chose to be noncommittal in the issue, which was obviously thorny. He considers the prime meaning of knowledge to be for the dispelling of suffering. Therefore, dwelling on a subject that does little to eliminate suffering is, according to Buddha, futile and not profitable at all. Kalupahana observes that this all important debate is merely a form of entertainment. This is because those who discredit the argument concerning God’s inexistence and the proponents of God’s existence argue out a concept, which puts them at par. In effect, the more one party contends, the more it makes the other party’s argument valid. Buddha gives reason that the topics such as the existence of God and the origin of the universe are a non-theist approach, almost agnostic in its interpretation. Non-theist approach is actually an inquiry based on intellectuality and philosophy. Non-theist perspective dismisses every concept to give room for a more advanced insight into the matter. This gives birth to Buddha’s common non-conceptual awareness. This, he says, creates a vacuum in the mind that opens to an ordinary experience. Therefore, the complexity of the existence of God justifies the non-conceptual awareness of the things that possess, accordingly, the ‘isness‘ and ‘suchness’. This is definitely philosophical (Kalupahana, para4). The refusal of Buddha to declare a stand on this issue has its buttressess on the serious stand-points of Buddhism. Buddhism is not a system which is based on an organized mode of worship and it does not adhere to the divine demands of whatever deity. In particular, there is no supernatural being to reverence. Like in known religions of the world, Buddhism does not acknowledge the notion of an almighty being that controls the destinies of men. Nevertheless, man has the ability to decide on his own fate on Earth, to decide to continue suffering or salvage himself/herself from whatever situation and is completely under no religious obligation to recognize any potentate for divine intervention. Therefore, by extension, in Buddhism there are no revelations from some almighty or any form of being to purport to be a messenger of such deity (Thera, para13). Thera further refutes that Buddha, because he does not reverence to any cosmic force, he is that deity himself. In fact, he cautions that those who look unto him as such are completely out of context and their actions are not Buddhist. Rather, he says he is a teacher who only gives direction and each person has a direct responsibility to decide on his own destiny based on true knowledge and not faith on anything. Accepting anything by mere tradition, hearsay, rumors, suppositions, inference or because it agrees with what you previously knew, or it goes in tandem with the scriptures, is utterly misleading. On standpoint, Buddha does not consider the tragic-comic debate a very necessary one. On the contrary, he apportions more time on issues pertaining to morality, wisdom and happiness. He cautions the Buddhist adherents against indulging in things that are immoral, blameworthy and things that provoke sorrow. Buddha justifies his agnosticism and his position concerning the existence or non-existence of God. He chooses to be reserved and maintains that the utmost duty of man is to make every endeavor to be happy and self-fulfilled by use of the already acquired knowledge, true knowledge rather, but not to dwell on irrelevant topics like faith on a deity. Faith cannot match knowledge, for knowledge gives birth to understanding, which helps us to better ourselves by making informed decisions on how we live (Robinson, para9). The other equally important subject that went into the nerves of Buddha, according to Kalupahana, was the conception of subjectivity and oobjectivity. It emerges that the two concepts revolve around one another and they seem to depend on one another. In his bid to balance the two, Buddha seems to fall on objectivity as a more supreme of the two concepts. But to take assumptively that approach can apply in every situation will be a falacy that lacks antidote and will lead only to undue conclusions. He relies on truth, knowledge and reality. Kalupahana argues that putting confidence in objective reality is a mistake. Objectivity only hides behind the facade of reality. One’s personal perspective called self can be the best custodian of truth. The concept of subject and object as it relates to self and its environment is purely philosophical. Buddha argues rather radically concerning the concept of subjectivity in relation to objectivity. He says that there is no such status as independent self. This is because, taking into consideration the factors surrounding our experience and having them objectified, the idea of subjectivity becomes null. Although Subjectivity and objectivity are not permanent in terms of status, Buddha realizes that they are dependent of each other. He calls this mutual dependence. Subjectivity seems to be greatly dependent on objectivity for objectivity appears to have a more permanent status of the two. This is mutual dependability and objectivity dictates this dependability. It is the conceiver of this dependability. In his teachings, Buddha ascribes to the thought that subject is different from one’s self. Like the concept of the existence of God, Buddha warns that this concept is difficult to see and difficult to understand. However, he says that his lessons are only understandable to those who apportion more time to studying them. He further says that we do not need to have intellectual prowess to understand this concept, which is well understood under the nature of reality. This can only be attained if we know and see the truth (Hamilton, p128). Conclusion To sum up, Buddha had a mission to set up a pathway to spiritual excellence, to full enlightenment and emancipation from suffering. He did this by being a proponent of a teaching that recognized the human capacity for reaching spiritual perfection and which in addition attested to the respect for human intelligence and self-sufficiency. That is why he maintained that a man’s sole effort has the ability to save him from suffering and that there is no deity worthy of worship, reverence and adoration. He approached these subjects from the perspective of a philosopher rather than a religionist, throwing everything to criticism and further investigation. The cardinal points in these subjects are that there is no cosmic potentate to whom human beings should revere and who can address the human problem. Rather, he laid more stress on personal effort and moral integrity and individual responsibility in solving matters pertaining to human problem saying that human beings can attain the highest enlightenment should they make personal effort. Works Cited Guardian.co.uk (2009). The magic of ordinary experience. Retrieved 28th May, 2010, from http://www. guardian.co.uk /commentisfree/2009/jan/03/buddhism atheism Hamilton, S. (2000).Early Buddhism: a new approach: the I of the beholder. New York: Rutledge. Kalupahana, D. J. (1988).The Buddhist Conceptions of "Subject" and "Object" and Their Moral Implications. Retrieved 9th April, 2010, from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L2CZKWTKXhFbXB89QTJTmjB2yGkNpGVHLTTj2hSR3rhcZgvdSZ5k!-1340094148!1748356985?docId=95263983 Robinson, B.A. (2009). Buddhism: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? Retrieved 28th May, 2010 from, http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm Thera,N.( 2006). Buddhism in a nutshell. Retrieved 28th May, 2010, from http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm Read More