PURSUING PUN˜N˜ A IN contemporary sri lanka.pdf

IS MERIT IN THE MILK POWDER?

PURSUING PU ˜ ˜ A IN

CONTEMPORARY SRI LANKA

Jeffrey Samuels

This article examines merit making in contemporary Sri Lankan practice. Exploring

the role of emotions, most generally deﬁned as “happiness in the heart/mind,” in this

important Buddhist activity, this article seeks not only to move beyond a more

mechanical view of merit making as generalized exchange, but also to introduce an

affective quality to the notion of intention (cetan ¯ ). Finally, this article questions the

tendency to judge Buddhist behavior and appearance solely against the norms set

forth in the Buddhist monastic code by investigating how people’s histories,

experiences, and backgrounds shape their own understandings of who constitutes an

ideal monastic.

Merit is a key concept in Buddhism, and making merit plays a vital role in the lives

of many Buddhists. The importance of merit-making in the Buddhist tradition in

general, and the Therav ¯ da tradition in particular, is evident not only in the

plethora of canonical and post-canonical references to this activity, but also in the

host of scholarly works on the topic. In addition to a number of monographs

examining P ¯ li canonical and post-canonical passages that pertain to merit-

making (Egge 2002; Endo 1987; Hibbitts 1999), are several ethnographic works

exploring this important Buddhist activity in contemporary Myanmar (for example,

Spiro 1982), Thailand (for example, Tambiah 1984; Keyes 1983), and Sri Lanka

(Gombrich 1971a, 1971b).

Drawing on passages from P ¯ li canonical and commentarial texts, scholars

have pointed to a number of ways in which merit may be acquired, such as the 10

wholesome actions (dasakusalakamma). 1 At the head of the list of the 10 activities

is giving (d¯na), an activity which, in the words of John Strong (1987, 384; see also

1990), is oftentimes regarded as ‘the Buddhist act of merit par excellence [that]

cements a symbiotic relationship between the sa _ mgha and the laity [and] that has

long been one of the prominent features of Buddhism’. 2 Scholars discussing this

important Buddhist activity have also pointed out that while the primary and

secondary literature suggest all beneﬁcial acts of giving are ‘meritorious’, giving to

Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 9, No. 1, May 2008

ISSN 1463-9947 print/1476-7953 online/08/010123-147

q 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14639940802312741

124 JEFFREY SAMUELS

the monastic community (oftentimes regarded as an unsurpassable ﬁeld of merit

of this world—anuttara pu˜˜akkhetta _ m lokassa—as in the often-recited iti pi so

formula) provides donors with the best opportunity to earn merit. 3

Despite the publication of a number of articles and ethnographies that

have elucidated, in varying degrees, how this central practice is understood

and played out in the everyday lives of Buddhists, students of Buddhism,

according to Ivan Strenski, have tended to see in this key Buddhist practice ‘a crass

calculus of spiritual merits and demerits’ (1983, 474). Rather than penetrating, in

Stenski’s words, the behavior of merit-making Buddhists in order to understand

what Buddhists regard to be a vision of Buddhist culture or what morally makes

a Buddhist civilization, scholars have been inclined to see in the practice ‘a

wonderful pre-capitalistic anticipation of elements of economic ideology’ (Strenski

1983, 474). This more mechanical and perfunctory view of merit-making has

had an effect on several ethnographic works dealing with the topic, works that

have treated meritorious giving in a very disjointed manner. Oftentimes, these

same works—which have primarily focused on the intention of the donor and the

spiritual quality of the recipient—have been inattentive to or have not taken

seriously the role that the emotions play in this important Buddhist activity. 4

In the remainder of this article, I would like to offer a corrective to some of

the ways in which merit-making has been previously conceived. Drawing heavily

on conversations with monastics and lay people associated with three temples

in upcountry Sri Lanka, this article focuses on the role of emotions in this

quintessential Buddhist activity, thus adding a voice to a growing number of voices

(Berkwitz 2001, 2003; Heim 2003; Rotman 2003; Trainor 1997, 2003) that have

recently begun to address the place emotions in South Asian Buddhism. Focusing

speciﬁcally on feelings of happiness or gladness (satuta/sant¯ sa) in the heart/mind

(hit¯)ofdonors, 5 this article presents a much more uniﬁed vision of giving (d¯na)

and merit ( pu˜˜a), thus challenging the crass-calculus models previously advanced.

Although the explicit goal of this article is to provide a more holistic

understanding of merit-making by portraying how monks, lay people, and novices

understand merit during speciﬁc moments and in particular locations, I will also

make methodological claim as well. In offering another way to envision moments

of Buddhist practice, this article revisits a concern that has been made with

regards to the approaches that several scholars have taken in studying the

Therav ¯ da: the tendency to view contemporary Therav ¯ da practice through a

lens narrowly focused on segments of P ¯ li canonical and commentarial texts,

particularly the disposition to judge contemporary Buddhist practice against a

canonically based conception of orthodoxy. This tendency, it has been argued,

implies a deep-seated view that beliefs are primary and that practices or rituals are

derivatives of beliefs. While I do not want to engage in the same debate that

William Robertson Smith (1927) waged over a century ago—whether practices are

the consequence of belief or whether beliefs arise to explain action—I

nonetheless wish to draw attention to the problem inherent in some recent

approaches to the study of South Asian Buddhism; namely, the attempt

PURSUING PU ˜ ˜ A IN CONTEMPORARY SRI LANKA 125

to understand contemporary religious practices through the ﬁlter of belief, which

is oftentimes colored by a particular reading of the P ¯ li canonical and

commentarial texts. In the pages that follow, then, I maintain that such an

approach leads not only to the conclusion that Buddhism on the ground

compares rather unfavorably with the ‘true’ Buddhism of the P¯ li canonical texts, 6

but also, and equally troubling, to a fragmentary presentation of the Therav¯ da as

a lived tradition. Before turning to the voices of my informants and how their

experiences and understandings may call into question the crass-calculus model

of merit-making, it may be helpful to discuss brieﬂy some of the ways in which

giving (d ¯ na) and merit ( pu˜˜a) have been understood and presented.

Conceptions of meritorious giving: compromising the ethic of

intention

One of the most commonly cited and important ethnographic works on Sri

Lankan Therav¯ da has been Richard Gombrich’s Precept and Practice. One of

Gombrich’s concerns in his account of Sinhalese Buddhism is the acute tension

‘between what people say they believe and say they do, and what they really

believe and really do’ (1971b, 4) or between ‘the cognitive and the affective belief

system and value system’ (1971b, 5). Oftentimes, the tensions that Gombrich

perceives in Therav¯ da Buddhist precept and practice are the result of his attempt

to deduce which contemporary practices and beliefs may be deemed ‘orthodox’.

Despite suggesting that he is ‘content to leave the deﬁnition of religion to the

practitioners themselves’ (1971b, 9), Gombrich nonetheless takes an evaluative

stance regarding what does and does not constitute orthodox Buddhism, a stance

that is oftentimes based, in the words of Steven Kemper, on his own knowledge of

the P¯ li canonical and commentarial texts. 7

One expression of Sinhalese Therav¯ da belief and practice where Gombrich

ﬁnds the tension between the cognitive and affective positions particularly strong

is merit-making. Basing his understanding of what meritorious giving should look

like on a select reading of P¯ li canonical and commentarial texts, Gombrich argues

that the basis of making merit should be none other than the donor’s intentions

(cetan¯). He writes:

Ask any monk, and the cognitive position is quite clear: no offering, no ﬂowers,

no recital of verses has any intrinsic merit; it is the thought that counts. The

Buddhist ethic is an ethic of intention; and doctrine is consistent on this point.

(Gombrich 1971b, 117) 8

Although Gombrich makes passing reference to the role that joy ( pr¯ti) plays in

meritorious giving (for example, Gombrich 1971b, 118f.), he nonetheless bases his

understanding of merit and merit-making activities on the centrality of intention.

In the chapter entitled ‘Total Responsibility in Theory and Practice’, Gombrich

states, for example, that ‘[I]t is the thought that counts, and merit bears fruit

126 JEFFREY SAMUELS

for the doer because of the pure thought that accompanies it’ (1971b, 26;

emphasis added). 9

In arguing for the supremacy of intention or cetan¯ in meritorious giving,

Gombrich also examines other factors—such as the size of the gift (1971b, 250) and

the virtue of the recipient—that may also impinge upon amount of merit that one

accrues. 10 Drawing on a conversation he had with a village monk in Sri Lanka about

giving, Gombrich concludes that ‘merit varies with the virtue of the recipient’, which

he describes as the recipient’s noble or higher qualities (u´as gu _ na). What is perhaps

most telling about Gombrich’s study, particularly his attempt at deciphering the

degree to which his informants’ responses are orthodox, is how troubled he is with

the doctrine of the suitable or virtuous (s ¯ lvanta) recipient. Despite acknowledging

that such an idea has found its way into early P ¯ li texts, 11 Gombrich nonetheless

ﬁnds it to be ambivalent and problematic, arguing that such a doctrine compromises

‘the supremacy of intention’ (1971b, 249). The seriousness of the problem is also

evident, as James Egge (2002, 3) notes, in the fact that Gombrich is unable to get his

informants to share his concern. Recounting one conversation he had with a

monastic about meritorious giving, Gombrich explains:

The fullest answer given by a monk went thus. There are two kinds of giving (dan

d¯ma): that with thought of worship ( p¯j¯buddhiya), which is motivated by

respect (gaurava), and that with thought of favour (anugrahabuddhiya), which is

motivated by pity (anukamp¯va). The former is exempliﬁed by a gift to the

Sangha, the latter by a gift to a beggar. For both, the accompanying thought is

all-important (c¯tan¯va pradh¯nayi), but the former is superior, i.e., brings more

merit. [When I spoke up for the latter he showed no comprehension.] 12

By interpreting his informants’ responses through a lens focused on a particular

reading of the canonical and commentarial texts (i.e. that meritorious giving

should only be about generosity and should only bear fruit if it is accompanied

by the donor’s pure thoughts), 13 Gombrich presents contemporary practice in a

rather fragmented manner. As a result of being unable to get his informants to

share or even voice his own ‘orthodox’ views and concerns, Gombrich, to quote

Kemper (1978, 213), again ‘neglects the phenomenological “feel” of the religion as

it is experienced by the Sinhalese’. 14

Taking my cue from Southwold’s (1983, 184) conclusion that:

when the behaviour of most people, typical people, in another society appears

to us unintelligible and more or less silly, the fault lies with us, not with them;

and the remedy is to search ourselves to discover why we cannot fathom their

good sense and rationality ...

I wish to explore some of the ways in which meritorious giving may be understood

as ‘a good-sense practice’. Turning to conversations that center on the place of

happiness in the heart/mind as well as to discussion about who constitutes a

suitable recipient, I will highlight the important role of emotions in this

quintessential Buddhist practice, suggest a way to interpret the laity’s and

PURSUING PU ˜ ˜ A IN CONTEMPORARY SRI LANKA 127

monastics’ focus on a suitable recipient other than seeing it as compromising the

doctrine of intention, and propose a more nuanced and holistic understanding of

intention or cetan¯.

Happiness in the Hita: locating a place for the emotions in

meritorious giving

When I began asking lay people to share with me their views about

meritorious giving, I was surprised to ﬁnd neither a focus on the intention of the

benefactor (i.e. the need to give with thoughts of generosity and non-attachment)

nor on the spiritual quality of the recipient (i.e. one who is developing higher

qualities or progressing toward nibb¯na). Instead, many conversations, at the

beginning at least, centered on the need for all acts of giving to be accompanied

by particular emotions, most often expressed as happiness or gladness

(satuta/sant¯ sa) in the [donor’s] heart/mind or hita. 15 The tendency to correlate

merit with the emotional state of happiness was best exempliﬁed in the response

that one layman gave me when I asked him how one makes merit: ‘Merit means

happiness ( pi n kiyann¯ satuta). Happiness in the heart/mind (hit¯ sant¯ saya).

Demerit means unhappiness ( pava kiyann¯ asatuta). Merit is based on these

two’. 16 Although I, by no means, wish to imply that the relationship between merit

and happiness in the heart is shared by all lay Buddhists in Sri Lanka or the

Therav ¯ da world, I did ﬁnd it quite striking that the majority of lay people with

whom I spoke discussed merit in that manner. For instance, another layman

discussing his understanding of meritorious giving alluded to the need for

wholesome activities to be accompanied by feelings of happiness. Making speciﬁc

reference to merit accrued from certain acts of devotion or worship, he said: ‘If I

feel happy when I worship/honor a monk, then I see that as merit’.

Perhaps the most illuminating of responses came from a group interview I

conducted with three female lay devotees (up¯sik¯) during a poya day celebration

at a local village temple. Replying to my question ‘How is merit obtained ( pi n

labann¯ kohomada)?’, they explained:

First up ¯ sik ¯ : If the hita is not happy, then there won’t be any merit.

Second up¯sik¯: You need to have happiness in the hita (hit¯ sant¯ saya) to get

merit. If we give anything with an unhappy hita, there would be

no merit at all.

Third up¯sik¯: If we give something with happiness, even a little bit, it would

be good.

Second up¯sik¯: Giving even a little with happiness bears results.

For the laymen and laywomen with whom I spoke about meritorious giving,

conversations rarely, if ever, touched upon the need for giving to be accompanied

by certain ‘pure thoughts’ or right intentions.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: