One of the strengths of historical Buddhism, as reflected in the Pali canon, is its suspension (formal and real) of metaphysics and speculation. To Western thinking, metaphysics and speculation about meaning and intention is core to philosophy. So, too, is its opposite. When it doesn’t get its way, that is, discovers and judges inadequate or unproductive metaphysics, the western reaction is swift, hostile, and dismissive (early Wittgenstein and his succession, logical positivism, etc.). Accordingly, the philosophy project is abandoned, withered, banished in overreaction.
Can there be a calmer, less passionate or emotive approach? That, perhaps, is the Buddha’s approach, not dismissive and hostile about the “wrong answer,” but attempting to understand the root of the desire for metaphysics, for speculation. Not that Buddhist thought lingers with these historical investigations. Rather, it moves directly to the more pressing issues versus the war between metaphysics versus anti-metaphysics.
The teaching method of the historical Buddha meant that priority could be given to the people, to their concerns, to humble listeners as much as to any wealthy critics. The emphasis of philosophical questions could be turned away from abstract quest for presumed meaning to questions arising from daily life. A virtual checklist of the Buddha’s method is provided in a snippet of dialogue between the Buddha and visiting Kalamas called the Kalamas Sutta or Aṅguttura Nikāyaṅ.
The dialog opens with the remark by the visitors that they have heard the teaching of certain “ascetics and brahmins” that ended by vilifying all who disagree with them. This had happened more than once. Being “ascetics and brahmins” the visitors naturally gave these teachers some deference but were clearly uncomfortable. They had come to the Buddha for advice. And that advice is clear, resonating over the centuries:
Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic or inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the competence of the speaker, or because you think, “the ascetic is our teacher.” But when you know for yourselves, “These things are wise, these things are blameless; theses things are praised by the wise, these things if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,” then you should engage in them.
These points can be broken down for clarity.
1. oral tradition –– received, repeated, familiar, original, memory
2. lineage of teaching –– the authority of the precept, commandment, injunction, argument
3. hearsay –– enough people say so, it is said that, majority opinion holds that …
4. collection of texts –– venerable scriptures from authorities of the distant past
5. logic or inferential reasoning –– collected accounts reflecting sound minds suggest that…
6. reasoned cogitation –– applied thought of disciplined, clear-minded insightful reflection
7. acceptance of a view after pondering it –– enough deep thinking suggests favorable weight
8. competence of the speaker –– clever and insightful expostulation persuades of the truth
9. deference to the teacher –– sincerity of heart carries the argument better than mere reason
If all of these approaches are inadequate to why metaphysics is our chief concern, then the opposite is that metaphysics is not our chief concern, is an abstraction, a distraction. The Buddha’s visitors are concerned about the essentials: why do we suffer, why do we get sick, grow old, and die. The question is not why these things but how we should test these essential factors in our lives, as a matter of time. The various observations of the Buddha constitute summaries of what his interlocutors distressfully say among themselves. The Buddha gives them the method: if these arguments or ideas bring contentment, then folllow them. If not, regardless of the nine points, don’t follow them.
The displacement of metaphysics with ethics is no subtle shift of attention but a focus on what matters here and now. Addressing everything in terms of ethical response guages what the interlocutors themselves want or note or value. Does this or that path or response lead to well-being and happiness? What is elicited by this behavior or mind-set versus that one? What happens when we universalize a particular frame of mind or emotion?
This Socratic-like discussion frees us from many strictures, of language, personality, authority, cultural society… at least as necessary or obligatory, if not inevitable. It teases out the true nature of behaviors and points to ethics as a psychological and social balance that is independent both of the enumerated points of view of reason and metaphysics and also independent of the degree of satisfactoriness of answers emerging from metaphysics and similar abstractions
The short version of the Buddha’s advice: test everything. Not to play science, which is itself a kind of metaphysics, but to drain all the accretions that clog the mind. Test everything. Does it bring insight, happiness, mental well-being? As the sutra says: “When you know for yourselves, ‘These things are wise, these things are blameless; theses things are praised by the wise, these things if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should engage in them.”