|
所以佛陀回答他們：「是的，卡拉瑪人，你們有疑難困惑這都是很正常的，對可疑之事能不生疑嗎？看哪！卡拉瑪人，不要被報告、傳統與途聽之言牽著鼻子走；不要因為是權威教典，是純邏輯和推理，或僅僅看外表就被牽著鼻子走，也不要隨著自己忽發的玄思跑；或似是而非的可能性跑；更不要因你們老師說什麼你們就做什麼，而應該是如果是善的則行，不善就不行。」
卡拉瑪人一陣譁然，滿頭霧水，不知剖斷真假何所從，他們畢竟久受爭長辯短的各家論師和教義洗腦了。這種情形與我們現代社會並沒有太大的差別。佛陀的回答給他們提供了佛教尋求真理的方法，應當使用什麼去探索以佛教角度所觀察的真理？佛陀說「不要被報告、傳統、與途聽之言牽著鼻子走；不要因為是權威教典，是純邏輯和推理，或是單純的現象就被牽著鼻子走。」這就去除了對於文化或傳統的單純性的絕對依賴。佛陀又說「也不要隨著自己忽發的玄思跑；或似是而非的可能性跑；更不要你們老師說什麼你們就做什麼。」這又將對「書本」以及大部份的玄思的絕對依賴也給排除了。
有些人會有意見：單純現象，這其中也包括了科學方法，這是眾所周知的。這裡排斥指的是「不管什麼東西，都拿自然現象來在判斷什麼是真的實的東西」時，同樣地口口聲聲稱科學知識是唯一有效的知識（「科學主義」和「實證主義」）佛陀甚至連對教師的盲信也加以貶抑。「好啦，那還剩下什麼沒有貶的？」你會問。這裡佛陀闡釋的是一套相當獨特而細微的認知體系。他說：「卡拉瑪人，你們自己知道什麼是不善的、錯的、惡的，就不要做；知道何者為善的、好的，就躬行實踐。」
現在及本世紀初，有許多人頗為急切地想求證，說「古老的佛教智慧可以以現代科學來驗證。」上一世紀九十年代的
Anagarika Dharmapala、鈴木大拙先生、保羅‧卡勒斯，甚至印度的吠陀哲學家如
Vivekananda，都對於協調東方宗教與西方科學抱著滿腔熱情。他們都以
Kalama Sutta《卡瑪經》上的文義來驗證，說佛陀也是飽具科學的眼光。他們說：「嘿！你看。這很科學嘛！佛教的科學思想是屬否定式研究方法－－人要先明白道理，然後做實驗來驗證，如果實驗結果是不以主觀意志為轉移，那這道理就正確了。我能做（實驗），你也能做，人人皆可做，結果應該是一樣的。好。我們都做了：這實驗沒有投機取巧的成份在裡面，不是說『老師是這樣說的』，或『愛因斯坦是這樣說的。』所有的這些都是由經驗模式來的。」
有很長一陣子，我很自然地接受這一模式。乍聽之下，這道理是滿吸引人的，因為科學是我們的「上帝」，我們的最高權威，認為佛教與科學是一致的想法是很誘人的，但也是很誤導人。當我繼續在做我的學術研究的時候，我遇到一些當代佛教的導師，他們對將佛教與科學之間劃等號這一概念都加批評。北傳中有宣公上人；南傳有學者僧瓦波拉‧羅侯羅法師，他們都對這一觀念潑冷水。宣公上人說：「科學是在一個相對的局限世界裡，它不是一種究竟法；科學絕對不能給人帶來真正究竟的快樂，無論是在精神上，或者是物質上。」將科學放在「相對真理」範圍裡，這批評是很重的了；而以科學作為一種生活方式，更是不能令人滿意的。宣公上人在另一篇文章中還說：「看看現代科學！殺人武器日新月異，我們稱之為進步。這無異是在進毒；科學將人命拿來做實驗品，當兒戲，通過暴力和壓迫來滿足自己的欲望。」
這些批評直言無諱，直指我們對於科學的癡迷不已之心。即便是做最好的考慮，我們對於現代科技的鍾愛也證明是苦甜參半的。因為在科學上每一所得，即伴隨一失。每一副療藥都隱藏著或帶來更多的災難。例如曾被譽為靈丹的
DDT或 PCB（多氯聯苯）等化學藥品，最終成了生態環境與醫學上的災難。以基因工程研製生命似乎前景光明，然而背後潛在著一場新的噩夢。
待續
|
|
Then the Buddha gave them this advice, unique in the history of religions:
"Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, not by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: 'this is our teacher.' But O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusald) and good, then accept them and follow them."
The Kalamas voiced their doubts, their perplexity in determining truth or falsehood, because they had been exposed to all the competing teachers and doctrines at the time, and each expounded different notions of the truth. Not unlike our modern world today. The Buddha replied and provided them a Buddhist methodology for searching after truth. What should you use when you inquire after truth in the Buddhist perspective? He said, "Do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Don't be led by the authority even of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances"— this would eliminate exclusive reliance on simply conforming to culture and tradition, as well as "the book," and most philosophical speculation— "nor by delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities."
Some might argue that being "led by appearances" would include our scientific method, at least as it has come to be popularly understood— i.e. in its exaggerated reliance on natural phenomena as the only basis of what is true or real, and the equally exaggerated claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge ('scientism,' and 'positivism.') The Buddha even discounts blind faith in one's teacher. "So, what's left?" you might wonder. Here the Buddha lays out a subtle and quite unique epistemology: "O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome and wrong and bad, then give them up. And when you know that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them."
Many people, both recently and at the turn-of-the-century, jumped at this passage as confirmation that ancient Buddhist wisdom is validated by modern science. In the 1890's, Anagarika Dharmapala, D. T. Suzuki, Paul Cams, even Vedantists like Vivekananda, generally waxed enthusiastic about the compatibility of Eastern spirituality and Western science. They saw in passages like the
Kalama Sutta proof positive that the Buddha was imbued with the scientific outlook. "Well, look at this," they said. "This is eminently scientific. Buddhism is just the scientific mind of skeptical inquiry. Know it for yourself; conduct experiments, and confirm them through 'intersubjective testability.' I do it; you do it. Anyone can do it and obtain the same results. Good, we know for ourselves; there is no speculation involved; we know something is true not because 'My teacher said,' or even 'Einstein said'— all of this is contained within an eminently empirical model."
I, too, accepted this interpretation for a while. Naturally, one finds it quite attractive, since science virtually is our "god," our highest authority, these days. It is quite enticing to think that Buddhism and science are identical; but also misleading. As I continued my research, I came upon some contemporary Buddhist teachers who were critical of equating the Buddha's teachings with modern science. Master Hsuan Hua, from the Mahayana tradition, and Wapola Rahula, a Theravada scholar-monk, for example, both threw cold water on this notion. Master Hua said, "Within the limited world of the relative, that is where science is. It's not an absolute Dharma. Science absolutely cannot bring true and ultimate happiness to people, neither spiritually nor materially." Strong criticism that places science as a discipline stuck in relative truths, and as a way of life, unsatisfactory. In another essay, he wrote:
"Look at modern science. Military weapons are modernized every day and more and more novel every month. Although we call this progress, it's nothing more than progressive cruelty. Science takes human life as an experiment, as child's play, as it fulfills its desires through force and oppression."
Such outspoken criticism goes to the heart of our infatuation with the "miracles" of science. At best, our love affair with modern science and technology has proved bittersweet. For every gain, comes a corresponding loss; every "cure" seems to mask or unleash manifold other disasters. For example, DDT or PCB's, once heralded as wonder chemicals, turned out to be ecological and medical disasters. And new potential nightmares lie hidden beneath the rosy promises of genetically-engineered life.
To be continued
|
