Purge and purify

It often appears, to judge from the language used, that Buddhist ethics is understood primarily as a process of purification. For example, at the fortnightly uposatha ceremony undergone by monks, when the monastic rules have been recited, the leader asks “Are you all pure in this, brothers?” For another example, the Five Precepts, central to basic lay ethics throughout the Buddhist world, in the FWBO have a positive version:

With deeds of loving kindness, I purify my body.

With open-handed generosity, I purify my body.

With stillness, simplicity and contentment, I purify my body.

With truthful communication, I purify my speech.

With mindfulness clear and radiant, I purify my mind[1].

I have recited this formula probably thousands of times, and there must have been few of those, particularly later on, when I didn’t wince at the endlessly repeated word “purify”. It’s such a relief now not to have to recite this any more, given that it’s used as a reminder of basic group-identity, recited almost every time FWBO Buddhists come together.

Purity means a state of being without particular unwanted “pollutants”, whether dirt, sex, unwanted people, wrong beliefs, wrong desires, or wrong actions. Purifying is a process of rejection, of getting rid of the unwanted. Purification is just the process of bringing about purity, so one can’t engage in purification without at least implicitly thinking of purity as a desirable end.

If this is a metaphor, it’s an extremely common metaphor, and it’s one which seems entirely in conflict with the basic insights of Buddhism. The Buddha in attaining the Middle Way, did not purify himself of anything, but took the best from his previous experience and developed it. A person who overcomes anger in meditation, does not purify himself of the unwanted anger – any experienced meditator knows that to try to get rid of anger is only productive of more anger. An attitude of purification put into practice is very likely to lead to a negative attitude to the thing you want to purify yourself of, and to a destructive cycle in which one undesirable object is disposed of, only to be succeeded by another one popping up somewhere else – because the “pollutant” object has only been created by aversion, and if the aversion is still there, it will very likely just attach itself to a different object.

I’ve also been puzzled by the responses I have had from Buddhists when I point this out. They sometimes seem genuinely not to be aware that the formal Buddhist language they use is riddled with the idea of purity, and they deny that it exists. Or they may deny its importance. However, to deny the importance of language habitually used in a religious context is hardly in accordance with the Buddhist recognition of conditionality. The same people who may be very cautious about what novels and films they read or watch, for fear of their effects on their minds, seem quite happy to recite language, day in, day out, which is antipathetic to Buddhist insights.

Another kind of defence is the appeal to tradition. Perhaps this kind of language must be OK because it’s been used for so long, or it goes back to the Buddha so it must be compatible with enlightenment. If this defence is used it becomes clear that the ethic of purification is another manifestation of attachment to metaphysics, and to the Buddha’s enlightenment as a source of revelation.

Either way, this is another example of Buddhist tradition being its own worst enemy. Instead of helping people to actually understand the insights it has to offer, Buddhist ritual language cloaks it in something quite different which is very likely to give the casual onlooker a misleading impression. I know that Buddhist ethics, at their best, are about transforming the drive from one kind of unhelpful behaviour – violence, fraud, intoxication, or whatever – and turning it towards something positive instead. The actual process of doing this can be greatly aided by meditation. However if instead it is a question of purifying one’s mind of violence, fraud etc. it has nothing new to add to the long tradition of ineffective prohibition to be found in the Abrahamic religions. Indeed, to see the full application of the purity ethic, turn to the Old Testament.