Buddhist perspective on religiosity and spirituality as shown in Mahāyañña-sutta

Abstract

The relationship between religiosity and spirituality is a controversial issue. Even though humankind does not deviate from the influence of religion, its impact on their daily life-style is declining. Now humankind is equipped with better scientific explanations to clarify what was unclear to them and technological enhancements which can solve many of the problems. The present study will elaborate how Buddhist teachings can give insights to enrich this dialogue. The present study is primarily a textual study based on an Early Buddhist discourse namely, the Mahāyañña-sutta in Sattaka-nipāta of the Buddhist canonical text in Pāli language, Aṅguttara-nikāya. (Part IV, pp.41-46.) The discourse begins with the preparation of Brahmin Uggatasarīra for a great sacrifice in which hundreds of bullocks, heifers, goats and rams were on the way to be sacrificed. Replying to a Brahmin's question, the Buddha explained how a sacrifice becomes beneficial. Proper maintaining of three fires can make a sacrifice great: the fire of those who are worthy of gifts, the fire of the householder and the fire of those who are worthy of offerings. In fact these three kinds of fires were not new to the Brahmin. The Buddha only redefined Brahmanism’s terminology by allotting new meanings to a set of already existing terms. Religion is characterized by its authoritative nature and emphasis on its followers’ obligation to perform rites. In Brahmanism, sacrifices were performed for the purpose of achieving a prosperous life, although there is no causal correlation between a sacrifice and a good life. In this way, religion defends its mysticism. On the contrary, the Buddha’s interpretation of three kinds of fires paves a way to a much candid explanation with a clear practical basis. If anyone treats others in proper ways, this would create causes and conditions to live in harmony with the society. There is nothing clandestine in this explanation. Spirituality, unlike religiosity, does not represent an inviolable bondage to an external authority. It comes from within. As pointed out in the Mahāyañña-sutta, one can be spiritual even in his or her interaction with the society. This might be a starting point to break the wall between secularity and spirituality, that is, towards a “secular spirituality”.