HUNTER RETURNING PRECEPTS (6)

Content: Buddha met a hunter and reproached him for the sin of killing animals, warning him that he would be killed by those animals in the future life. But if he would accept the moral precepts which Buddha gave him, that would mean that he could not sin any more and would not suffer in the future life. The hunter agreed even though it meant for him the loss of his income, but the neighbours provided everything the former hunter needed. The wife, however, was opposed to the decision and scolded the husband without giving him any rest. She demanded that the husband should return the precepts to Buddha. The hunter had no choice but to comply with the wish of his angry wife. On the way to Buddha, he met several creatures who suffered from unusual punishments. A snake had to coil around an ant's house, a man had to sleep without a blanket, a king had to go and burn the forest every year, a group of ghosts had to dance on the top of a mountain. All of them were compelled to do that without knowing the reason for their suffering. The former hunter eventually found Buddha, but was told that tie couldn't return the precepts. They do not belong to Buddha - those who take them become their owners. He also revealed the reasons for the sufferings which the former hunter saw on the way. It was said that every creature suffered because of his or her own sin. The snake in the previous life was a greedy person and never made merit. The man without a blanket was keeping pigs for sale. The king was guilty of killing many animals by deliberately setting the forest on fire. The ghosts in the previous life were the persons who danced without clothes. The former hunter returned home and declared the result of his petition to Buddha. The wife was enraged and kept scolding him, but the former hunter sat quietly and did not argue with her.

Interpretation: The story contains several insights on the nature of moral obligation. Once accepted, moral obligations become part of self and cannot be revoked. There is an interesting connection between freedom and moral obligation. The hunter was free either to choose or to deny the offer which Buddha made to him: to accept moral precepts. By exercising his freedom to accept moral precepts, the hunter also gave up the freedom of not living by those moral precepts. In a way, he became a slave of righteousness. His wife did not accept the precepts, and could not understand why the hunter could not return them, or in other words, to rescind the agreement with Buddha to keep those precepts. The conflict between the wife and the husband can be seen as the conflict of two ethical approaches. The approach of the wife is that one can freely choose moral precepts, and when it is not convenient to change them or to abrogate them. The wife saw the relationship between the hunter and Buddha in purely contractual terms. The hunter's moral obligation to keep the commandments which Buddha gave comes from his consent given to Buddha, and therefore the obligation can be changed providing that the other party to the contract gives his consent. Buddha himself denied that there is any contractual relationship between him and the hunter. The possession of moral precepts is different from the possession of material goods or contractual obligations and rights. Moral precepts are not something which a person is free to get rid of.

The way of moral life involves conflict with those who do not follow the same way. The conflict takes place in the family. The wife becomes an enemy of her husband. The same motif sounds forth in the teaching of Christ. The position of Christ in the religion of Christians is similar, though not identical, to the position of Dharma in the religion of Buddhists. Christ is the incarnated wisdom, who sustains the whole universe.(7) He said: "Do you think 1 came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."(8) The idea of irreconcilable conflict between morally good and morally evil is what is common to many religious and ethical systems. The wife was not reconciled to the husband after receiving the judgement of Buddha, but the former hunter was persistent in the way of following the moral precepts. His response to the attacks of the wife is noteworthy. He did not pay evil words for evil words - he was quiet and did not argue. The morally good do not use arguments or force or rude words. Their truth is sustained even in silence, for the way of the truth does not need many words to justify itself. Their righteous action speaks out better than mere words.

Even though the hunter lost his job he was not left without his daily bread, The neighbours helped him. There are at least two important moral principles contained in this simple statement of the folktale. The first is that the moral Way will never leave its follower without daily provision. Secondly, the story maintains the principle of neighbourly care or love. The neighbours took care of the former hunter in understanding and sympathizing with him. The principle of neighboury love is central in many Thai folktales, and it can be seen clearly In the stories of Golden City and Personal Character commented on elsewhere.

The story portrays vividly the sufferings of the sinners. Similarities can be seen with other religious traditions where a sin must be punished, even though the understanding of sin may sometimes differ to a certain extent. The list of sins in this story is interesting, for it allows us to compare how the idea of sin in Thai folktales differs from other ethical traditions. The sins are: greediness, refusal to make merit, keeping pigs for sale, killing animals deliberately, indecent behaviour. It is undoubtedly not the full list of sins known to Thai folk wisdom, but it is sufficient to make comparison with other ethical systems. Greediness is reproved by every religious tradition. The practice of making merit is a distinctly Buddhist characteristic, and can take many forms. The most popular form of making merit is offering food to the monks. There are two basic ideas which lie at the foundation of the merit making system. The first is that since goodness is rewarded and evil is punished, one must do as much good as possible (merit accumulation). The second is, that monkshood is or at last used to be considered as the embodiment of knowledge and moral perfection. Therefore, giving to monks or any other participation in the life of the monk's community is a merit bringing activity. Although the practice of making merit in Buddhist countries is distinct from the practices in other religions, the basic ideas underlying the practice are not completely alien to other ethical systems. For example in Judaism, Levites played a similar role to Buddhist monks and received offerings from ordinary people. Accumulation of good deeds may not be as alien to Christianity as many might think, if one takes into the consideration the commandment of Christ to store up treasure in Heaven, and not on earth.(9) There is, however, emphasis in the Christian religion on complete holiness and moral perfection which cannot be acquired through merit accumulation.

Keeping pigs for sale was considered as being sinful because it resulted in the death of the animals and was motivated by qreediness. The reason for the sinfulness of that act would be different for a Muslim. He would consider pigs as unclean animals, and eating the meat as prohibited by God, Therefore, there would not be compassion for those animals in Muslim ethics. In this respect, the concepts of sin differ significantly. I am not familiar with any other religion except Jainism which takes the sacredness of animal life as seriously as Buddhism. Finally, the reproof of indecent behaviour can be found in many other ethical traditions.

TIM, Thai folk wisdom presents some distinct ideas on sin but it also contains certain ideas which are common to other religious and ethical systems. What is, however, shared by all moral systems is the basic belief that evil will be punished, and that a person who turns away from the way of sin, as the hunter did, is saved from punishment. The story emphasizes that the hunter will not suffer (including suffering for the former sins) if he accepts the moral precepts as the way of living. Thai folk wisdom knows the idea of repentance according to which the evil committed in the past can be blotted out by subsequent moral living. Evil karma does not have any power over him who chooses the way of righteousness and truth.

(6) 'Praankhyynseen' in: Nithaanphynbaan. - Ed. By Wichian Getpratum. - Bangkok: Samnakphimpattanaasygsaa, 2000. -P.82.
(7) 1 Corinthians 1:30; Hebrews 1:3.
(8) Luke 12:51-52.
(9) Mathew 6.