In an increasingly complex world shaped by rapid technological development, social change, competition, and uncertainty, questions about human wellbeing, ethics, and the meaning of life remain relevant. 

Although many challenges people face today are new, the human emotions, desires, and struggles behind them remain much the same. Buddhist philosophy offers valuable perspectives through its focus on human behaviour, suffering, wisdom, and compassion.

University of Colombo Emeritus Professor of Buddhist Studies and Nalanda University, India Visiting Professor Asanga Tilakaratne is a Sri Lankan scholar with a long academic career in Buddhist philosophy, comparative philosophy, Pali, and religious studies. His international academic experience has shaped his views on Buddhist thought in the modern world, particularly amid advances in technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Prof. Tilakaratne discussed the changing global understanding of Buddhism, the relevance of Buddhism to modern life, and ethical challenges created by technology such as AI.  

Following are experts:

What first inspired you to study Buddhist philosophy and how did that interest develop into your academic career?

Initially, it wasn’t the result of any deep understanding or anything like that. I was simply doing well in Buddhism and getting good marks. This continued into university and finally I ended up passing my first degree in Buddhist philosophy at the University of Peradeniya with excellent results. 

By this time, however, what was started almost without any particular end in mind was evolving into a love for the subject, both for its content and for the admiration of accomplished Buddhist philosophers as K.N. Jayatilleke, D.J. Kalupahana, and P.D. Premasiri, who were my role models. All of them were equipped with Western philosophical and logical training and were predecessors of the kind of empiricist interpretation I subsequently adopted.

With my first degree and subsequent postgraduate qualifications, an academic career was almost readily available, providing me the opportunity to pursue my interest in Buddhist philosophical studies. I received a fellowship from the East-West Center, Hawaii to pursue higher studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where I completed a Master’s in Western Philosophy and subsequently a PhD in Comparative Philosophy, combining Buddhist, Indian, and Western philosophical traditions.

What I find attractive in Buddhist philosophy is that it provides endless opportunities for creativity, critical thinking, and wisdom.

You have taught in several countries. Has teaching Buddhist philosophy to students from different cultural backgrounds influenced your own understanding? 

I have taught in Eastern countries such as India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, as well as Western countries such as England, the United States, and New Zealand. Some were Buddhist countries practising Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism, while others were predominantly Christian or Islamic.

When you teach in Theravada countries other than Sri Lanka, you get a cultural perspective different from your own, although the doctrinal basis is the same. In Mahayana-dominated societies, the Buddhist background is culturally different and doctrinally has significant changes and innovations. You are both inside and outside, experiencing oneness and otherness simultaneously.

Teaching Buddhism to Western audiences is different. Traditional Buddhists see Buddhism mainly as a religion associated with rites, rituals, and practices, while Westerners see it as an intellectual challenge or a system of practice. Although teaching in Western countries has not changed my conceptual and philosophical understanding of Buddhism, their practical and pragmatic approach cannot be overlooked.

As an academic, what would you tell an aspiring young person about choosing to study Buddhist philosophy in this day and age? What are the advantages of such a course of study?

This question can be answered from two perspectives. One is to study Buddhist philosophy for one’s own understanding and edification. This can be an ennobling experience, opening multiple ways of viewing reality and life more realistically, objectively, and, ultimately, more compassionately.

The other is to study Buddhist philosophy with the intention of making it an academic career and profession. Here, the rules are different. Buddhist studies has become a competitive field, both in traditional Buddhist countries and in the Western world, requiring multiple skills and areas of expertise. 

Depending on one’s specialisation, these may include source languages such as Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Classical Chinese, as well as modern languages such as French, German, or Japanese. Knowledge of other Asian or Western religious and philosophical traditions, together with logical and critical thinking skills, is also important.

This does not mean that one must know all these things. However, someone confined to one school or aspect of Buddhism and familiar with only one source language may have limited employment opportunities and for making an effective contribution to the field.

This may be true of other academic fields as well. Buddhist studies, however, may offer fewer opportunities than fields such as natural science, technology, or business. The message is not to avoid the field, but to be better prepared. Valuable things do not come easily.

As a Visiting Professor at Nalanda University, how do you see the contemporary institution building on Nalanda’s historical legacy as a centre of Buddhist learning and contributing to the study and promotion of Buddhist philosophy in the modern world?

We know that ancient Nalanda was an education centre guided and run by Buddhists and hence it is Buddhist in that sense. Nevertheless, it was universal in that it taught the views of all schools of Buddhism, and also Indian Buddhist and non-Buddhist knowledge traditions such as the Vedas, grammar, logic and debate, and medicine. It admitted adherents from all Buddhist schools and people from other Indian religious and philosophical backgrounds, without distinction or discrimination based on caste, ethnicity, or nationality.

Nalanda was a symbol of knowledge being opened boundlessly. This follows from the fundamental Buddhist belief that all humans are equal and that liberation from suffering, a universal human yearning, is achieved through knowledge. Hence, knowledge has to be disseminated to all who need it without boundaries.

The present Nalanda University derives inspiration from this lofty example. It is out of the question to reproduce ancient Nalanda exactly, but it is worthwhile trying to produce a centre of excellence in knowledge guided by the openness and enlightening spirit of ancient Nalanda. 

Buddhist studies is a key area, but modern Nalanda has to be a centre of excellence for all philosophies – Indian, Eastern, and Western; all religious studies; and, in sum, all arts and sciences. It is in this broader and holistic context that I see Buddhist studies as a key area of study at Nalanda University.

How is Buddhist philosophy generally understood or perceived outside Sri Lanka, particularly in Western countries?

This kind of assumes that we in Sri Lanka, or any traditional Buddhist country, are still a custodian of Buddhism. But almost one-and-a-half centuries after the Western ‘discovery’ of Buddhism, counting from T.W. Rhys Davids establishing the Pali Text Society (PTS) to publish Pali Buddhist texts in England around 1880, we cannot maintain that view any more. Perhaps the Western world is not only equal but could even be better and more advanced in Buddhist scholarship.

There was a time when Buddhism was viewed as pessimistic, as looking only at the dark side of life and denying pleasure and comfort, or as some New Age-type ‘fancy’ religion. But by now, these are things of the past for many Western Buddhists.

One significant difference in the Western perception of Buddhism is that they take Buddhism minus what they call ‘cultural baggage’. For many Western Theravada adherents, Buddhism is the basic teaching of the Buddha and the practice is almost exclusively meditation. I do not think that this Western emphasis is absolutely right, but we cannot find fault with people if they find meditation to be the key aspect of being Buddhist. 

In Asian countries, Buddhist practice evolved through centuries. Who knows, over time, they too may develop their own versions of Buddhism relative to their own cultures.

What are some common misconceptions about Buddhism that you have encountered among international students?

If I may start with my immediate experience in India, many Indian students tend to think that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism. This idea comes to them from their teachers, many but not all, who still accept the view of S. Radhakrishnan, who said in his book ‘Indian Philosophy’ that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. 

There is also a traditional belief that, of the 10 incarnations (avatara) of Vishnu, the Buddha was the last. Whatever the historicity or popularity of the view, it is not correct and, at the same time, prevents them from seeing the real teaching of the Buddha.

Going beyond India, many in the West believe that the Buddha is some kind of god or transcendental being, and not a human being as portrayed in the Pali Tipitaka. This misconception arises from their inability to imagine a religion without a creator god. 

Associated with this is another misconception: that the Buddha believed in some form of subtle atma, although the Buddha said that there was no such metaphysical reality associated with human beings. Both views prevent those who hold them from understanding the no-soul, no-god naturalist character of the Buddha’s teaching.

The reason for most misconceptions is the inability to accept what is not usual or familiar.

What differences have you observed between the way Buddhist philosophy is approached in Asian countries and in Western academic institutions?

We know that Buddhism has been predominantly a religious practice for Asian countries where people inherit it by birth. Once they receive it, with the passing of time, they will find some meaning in it. 

What we call ‘academic study’ of Buddhism is a new phenomenon in Asian contexts – that is, to study Buddhism as one among other subjects. Even though this type of study is ideally believed to be critical and objective, in Asian academic contexts, it does not happen that way in most cases.

In Western academic contexts, I observe two categories of people who study Buddhism: one group comes to study Buddhism with the intention of knowing it ultimately for practice and the other group is those who study Buddhist philosophy academically with the intention of developing a career out of it. In between, there are people who study Buddhism as a part of their cultural studies, and some of them may be hoping to gain connection with Asian Buddhist countries as volunteers and so on. 

In whichever case, the general Western approach to religion in general, or to Buddhism in particular, is prone to be critical and analytical, and not ready to accept right away. They tend to value the open and non-dogmatic character of the Buddha’s teaching.

In an age of social media, technology, competition, and constant stress, do you think Buddhist philosophy is still relevant to young people?  

The Buddha once said that all he taught was how suffering arose and ceased. All the issues you mention are either forms of suffering or causes of suffering that are characteristic of modern society. If so, it goes without saying that Buddhist philosophy is really meant for the present condition of the world.

One could assume that the problems we face today are modern and that the teaching of the Buddha is very old, and hence the ancient teachings would not cater to modern problems. Looking superficially, this objection sounds valid, but closer scrutiny reveals that despite the fact that the problems are novel, their root causes are ultimately traceable to our basic human psychological conditions, referred to in the Buddha’s teaching as defilements (kilesa).

For example, the Buddha says that craving or ‘thirst’ for desires brings unhappiness. The objects of desire have changed over time, but desire itself has continued to persist. A wealthy person in the Buddha’s time might have desired an expensive horse-driven carriage; today, a rich person may desire an expensive car. Although the desired object is different, the state of mind is not. So long as these psychological conditions remain the same, the Buddha’s teaching will be applicable irrespective of time and place.

Today, the world is abuzz with technological advances and concern about AI. What can Buddhist philosophy contribute to some of the major ethical challenges created by modern technology?

Modern technology has made our life easy, comfortable, and enjoyable. When I say this, I keep aside, for the time being, extremely sophisticated weapons of mass destruction created by the same modern technology. 

Looking at the positive side, we can go on listing the helpful productions of technology. Without doing so, let us go directly to AI, which at this moment is having a tremendous impact on knowledge-related human activities.

AI has been described as an ‘intelligent machine’. Up to this point, we usually identified intelligence as a quality of human beings, excepting some animals with limited intelligence. 

There are many areas related to human life, such as medicine, law, design, and architecture, in which the use of AI is having a tremendous impact. Before AI, these were done by human beings themselves and machines existed only for support or assistance. The biggest difference with AI is that the machine is no longer playing a supporting role but does the job totally. In other words, human intellectual activity has been replaced by a machine.

In this situation, one has ‘knowledge’ which is not one’s own. The question is, whose knowledge is this? Who is responsible? 

People may no longer be capable of thinking and making judgements on their own. When judgements, including moral judgements, are made by AI, are people who act accordingly morally responsible? My answer is that we should not wage war against AI, but must judge the accuracy of information produced by AI and critically examine the judgements made by AI for us.

Do you see meaningful connections between Buddhist thought and modern science?

There is a popular tendency among some Buddhists to claim that Buddhism is scientific – whatever they mean by it – and they take pride in thinking that it is scientific. Often, the open intellectual attitude articulated by the Buddha in the ‘Kalama Sutta’ is taken as going along with the open attitude of science and I do not have an issue with that. 

I, however, do not think that the Buddha’s teaching needs support or validation from modern science to stand on its own. Very often, this tendency is motivated by some sort of inferiority complex that science is higher or more reliable than Buddhism. 

It is true that science is the most reliable way for us to know about the world, and if some claims of Buddhism are found parallel with those of science, it is not bad. But Buddhism cannot be rising or falling following the vicissitudes of science.

Like science, Buddhism too aims at understanding the world in order to change it for better, but Buddhism focuses on the human being. Science aims at changing the physical world; Buddhism aims at changing the world of the human being. In this sense, the two function in parallel domains with complementary goals. 

After teaching and studying in different parts of the world, what is one important lesson you have learnt from your international academic experience?

With my limited experience with the world, with people in both the East and the West, amidst all their cultural and physical differences, what I have come to know is that human beings are human beings whenever and wherever. But it is also true that for some of these people, the sense of humanity remains shrouded by strong ideological biases, mainly religious.

Whatever is tenaciously grasped, whether a person, object, or view, causes suffering, as taught by the Buddha. In this situation, what is needed above all is to be human and humane. In other words, before being anyone – say, an academic, scientist, businessman, professional, follower of a religion, or religious clergy – we need to be human beings.

What my international academic experience has led me to believe is that the future is not all that bleak!

If you could share one idea from Buddhist philosophy with every young person in the world today, what would it be and why?

For every young person in the world today, the idea I would share with them is: be compassionate. This comes from my understanding of the world as ‘dependently originated’ (pratityasamutpada), including all of us with animals, birds, reptiles, trees, plants, rivers, mountains, and oceans, as connected, inseparable, and all depending on all. None of us can separate ourselves from this world, from the environment, and from others.

The world we live in, with its buildings, bridges, expressways, high-speed vehicles, pollution, and garbage, is our creation and we are responsible for it. I cannot just clean my compound, remove my garbage from the road, and be content that it is fine. I cannot harm another without harming myself. In fact, we are not fine insofar as others are not fine. We have a collective responsibility for this world.

What all this leads us to conclude is that we have to live our lives at least not to be harmful to others, if we cannot always be helpful. We do not have an alternative other than being compassionate to living beings.