A Critical Literature Review in Conceptualizing a Structural Framework to Position Buddhist Inquiry Paradigms
Literature presenting the Buddhist inquiry paradigms has vastly lacking the Western versions, prompting an urgent need to perform a critical literature review in order to fill the gap. This research effort culminated in suggesting a structural framework to organize the inquiry paradigms of the Buddhist teachings while also describe the nature of each paradigm from the ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects. This conceptual paper thus provides a critical contribution to the literature of Buddhist studies and their applications in the field of social sciences and management studies. Introduction In Buddhism, getting to know the reality of phenomenon is of utmost importance as it is acknowledged that a mind knowing the reality is released from the burden or stress of the delusion. In other words, a tranquilized mind is one who knows the ontological nature of reality. How this theory of knowledge or knowing of the reality is developed must thus be made clear. Essentially this is an epistemological question that an observer must address and its outcome is that such an epistemological stance may influence the methodological 1 School of Management, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 70 preference in the Dharma research process. The utility in aiming to understand the reality is peaceful mind and the development of Dharma in the mind as the guiding art of daily living and business operations. In brief, the Buddhist methodological approach to engage in a research activity must simultaneously embrace an effort to address three inquiry paradigmatic questions, namely the ontological question, the epistemological question and the methodological question. The Buddhists know these three questions as the wisdom aspect, the precept dimension and the mindfulness practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. Having realized the vitality of these inquiry paradigm positions, the following research questions are raised in which this research article attempts to address based on a critical literature review approach: What is the structure and nature of the Buddhist inquiry paradigms and how they show the similarity or dissimilarity to the Western versions? As such a theoretical framework of the Buddhist inquiry paradigm structure would be proposed. Literature Review A paradigm represents a worldview that "defines, for its holder, the nature of the world, the individual's place in it, and the range of possible relationships to the world and its parts" (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 107) The term "inquiry paradigm" is used quite loosely in academic research and can mean different things to different people, and to resolve this uncertainty Morgan (1979) suggests that the term be interpreted at three levels (Hussey and Hussey, 1997, p. 47) MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 71 At the philosophical level the ontological question which is raised to seek to understand the nature of reality (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 99) i.e. how things really are and how things really work. At the social level the epistemological question which clarifies the relationship between the inquirer and the known (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 99) in response to the ontological nature. In the Buddhist Canons, the common relationship to be maintained between the researcher and the researched is considered to take root in an ethical foundation, i.e. by being honest and maintaining in integrity, and having a compassionate or balanced state of mind when seeking to understand the researched. In other words, in an objective worldview perspective, the Buddhist practitioners (as researchers) should remain ethically objective and foster a detached, which is a so called "distance" attitude towards the researched. Similarly, for a phenomenological position, ethical and detached state of mind and approach still remain as the common guideposts. The only difference now is that the Buddhist practitioner now remains being absorbed within the context of the phenomenon, as having a closer relationship to the researched but still holding tight to a detached state of mind, in the view to enable the researcher to be able to speak from the perspective or meanings of the researched. Thus, while many philosophical or tactical approaches to implement this epistemological question are similar between the academicians and the Buddhist practitioners, MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 72 the major difference being that the Buddhist practitioners complement the relationship with Buddhist ethicality and detached state of mind. At the technical level The methodological question addresses how can the inquirer (would be knower) go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be known (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 108) In this case, the Buddhist practitioners fundamentally use the five senses and the mind (its consciousness) for the investigation, which can skillfully exploit the commonly known means of research instruments to address the methodological questions. The methodological means can, for instance, be in experimental, dialogic or dialectical, or hermeneutical nature. The Buddhist practitioners complement these techniques with mindfulness training in response to the researched, the procedure and the knowledge. Thus while focusing on the outside, i.e. a phenomenon, is important, the methodological question addresses as well the inside the mind, consciousness, the state of verbal, bodily and thought actions and reactions. Ultimately, the mind in dealing with the researched phenomenon should be remained at detached level and tranquility level. It is only at this level that the interpretation is not tainted with the thoughts and idea of the self, which is influenced by the experiences, education, the environment, the needs, wants and desires of the researchers and as such, the research can truthfully reflect the reality as it is. In other words, when human researcher is MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 73 involved in the observation, it is important the interpretation which relies heavily on the interpretations of the observer is not invalidly and unreliably influenced by the observer (Sheth and Malhotra, 2011) This methodological approach is highlighted in the Diamond Sutra (a part of the Buddhist Canons) which stated: " the minds should be purified of all such concepts as relate to seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching and discriminating. They should use the mental faculties spontaneously and naturally, but unconstrained by any preconceptions arising from the senses." (Goddard, 1938, p. 94) It is by now clear that answering these three paradigmatic questions manifests the epistemological commitments. According to Johnson and Duberley (2000) epistemological commitments are a key feature of our preunderstandings which influence how we make things intelligible and the students pursuing social science and management studies are increasingly expected to demonstrate a reflexive understanding of their own epistemological commitments. The reason why epistemological commitment is important because we are all epistemologists or, according to Johnson and Duberley (2000, p. 2) "at least we routinely take certain epistemological conventions to be so self evident that we rarely feel the need consciously to express, discuss or question them." What follows are the paradigm of choices in informing and guiding inquiry into the nature of reality or an observed phenomenon, namely transcendentalism, pragmatism, empiricism, rationalism, positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, phenomenology and constructivism. MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 74 Transcendentalism From the Buddhist perspective, transcendentalism is an unconditioned state of mind that is transcending the influences of the entire spectrum or continuum of the worldviews, morality, the relationship between the mind and the phenomena, and the wide variation of any available methodological approaches. To be exact, an unconditioned state of mind is void of ignorance about the phenomenon (i.e. the mind) greed, hatred and delusion (Kalupahana, 1992) or in short, is transcending the conditioned worlds of phenomena, or Hui neng (638 713) a central figure of Zen Buddhist tradition was quoted as saying, "True seeing is called transcendence; false seeing is worldliness" (Cleary, 2005, p. 25) The danger of false seeing is, for instance, understood by the Dharma practitioners as such: "With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering." (Bodhi, 2000, p. 563) When one is trapped within the phenomenal world, the state of the mind and its capability of understanding the reality is prevented from being perfect a theme advocated by critical realism or post positivism. In the phenomenal world, there are three worlds of desire, form and mind. All created things or beings, both noble and ignoble, both cause and effect, are within the phenomenal world. In one of the later Chinese Buddhist Canons, The Surangama Sutra, it stated that "all conditioned things are as empty as space. Existing as they do under conditions, they are false and fantastic," (Goddard, MFU CONNEXION, 3(2) page 75 1938, p. 215) Thus, Transcendentalism is beyond the world of both the material and the mind, in reaching the state of emptiness that the mind is purified to a state of complete detachment from the influences of both the material phenomena and the mind states. In this worldview, reality is known as it is, and the mind will never be influenced by it and corrupts the understanding of it. In the language of phenomenology, transcendentalism is the purest awareness or consciousness of the phenomenon possible in a way the "self" that is conscious of the phenomenon is also diminished and the state of mind is one that is resulted, for instance, from "the purification of the evil out flowing of the mind which c