- BEGINNINGS: THE PALI SUTTAS
- Sámanera Bodhesako
Respectfully dedicated
to my upajjháya,
Venerable Phra Somdet Ńánasamvara
CONTENTS
Preface
Beginnings: The Pali Suttas
The Buddha's Teaching
Syncretism
Beginnings
The
Venerable Ánanda
The Four
Nikáyas
The First
Council
Later Additions
The Fifth
Nikáya
Conclusions
Choosing a
Standard
Appendix
Postscript
About the
Author
Preface
A discussion of beginnings would be
entirely unnecessary were it not that beginnings seem invariably to precede whatever
conclusions may exist. Therefore any who hope to arrive at a conclusion in their life must
perforce begin. But where? The present work is concerned entirely with this question.
Herein our discussion is, by design, twofold.
First, we will discuss the human
situation, and the inherent need to discover a method, a way, whereby we may resolve the
dilemma of that situation. This method must be coherent: we must have a standard whereby
we can judge which actions will and which will not lead us towards a conclusion. Accepting
a standard is, precisely, our beginning.
Second, we will discuss whether the
collection of texts known as the Pali Suttas might not offer such a standard. These texts,
the oldest we have from among the various Buddhist schools, have much to recommend them.
However, objections have been raised concerning their authenticity. These objections refer
to the very origins and the early transmission of the Suttas. In order to evaluate these
objections an understanding is needed of how these texts came into being and how they were
passed on. This is the second sense in which we are concerned about beginnings.
Although this historical point
occupies the bulk of our essay, it is thematically subservient to our primary question --
Where does one begin? -- and is relevant only to the extent that the primary question is
seen to be relevant. This work, then, is not historical as such. Rather, it happens that
an inquiry into the primary question turns out to involve an historical consideration.
The objection may be raised that any
teaching which calls itself akálika, or non-temporal, as the Pali Suttas do, can
never be understood by raising an historical question, which is necessarily temporal. This
of course is perfectly true. The problem of existence, in its very nature, can never be
resolved by such a method. It is only through a non-historical approach -- specifically,
one that is personal, passionate, and persistent -- that our perilous situation in the
world can ever be comprehended. In this sense the only basis for judging the Suttas would
be to put their advice into practice and resolve the personal dilemma, thereby coming to
know for certain that the Suttas are what they claim to be. But herein we are not yet at
the point of discussing how to proceed. We are still involved with the prior
question of whether these Suttas offer a standard which, if acquiesced to, will lead to an
end. And although an historical inquiry can never in itself lead us to a conclusion,
it is at least possible that it might lead us to a beginning inasmuch as it can
serve as an initial indication to our question: Where does one begin?
Except where otherwise noted, all
factual information in this essay is garnered from the Pali Suttas and their
companion-piece, the Vinaya. In these texts we find accounts of the first months following
the Buddha's awakening (Khandhaka I, Mahávagga, Vinaya), of the final months before
his decease (Sutta 16, Dígha Nikáya), of the events leading up to the First and Second
Councils, together with an account of those Councils (Khandhakas XI and XII, Cúlavagga,
Vinaya), and, scattered through the texts, incidental information and clues about the
middle period of the Buddha's ministry. Considerable additional information is available
in texts of later date, such as the Commentaries. However, for our purposes such data are
not needed, for though our account in no way contradicts the known facts available from
primary sources, it is our intention to present here not a factual history but an
imaginative one. We may recall the dictum: "Higher than actuality stands
possibility." We are not attempting to set forth what did happen but what must
have happened. Our account is more reasoned than reportorial. As such
our methods are not those of scholars; nor do our conclusions rest upon ever finer points
of contention, but rather upon a commonly-held understanding of how, in their broad
outlines, things generally evolve: gradually and piecemeal rather than suddenly and
definitively.
This is not to say that what follows
will be of no interest to scholars. On the contrary, because of the broadness of the base
upon which our findings rest, it is hoped that scholars may well regard them as a
significant as well as an original contribution to their discipline. However, an
understanding of what follows requires no knowledge of or interest in scholarly questions.
For most, perhaps, this account will be sufficient. For those who feel that they would
benefit by further exploration into the substantial scholarly literature on the early
history of Buddhism, this account can serve as a standard for evaluating the various
conflicting views and judgements that are to be encountered therein. Avoiding those
conflicts, we offer herein, using the data of the texts themselves, the most reasonable
account of their beginnings and a reasonable assessment of how much confidence we
can place in them, in order to make our own beginning.
Sutta references are to discourse number and, in
parentheses, volume and page of the Pali Text Society edition, except for Theragáthá,
Dhammapada and Sutta Nipáta, for which reference is to the verse number. Vinaya
references are to the Khandhaka number of the Mahávagga or Cúlavagga, in Roman numerals,
followed in Arabic numerals by subsection and paragraph as well as volume and page number.
| |
Vin.
D.
M.
S.
A.
Thag.
Dh.
Sn.
Ud. |
: Vinaya Pitaka
: Dígha Nikáya
: Majjhima Nikáya
: Samyutta Nikáya (Roman numerals indicate Samyutta number,
according to P.T.S. enumeration)
: Anguttara Nikáya (Roman numerals indicate Nipáta number)
: Theragáthá
: Dhammapada
: Sutta Nipáta
: Udána |
Beginnings:
The Pali Suttas
Where does one begin? This is obviously the first question. And when
the issue at hand is the manifest need to explore and resolve the root-problem of our
personal existence, then this question takes on a primacy in terms not only of sequence
but of importance. One begins, of course, from where one is, for from where else can
one begin? Herein the intelligent person, he who does not shrink from unpleasant truths,
will acknowledge the problem. He may describe it in any of a number of ways -- anxiety,
loneliness, insufficiency, frustration, inconstancy, boredom, uncertainty, bondage,
meaninglessness, impermanence, despair -- but however it appears it will be seen, if it is
seen at all, to be fundamental, for it is bound up in one way or another with a sense of
one's own mortality.
When we apprehend the ever-present
possibility of our own immediate dying, -- the impossible possibility, says Heidegger, --
then any notions we may have about our golden and glittering prospects in the world will
be seen to be illusory inasmuch as they, and we as well, end in death.[1] The gold is now seen for the leaden bondage that it really is, the
alchemy has failed, and we see ourselves to be in perpetual subjugation to the uncertainty
inherent in the world. And we then feel, deeply, the need to act.
There must be release from this
overwhelming fact of our own mortality: we cannot believe otherwise. But, equally certain,
we don't know the way to that release else, surely, we would already have taken it. Can we
find this way? Fine and earnest people have tried before us -- that we know -- and have
admitted failure. Our task, then, cannot be easy. But having recognized our existence in
this world as inherently unsatisfactory, we now sense the utter necessity of
seeking the means to transcend it. We are unwilling to plunge yet again -- again! -- into
that endless round of pastimes wherein most people waste their lives in the effort to
avoid facing the truth of their own mortal existence. Although we don't know the way
ourselves, it is yet possible that there exists some teacher, some teaching, to provide
guidance. And so we look about us, and we find... orators, teachers, therapists,
hucksters, salvation-mongers, apostles, psychologists, preachers, gurus, swamis, saviours
and salesmen by the score, each offering his own brand of salvation. And thus we arrive
again at our original question: where does one begin?
They can't all be right. If it
were so easy, we would have no need of a teacher, for we and everyone else would
already have done the work ourselves. Besides, many of these teachings, anti-teachings,
disciplines, non-disciplines and weekends are manifestly in contradiction with one another
and sometimes even with themselves, both in doctrine and in practice. And therefore,
unless we abandon consistency of both thought and effort, we must acknowledge the
importance of choosing among them intelligently, unless we believe them to be uniformly mistaken,
in which case the choice would again seem unimportant. For the choice we make will be our
beginning, and from that beginning -- made wisely or foolishly -- everything else will
follow.
Nor need we believe ourselves to be
totally incompetent to make that choice. For although it is a truism that, as is sometimes
argued, the only way to know for certain which teaching or teachings are in
accordance with truth is to see truth for oneself, yet we can even now make a reasonable
assessment of these teachings. To be unenlightened is not to know nothing; for were
that the case we should not long survive in this uncertain world. We are free from
confusion at least to the extent that we now see the need to free ourselves from it
totally.[2] Having acknowledged the problem, we can sort out
from among those teachings which offer themselves to us those that at least address
themselves to that problem from those that merely pander in one way or another to the
world's proclivity for any comfortable, or even uncomfortable, notion in order to avoid
facing the problem. For underlying each practice will be a doctrine or general attitude,
and from this we can come to know the general nature of each teaching and can thereby
separate the relevant from the superfluous. And thus it is that, eventually, we will come
to the Buddha's Teaching.
The Buddha's Teaching
The Buddha's Teaching: what images it
conjures -- compassion, serenity, acquiescence, wisdom, bliss, selflessness. In such terms
is it often described, even from afar, even among those who know only its general
outlines. Such is the image of this Teaching that is in world-wide circulation; and with
such qualities does it invite seekers of peace to take a closer look. With such a
reputation it may perhaps prove to be the fount of advice and guidance we so need. And
therefore we eagerly approach it, to find... Theraváda Buddhism, Maháyána, Ch'an,
Korean Zen, Vajrayána, Tantric and dozens of other sects and sub-sects, large and small,
new and old, all claiming to be the Teaching of the Buddha. And so it is that again we
return to out original question: Where does one begin?
Are these schools different in name
only? Or do they differ as well in attitude, approach, doctrine and practice? Is all one?
Is all a diversity? Does nothing really exist? Does everything really exist? Or are these
disparate views merely worldly wisdom, best abandoned in favour of seeing that "Whatever
is arises dependent on conditions and is not without conditions"? Must we save
others before we will be able to save ourselves? Or must we save ourselves before we will
be in a position to save others? Is everything already perfect? Or is it only suffering
that arises, suffering that ceases? Do we all have Buddha Nature? Or is all existence
empty, without essence? Will we all eventually arrive at eternal salvation? Or do only
those achieve liberation who see that all conditions are impermanent? Is nibbána
(Skt. nirvána) to be found in samsára, the round of existences, or are
they mutually exclusive? What is the sound of one hand clapping?
If we accept that truth, whatever else
it may be, is at least not self-contradictory, then the question necessarily arises: which
among these paths, diverse and often at odds with one another, will offer us that way to
liberation which we seek?[3] And if these teachings are
all different -- or even if they are not -- which of them is that Teaching set
forth 2,500 years ago by a certain member of the Gotama family of the Sakyan clan, in
northern India, known today as the Awakened One, the Buddha? If it were only possible to
come to a reasonable judgement on this point, then we might be able with one stroke to cut
through the tangle of confusion we meet with when we inquire into the nature of
"Buddhism". For we will then find -- if the Teaching lives up to its reputation
-- one coherent, sufficient and, above all, relevant Teaching which can serve as a
standard in our inquiry into the nature of our mortal existence. And perhaps this is
possible.
We know that the Pali Suttas -- the
discourses in the Pali language -- are acknowledged by all Buddhist schools to be the
oldest record we have of the Buddha's Teaching. We know that nearly a century ago the
scholars of the West performed an about-face from their original majority position and now
fully acknowledge the primacy, as regards age, of those Suttas. But we also know that
certain objections have been raised with regard to the origin and transmission of those
discourses. Are these objections valid? What is the difference here, if any, between
"oldest" and "original"? How trustworthy are these texts as we now
have them? With what degree of confidence are we able to ascertain the truth of the
matter? Fortunately, it is possible to know, with reasonable confidence, the way in
which these texts were first gathered together and then handed down to us. Let us inquire.
Syncretism?
It may be objected at this point (or
even sooner) that all this inquiry is absurd and that the "obvious"
approach, for goodness sake, is to take whatever is useful wherever we find
it and to get on with the thing already instead of dancing about the starting line for,
after all, truth isn't the exclusive preserve of any one narrow sectarian doctrine, is it?
And this eclectic attitude sounds very good until one tries to "get on with
the thing" by taking "whatever is useful" etc., for it is at
precisely this point -- the point of beginning -- that the question arises: what is
useful? And what merely seems to our blind eyes to be so? Without a standard we would be
unable to choose between meditation, ascetic austerities, or prayers to the heavens as
paths to liberation. It is precisely this -- a standard -- that we felt ourselves to be in
need of when we decided to seek guidance beyond our personal opinions and judgements.
Although the question of specific
doctrines lies outside our present inquiry (for we are not yet well-placed to make the
necessary distinctions), something can nevertheless be said about the approach to
specific doctrines, i.e. making a beginning. Here the question is not "Where
does one begin?" but "How does one begin?": perhaps the question
that immediately follows upon "where?" and which is still prior to any actual
beginning. And there seem to be two general answers to this question, How does one begin?,
which we can conveniently label as the "syncretistic" approach and the
"crystalline" approach.
In the syncretistic approach one views
spiritual teachings as if they were a smorgasboard spread out on an enormous table, to be
partaken of by all who seek spiritual sustenance. The seeker, plate in hand, helps himself
to whatever he cares to, in whatever quantity and variety appeals to him -- let's see now,
a bit of TM on toast, some Karma Yoga and cole slaw, a dash of Sufism for spice, a bit of
this, a bit of that -- and if he has chosen wisely, he will consume, spiritually, a
satisfying and nutritious blend which -- who knows -- just might lead to....
The crystalline approach, on the other
hand, assumes that no truth can be more consistent or relevant than the teaching by which
it is revealed, and that therefore a teaching that truly leads -- i.e. is
one-pointed and consistent rather than an amorphous collection of spiritualisms -- is akin
to a many-faceted crystal, wherein each facet may reflect its own prismatic colours, but
each is nonetheless inseparable from the crystal as a whole, for the crystal, being an
organic unity, is indivisible. In this approach there can be no pick-and-choose attitude,
for to fragment such a teaching is to miss its holistic essence. In such a case, having
once made the decision that this is the standard we choose to follow, we will
thereupon voluntarily subjugate our personal preferences in favour of the advice of our
teaching, even if it is directly contrary to our own wishes. This does not preclude
taking "whatever is useful". Rather, it gives us a basis for judging what is and
is not useful. And if it should happen that within our chosen teaching we already find all
that we need in order to "get on with it", then so much the better.
But if the charge of narrowness is
nonetheless made, then we will note first that an arrow that is broad and wide is far less
likely to hit its mark than one that is properly shaped for one-pointed flight; and second
that the charge of narrowness is made without understanding. For no point of view
can be understood except from its own frame of reference, an observation which already
suggests the crystalline approach, for all that it is true of syncretistic views as well.[4] It is most commonly the case that people do not question the
assumptions that underlie their own basic attitudes -- after all, it's obvious,
isn't it? -- but until they do so, they will be necessarily unable to understand a point
of view that does not arise from those assumptions except from within their own viewpoint,
which is to say that they will not be able to understand it at all. And the charge of
narrowness is made from the syncretistic point of view without comprehending the
crystalline point of view.
The collection of discourses known as
the Pali Suttas heartedly recommends itself to the concerned individual as being that
guidance to the transcendental which he seeks. They inform the seeker firstly that his
life-problem arises dependent for its condition upon a wrong view of things, and secondly
that a right view, which would undermine and end that problem, is to be achieved by
following right-view guidance, namely, the training-course set forth by the Buddha. There
can be no doubt after even a brief look at these texts that they staunchly advocate the
crystalline approach towards liberation. In many ways do they declare themselves to be
all-of-a-piece,[5a] a Teaching not to be understood by taking
from it according to personal preference.[5b] Therefore when
inquiring into the Pali Suttas it is a necessity, if one hopes to understand what is meant
therein by "right view", to adopt the crystalline approach, and we do so here.
Footnotes
1. "This body will perish;
it's old;
a nest of distress.
It breaks up, this putrid mold:
life ends in death." -- Dh. 148
[Back to text]
2. "The fool who does his
folly see
is a sage to that degree.
Who to sagacity gives airs,
that fool, he is 'A fool!' declared." -- Dh. 63
[Back to text]
3. If one does not accept
that truth is at least consistent with itself -- i.e. that truth is not false -- then this
question will not arise. Instead, one will remain lost in one's inconsistencies and
will fail to see that coherent movement wherein one can achieve freedom from confusion and
anxiety. [Back to text]
4. An extreme extension of the
eclectic view, common enough nowadays, is that "all teachings lead to a common
goal" or, at least, that the deepest teachings (= "those I most
approve of") do. A discussion of this idea is beyond our scope; but since this view
so accords with the spirit of the times that it is particularly liable to be accepted
uncritically, it is worthwhile to note that if (as is the case) it is a mistaken view,
then its adoption would be an insurmountable barrier to realization of that which
transcends what is common. [Back to text]
5a. E.g.: "Monks, just as
the great ocean has but one flavour, the flavour of salt, so too this Teaching has but one
flavour, the flavour of freedom." -- Cúlavagga IX,1,4 (ii,236) = A. VIII,19
(iv,199) = Ud. V,5 (56). [Back to text]
5b. E.g.: "Monks, even with
a teacher who dwells giving importance to material things, an heir to material things,
conjoined with material things, haggling such as this would be untenable: 'If we have it
so, then we will do it; if we don't have it so, then we won't do it.' What then, of a
Perfect One who dwells unentangled with material things? Monks, a faithful disciple,
having scrutinized the teacher's advice, proceeds in accordance with this: 'The Exalted
One is the teacher. I am the disciple. The Exalted One knows. I do not know.'" --
M. 70 (i,480): Kítágiri Sutta. Numerous additional passages could be quoted to
support the two texts above; but perhaps it is not necessary to belabour the point: those
who require more evidence can find it themselves, by going to the Suttas. [Back
to text]
Source: Ńánavíra Thera
Dhamma Page
Sincere thanks to Dr. Binh Anson for providing us
with this electronic book.
Parts | 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 | 5 | 6
|