BUDDHIST
PRECEPTS & PRINCIPLES
"Remember, our
purpose here is not to make more Buddhists; it is to make more enlightented beings. When
you teach Buddhism, don't encourage people to become Buddhists; just encourage them to
cultivate the qualities of love, compassion, universal responsibility and wisdom within
themselves. If some special people with strong karmic connections want to formally become
Buddhists then that is acceptable; but in general, the emphasis should be on a commitment
to inner spiritual values, not to any specific religious tradition." - H.H. the Dalai
Lama
RIGHT
SPEECH
Majjhima Nikaya 58 Abhaya Sutta
(Abhaya-raja-kumara Sutta) To Prince Abhaya
(On Right Speech)
For free distribution
only, as a gift of Dhamma.
Translator's Note: In
this discourse, the Buddha shows the factors that go into deciding what is and is not
worth saying. The main factors are three: whether or not a statement is true, whether or
not it is beneficial, and whether or not it is pleasing to others. The Buddha himself
would state only those things that are true and beneficial, and would have a sense of time
for when pleasing and unpleasing things should be said.
Notice that the possibility that a
statement might be untrue yet beneficial is not even entertained. This discourse also
shows, in action, the Buddha's teaching on the four categories of questions and how they
should be answered (see AN.IV.42). The prince asks him two questions, and in both cases he
responds first with a counter-question, before going on to give an analytical answer to
the first question and a categorical answer to the second. Each counter-question serves a
double function: to give the prince a familiar reference point for understanding the
answer about to come, and also to give him a chance to speak of his own intelligence and
good motives. This provides him with the opportunity to save face after being stymied in
his desire to best the Buddha in argument.
The Commentary notes that the prince
had placed his infant son on his lap as a cheap debater's trick: if the Buddha had put him
in an uncomfortable spot in the debate, the prince would have pinched his son, causing him
to cry and thus effectively bringing the debate to a halt. The Buddha, however, uses the
infant's presence to remove any sense of a debate and also to make an effective point.
Taking Nigantha Nataputta's image of a dangerous object stuck in the throat, he applies it
to the infant, and then goes on to make the point that, unlike the Niganthas -- who were
content to leave someone with a potentially lethal object in the throat -- the Buddha's
desire is to remove such objects, out of sympathy and compassion. In this way, he brings
the prince over to his side, converting a potential opponent into a disciple. Thus this
discourse is not only about right speech, but also shows right speech in action.
I have heard that on one occasion the
Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then
Prince Abhaya went to Nigantha Nataputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to
one side. As he was sitting there, Nigantha Nataputta said to him, "Come, now,
prince. Refute the words of the contemplative Gotama, and this admirable report about you
will spread afar: `The words of the contemplative Gotama -- so mighty, so powerful -- were
refuted by Prince Abhaya!'"
"But how, venerable sir, will I
refute the words of the contemplative Gotama -- so mighty, so powerful?"
"Come now, prince. Go to the
contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: `Venerable sir, would the Tathagata say
words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If the contemplative Gotama,
thus asked, answers, `The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing &
disagreeable to others,' then you should say, `Then how is there any difference between
you, venerable sir, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words
that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if the contemplative Gotama, thus
asked, answers, `The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable
to others,' then you should say, `Then how, venerable sir, did you say of Devadatta that
"Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will
boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled
at those words of yours.' When the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question
by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned
chestnut** were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow
it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this
two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."
Responding, "As you say, venerable
sir," Prince Abhaya got up from his seat, bowed down to Nigantha Nataputta,
circumambulated him, and then went to the Blessed One. On arrival, he bowed down to the
Blessed One and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he glanced up at the sun and
thought, "Today is not the time to refute the Blessed One's words. Tomorrow in my own
home I will overturn the Blessed One's words." So he said to the Blessed One,
"May the Blessed One, together with three others, acquiesce to my offer of tomorrow's
meal." The Blessed One acquiesced with silence. Then Prince Abhaya, understanding the
Blessed One's acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One,
circumambulated him, and left.
Then, after the night had passed, the
Blessed One early in the morning put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe,
went to Prince Abhaya's home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Abhaya,
with his own hand, served & satisfied the Blessed One with fine staple &
non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his
bowl, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat down to one side.
As he was sitting there he said to the
Blessed One, "Venerable sir, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing &
disagreeable to others?"
"Prince, there is no categorical
yes-or-no answer to that."
"Then right here, venerable sir, the
Niganthas are destroyed."
"But prince, why do you say, `Then
right here, venerable sir, the Niganthas are destroyed'?"
"Just yesterday, venerable sir, I
went to Nigantha Nataputta and ... he said to me ... `Come now, prince. Go to the
contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: "Venerable sir, would the Tathagata say
words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?" .... Just as if a
two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down
or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged
question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'"
Now at that time a baby boy was lying
face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you
think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were
to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" "I
would take it out, venerable sir. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its
head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it
meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."
"In the same way, prince: [1] In the
case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not
connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial,
unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [3] In the case of words
that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing &
disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. [4] In the case
of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing
& agreeable to others, he does not say them. [5] In the case of words that the
Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to
others, he does not say them. [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be
factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living
beings."
"Venerable sir, when wise nobles or
priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the
Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand --
`If those who approach me ask this, I -- thus asked -- will answer in this way' -- or does
the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot?"
"In that case, prince, I will ask you
a counter-question. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: are you skilled in the parts
of a chariot?"
"Yes, venerable sir. I am skilled in
the parts of a chariot."
"And what do you think: When people
come & ask you, `What is the name of this part of the chariot?' does this line of
reasoning appear to your awareness beforehand -- `If those who approach me ask this, I --
thus asked -- will answer in this way' -- or do you come up with the answer on the
spot?"
"Venerable sir, I am renowned for
being skilled in the parts of a chariot. All the parts of a chariot are well-known to me.
I come up with the answer on the spot."
"In the same way, prince, when wise
nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to
the Tathagata and ask him, he comes up with the answer on the spot. Why is that? Because
the property of the Dhamma is thoroughly penetrated by the Tathagata. From his thorough
penetration of the property of the Dhamma, he comes up with the answer on the spot."
When this was said, Prince Abhaya said to
the Blessed One: "Magnificent, venerable sir! Magnificent! Just as if he were to
place upright what had been overturned, or to reveal what was hidden, were to show the way
to one who was lost, or were to hold up a lamp in the dark so that those with eyes could
see shapes, in the same way the Blessed One has -- through many lines of reasoning -- made
the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of
monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge,
from this day forward, for life."
** Note: A two-horned
chestnut is the nut of a tree (Trapa bicornis) growing in south and southeast
Asia. Its shell looks like the head of a water buffalo, with two nasty, curved
"horns" sticking out of either side.
Related reading: AN.IV.42 AN.IV.183 http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/majjhima/mn58.html
THINK
FOR YOURSELF
Kalama Sutta
The Buddhist Charter of
Free Enquiry
We believe that most of the
main religions in this century teach all their followers how to live rightfully and
harmoniously, to respect, to love and to trust their fellow human beings as well as those
around them i.e. the animals and the environment.
Nevertheless there is one
question that has always stayed deep inside us, which of them is the " Right Religion
- which is universal, which is supreme, etc. etc.
And so doubts arise in us,
we start to question the credibility of our own religion. Sometimes we are forbidden to
question because it has thus been laid down all the time in this way....., and because my
teacher and their teachers said so....., etc. etc.
In this first discussion,
let's establish ourselves on how and when to accept what is true and what are not. The
nature of the Buddha’s teachings is such that none of his followers is expected to
believe in him without having Right Understanding in his teachings.
The Buddha encourages us to
test the truth he preached as the wise test the gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it
against a piece of touchstone. So to say : you are to accept his words after examining
them and not merely out of regards for him.
In this week discussion, on
the Buddhist Charter of Free Enquiries ( Kalama Sutta ), the Buddha answered to some very
controversial and self-trap questions of the Kalamas. It is with Right Understanding that
the questions were answered in such a manner that today it becomes the most important
guide for all Buddhist to learn and follow in pursuing the knowledge of wisdom.
Kalama Sutta
Once the Buddha
was staying in a certain town in northern India named Kesaputta where the Kalama clan
lived. The Kalamas visited the Buddha and asked him this question :
"There are some holy
men and priests, Venerable Sir, who come to Kesaputta and claim that only their religion
is right and others are wrong. As a result, doubt has come to us. Which of these holy men
and priests spoke the truth?"
The Buddha replied :
"It is proper to doubt
in things that are doubtful. Come, O Kalamas, do not accept anything :
through
repeated hearing,
through mere tradition,
through rumors,
through mere correspondence with the scriptures,
through mere thinking deeply,
through logical reasoning,
through mere apparent reason,
based on mere agreement with your own opinions,
based on a person who seemingly possess abilities,
thinking this person is our teacher."
"Kalamas,
when you yourselves know what are immoral, blameworthy and censured by the wise, when
performed and undertaken, conduce to unprofitable things, conduce to suffering ( to
oneself as well as others ), abandon them."
"Kalamas, when you
yourselves know what are moral, not blameworthy and praised by the wise, when performed
and undertaken, conduce to benefit, conduce to well being and happiness ( to oneself as
well as others ), then do you live and act accordingly."
"Kalamas, what do you
think, the presence of Greed, Hatred and Delusion occurring within a man, does it conduce
to benefit or to unprofitable things?"
"A Covetous, a Furious
and a Deluded man who is overwhelmed with greed, hatred and delusion respectively resorts
sometimes to killing, sometimes to stealing, sometimes to committing adultery, sometimes
to lying, sometimes induce others to be like that too.
Whatever conduces to
unprofitable things, conduces to the suffering of oneself and others, a covetous man, a
furious man and a deluded man advise others in that very thing. Is it so or not?"
"Kalamas, what do you
think, the absence of Greed , Hatred and Delusion occurring within a man, does it conduce
to benefit or to unprofitable things?"
A man rid of Greed, Hatred and
Delusion, refrains from killing, refrains from stealing, refrains from committing
adultery, refrains from lying, sometimes induces others to be like that too.
Whatever conduce to benefit,
conduce to happiness of oneself and others, a man rid of greed, hatred and delusion advice
others in that very thing. Is it so or not?"
The noble disciple is without
greed, without hatred and without delusion, but self-controlled and of discerning
mindfulness, with a heart composed of :-
loving-kindness - wishing
happiness for all beings,
compassion - wishing deliverance from suffering for all beings,
good cheer - sympathetic joy towards all beings of their gains,
equanimity - impartiality towards all beings.
radiating these four kinds of
infinite good-will ; that is wide spread, grown great and boundless, free from enmity and
oppression, untainted and made pure ; suffusing the whole world ; the noble disciple being
thus attains four kinds of comforts ;
if the hereafter
exists, results of good and bad deeds committed exist ;
therefore I shall reborn in a blissful heavenly world,
if the hereafter
does not exist, fruit or ripening of deed do not exist; I shall enjoying only the
happiness in this very life, do I hold myself free from enmity and oppression, sorrowless
and well.
if evil is done,
evil is there to befall ( on the evil-doer ), I have not designed evil against anybody,
how can sorrow befall me who has done no evil,
if evil is not
done by an evil-doer ( nor myself ), I have considered and find myself pure in both
respects (inadvertently & intentionally)
When the Blessed One had
finished this discourse, the Kalamas acknowledged the truth of it and praised it and took
refuge in the Triple Gem as lay disciples. -
Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65
[from Dhamma Zone] http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5354/index.htm
"NO
SELF" or "NOT-SELF?"
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma
Note:This essay is also available in Czech.
One of the first stumbling blocks that
Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta,
often translated as "no-self." This teaching is a stumbling block for two
reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist
teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences
the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own
Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a
basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?
Many books try to answer these questions,
but if you look at the Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings
-- you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked
point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why,
he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into
extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the
question should be put aside.
To understand what his silence on this
question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how
questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four
classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve
an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that
deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those
that deserve to be put aside.
The last class of question consists of
those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher,
when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to
respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that
should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you
should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted.
The Buddha said that there are two types
of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't
have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that
should.
These are the basic ground rules for
interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta
doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self
interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a
separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha
showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the
discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if
one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one
is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to
the question of whether or not there is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or
not -- the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how
you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self
involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress.
This holds as much for an interconnected
self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one
identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an
entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would
become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness -- one's own or that of others
-- impossible.
For these reasons, the Buddha advised
paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I
exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress. To avoid the
suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an
alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its
cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining
to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of
themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to
each.
Stress should be comprehended, its cause
abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties
form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood.
If you develop the path of virtue,
concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to
look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are
not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress
because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If
it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?"
These last questions merit straightforward
answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and
clinging -- the residual sense of self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately
all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta
teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the
highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall
aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern
about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self? -- by Thanissaro
Bhikkhu http://world.std.com/~metta/ftp/modern/notself2.html
(Back To
Episode 4 Commentary)
THE NOT-SELF STRATEGY
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Books on Buddhism often state that the
Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey
of the discourses in the Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's
teachings -- suggests that the Buddha taught the //anatta// or not-self doctrine,
not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release
from suffering:
If one uses the concept of not-self to
dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering &
stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it
may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as
"self" or "not-self" would not apply.
The evidence for this reading of the Canon
centers around four points:
1. The one passage where the Buddha is
asked point-blank to take a position on the ontological question of whether or not there
is a self, he refuses to answer.
2. The passages which state most
categorically that there is no self are qualified in such a way that they cover all of
describable reality, but not all of reality which may be experienced.
3. Views that there is no self are ranked
with views that that there is a self as a "fetter of views" which a person
aiming at release from suffering would do well to avoid.
4. The person who has attained the goal of
release views reality in such a way that all views -- even such basic notions as self
& no-self, true & false -- can have no hold power over the mind.
What follows is a selection of relevant
passages from the Canon. They are offered with the caveat that in ultimate terms
nothing conclusive can be proved by quoting the texts. Scholars have offered
arguments for throwing doubt on almost everything in the Canon -- either by offering new
translations for crucial terms, or by questioning the authenticity of almost every passage
it contains -- and so the only true test for any interpretation is to put it into
practice and see where it leads in terms of gaining release for the mind.
1. Compare the following two dialogues.
Having taken a seat to one side,
Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a
self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time
the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from
his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the
wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not
answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta
the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be
conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e.
the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self,
that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of
annihilationism (i.e. that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to
answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that
all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is
no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self
which I used to have, now not exist?"'
-- S xliv.10
Mogharaja: In what way does one view the
world so that the King of Death does not see one?
The Buddha: Having removed any view in
terms of self, always mindful, Mogharaja, view the world as void. This way one is above
& beyond death. This is the way one views the world so that the King of Death does not
see one.
-- Sn v.16
The first passage is one of the most
controversial in the Canon. Those who hold that the Buddha took a position one way or the
other on the question of whether or not there is a self have to explain the Buddha's
silence away, and usually do so by focusing on the his final statement to Ananda. If
someone else more spiritually mature than Vacchagotta had asked the question, they say,
the Buddha would have revealed his true position.
This interpretation, though, ignores the
Buddha's first two sentences to Ananda: No matter who asks the question, to say that there
is or is not a self would be to fall into one of the two philosophical positions which the
Buddha avoided throughout his career. As for his third sentence, he was concerned not to
contradict "the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self" not
because he felt that this knowledge alone was metaphysically correct, but because he saw
that its arising could be liberating. (We will deal further with the content of this
knowledge below in Point 2.)
This point is borne out if we make a
comparison with the second passage. The fundamental difference between the two dialogues
lies in the questions asked: In the first, Vacchagotta asks the Buddha to take a position
on the question of whether or not there is a self, and the Buddha remains silent. In the
second, Mogharaja asks for a way to view the world so that one can go beyond death, and
the Buddha speaks, teaching him to view the world without reference to the notion of self.
This suggests that, instead of being an assertion that there is no self, the teaching on
not-self is more a technique of perception aimed at leading beyond death to Nibbana -- a
way of perceiving things with no self-identification, no sense that 'I am', no attachment
to 'I' or 'mine' involved.
Thus it would seem most honest to take the
first dialogue at face value, and to say that the question of whether or not there is a
self is one on which the Buddha did not take a position, regardless of whether he was
talking to a spiritually confused person like Vacchagotta, or a more advanced person like
Ananda. For him, the doctrine of not-self is a technique or strategy for liberation, and
not a metaphysical or ontological position.
2. The following two passages, taken
together, are often offered as the strongest proof that the Buddha denied the existence of
a self in the most uncertain terms. Notice, however, how the terms "world" &
"All" are defined.
Ananda: It is said that the world is void,
the world is void, venerable sir. In what respect is it said that the world is void?
The Buddha: Insofar as it is void of a
self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said that the world is void. And what
is void of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is void of a self or of
anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Visual consciousness... Visual contact is void of
a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
The ear....
The nose....
The tongue....
The body....
The intellect is void of a self or of
anything pertaining to a self. Ideas...Mental consciousness... Mental contact is void of a
self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is void.
S.xxxv.85
What is the All? Simply the eye &
forms, ear & sounds, nose & odors, tongue & flavors, body & tactile
sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is termed the All. Anyone who would say,
'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be
the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put
to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.
S xxxv.23
Now, if the six senses & their objects
-- sometimes called the six spheres of contact -- constitute the world or the All, is
there anything beyond them?
MahaKotthita: With the remainderless
stopping & fading of the six spheres of contact (vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch,
& intellection) is it the case that there is anything else?
Sariputta: Do not say that, my friend.
MahaKotthita: With the remainderless
stopping & fading of the six spheres of contact, is it the case that there is not
anything else?
Sariputta: Do not say that, my friend.
MahaKotthita: ...is it the case that there
both is & is not anything else?
Sariputta: Do not say that, my friend.
MahaKotthita: ...is it the case that there
neither is nor is not anything else?
Sariputta: Do not say that, my friend.
MahaKotthita: Being asked... if there is
anything else, you say 'Do not say that, my friend'. Being asked... if there is not
anything else... if there both is & is not anything else... if there neither is nor is
not anything else, you say, 'Do not say that, my friend'. Now, how is the meaning of this
statement to be understood?
Sariputta: Saying... is it the case that
there is anything else... is it the case that there is not anything else... is it the case
that there both is & is not anything else... is it the case the there neither is nor
is not anything else, one is differentiating non-differentiation. However far the six
spheres of contact go, that is how far differentiation goes. However far differentiation
goes, that is how far the six spheres of contact go. With the remainderless fading &
stopping of the six spheres of contact, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of
differentiation.
A iv.173
The sphere of non-differentiation,
although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience.
Monks, that sphere is to be realized where
the eye (vision) stops and the perception (mental noting) of form fades. That sphere is to
be realized where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades...where the nose stops
and the perception of odor fades...where the tongue stops and the perception of flavor
fades...where the body stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades...where the
intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That sphere is to be
realized.
S xxxv.116
Although this last passage indicates that
there is a sphere to be experienced beyond the six sensory spheres, it should not be taken
as a "higher self". This point is brought out in the Great Discourse on
Causation, where the Buddha classifies all theories of the self into four major
categories: those describing a self which is either (a) possessed of form (a body) &
finite; (b) possessed of form & infinite; (c) formless & finite; and (d) formless
& infinite. The text gives no examples of the various categories, but we might cite
the following as illustrations: (a) theories which deny the existence of a soul, and
identify the self with the body; (b) theories which identify the self with all being or
with the universe; (c) theories of discrete, individual souls; (d) theories of a unitary
soul or identity immanent in all things. He then goes on to reject all four categories.
Another passage often quoted to the effect
that the Buddha taught that there is no self is the following verse from the Dhammapada,
especially the third stanza, in which the word dhamma refers both to conditioned & to
unconditioned things. Notice, though, what the verse says as a whole: These insights are
part of the path, and not the goal at the end of the path.
'All conditioned things are inconstant' --
When one sees this with discernment And grows disenchanted with stress, This is the path
to purity.
'All conditioned things are stressful' --
When one sees with discernment And grows disenchanted with stress, This is the path to
purity.
'All dhammas are not-self' -- When one
sees with discernment And grows disenchanted with stress, This is the path to purity.
Dhp 277-79
As we will see in a passage below, the
Buddha states that the meditator attains awakening by seeing the limits of all things
conditioned, by seeing what lies beyond them, and clinging to neither. In the following
verse, the Buddha's questioner refers to the goal as a dhamma, while the Buddha describes
it as a removing or doing away of all dhammas -- and thus it goes beyond "all
dhammas" and any possible statement that could be made about them. Once the meditator
has done this, no words -- being, not-being, self, not-self -- can apply.
Upasiva: One who has reached the end: Does
he not exist, Or is he for eternity free from affliction? Please, sage, declare this to me
as this dhamma has been known by you.
The Buddha: One who has reached the end
has no criterion By which anyone would say that -- it does not exist for him. When all
dhammas are done away with All means of speaking are done away with as well.
Sn v.6
3. Although the concept
"not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments &
clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many
metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering.
There is the case where an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas
are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and
attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inaptly: 'Was I
in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future?
What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall
I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I?
Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
As he attends inaptly in this way, one of
six kinds of view arises in him: The view //I have a self// arises in him as true &
established,
or the view //I have no self//...
or the view //It is precisely because of
self that I perceive self//...
or the view //It is precisely because of
self that I perceive not-self//...
or the view //It is precisely because of
not-self that I perceive self// arises in him as true & established,
or else he has a view like this: //This
very self of mine -- the knower which is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
good & bad actions -- is the self of mine which is constant, everlasting, eternal, not
subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity//.
This is called a thicket of views, a
wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound
by a fetter of views, the un-instructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth,
ageing & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. He is not freed
from stress, I say.
The well-taught noble disciple...discerns
what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so,
he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends (instead) to ideas fit for
attention... He attends aptly, //This is stress... This is the origin of stress... This is
the stopping of stress... This is the way leading to the stopping of stress//. As he
attends aptly in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, uncertainty
and adherence to precepts & practices.
M 2
4. Thus although the person on the Path
must make use of Right View, he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of
release. For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no 'subject' or
'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience or thing experienced. There is
simply the experience in & of itself.
Monks, whatever in this world -- with its
gods, Maras & Brahmas, its generations complete with contemplatives & priests,
princes & men -- is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by
the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in this world... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized,
attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That is known by
the Tathagata, but the Tathagata has not been obsessed with it....
Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing
what is to be seen, does not construe an (object as) seen. He does not construe an unseen.
He does not construe an (object) to-be-seen. He does not construe a seer.
When hearing.... When sensing.... When
cognizing what is to be cognized, he does not construe an(object as) cognized. He does not
construe an uncognized. He does not construe an (object) to-be-cognized. He does not
construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata -- being
such-like with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed & cognized --
is 'Such.' And I tell you: There is no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.
Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and
fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such -- among those who are self-bound --
would not further assume to be true or even false. Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung -- 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' --
There is nothing of the Tathagata fastened.
A iv.24
A view is true or false only when one is
judging how accurately it refers to something else. If one is regarding it simply as a
statement, an event, in & of itself, true & false no longer apply. Thus for the
Tathagata, who no longer imposes notions of subject or object on experience, and regards
sights, sounds, feelings & thoughts purely in & of themselves, views are neither
true nor false, but simply phenomena to be experienced. With no notion of subject, there
is no grounds for "I know, I see;" with no notion of object, no grounds for,
"That's just how it is." Views of true, false, self, no self, etc., thus lose
all their holding power, and the mind is left free to its Suchness: untouched,
uninfluenced by anything of any sort.
That, say the wise, is a fetter, In
dependence on which One sees others as inferior.
Sn iv.5
Whoever construes 'equal' 'superior' or
'inferior', by that he would dispute; Whereas to one unaffected by these three, 'equal'
'superior' do not occur. Of what would the Brahman (arahant) say 'true' or 'false',
disputing with whom, he in whom 'equal' & 'unequal' are not.... As the prickly lotus
is unsmeared by water & mud, So the sage, an exponent of peace, without greed, is
unsmeared by sensuality & the world. An attainer-of-wisdom is not measured made proud
by views or by what is thought, for he is not altered by them. Not by rituals is he led,
nor by traditional lore, nor with reference to dogmas. For one dispassionate towards
perception there are no ties; for one released by discernment, no delusions. Those who
seize at perceptions & views go about disputing in the world.
Sn iv.9
'Does Master Gotama have any position at
all?'
'A "position", Vaccha, is
something which a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: "Such
is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such
its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental processes... such is
consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance." Because of that, I say, a
Tathagata, -- with the ending, fading out, stopping, renunciation & relinquishment of
all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to
conceits -- is, through lack of sustenance/clinging, released.'
M 72
This, monks, the Tathagata discerns. And
he discerns that these standpoints, thus seized, thus held to, lead to such & such a
destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond. And he discerns what
surpasses this. And yet discerning that, he does not hold to it. And as he is not holding
to it, unbinding (//nibbuti//) is experienced right within. Knowing, for what they are,
the origin, ending, allure & drawbacks of feelings, along with the emancipation from
feelings, the Tathagata, monks -- through lack of sustenance/ clinging -- is released.
D 1
Whether or not these four arguments are in
fact true to the Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in
presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to use
can gain release from all suffering & stress.
'Monks, do you see any clinging/sustenance
in the form of a doctrine of self which, in clinging to, there would not arise sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief & despair?'
'No, Lord.'
'...Neither do I... How do you construe
this, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs,
branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove, would the thought occur to you, "It's
//us// that this person is gathering, burning or doing with as he likes"?'
'No, sir. Why is that? Because those
things are not our self, and do not pertain to our self.'
'Even so, monks, whatever is not yours:
Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.
And what is not yours? Form (body) is not yours... Feeling is not yours... Perception...
Mental processes... Consciousness is not yours. Let go of it. Your letting go of it will
be for your long-term happiness & benefit.'
M 22
Sariputta: Friends, there is the monk who,
on going to foreign lands, is questioned by learned nobles & priests, laypeople &
contemplatives. Learned & discriminating people say (to him), "What is your
teacher's doctrine? What does he teach?" Thus asked, you should answer, "My
teacher teaches the subduing of passion & desire."
"...passion & desire for
what?"
"...passion & desire for physical
form, feeling, perception, mental processes & consciousness."
"...seeing what danger (or drawback)
does your teacher teach the subduing of passion & desire for physical form, feeling,
perception, mental processes & consciousness?"
"...when a person is not free from
passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for physical form, etc., then from any
change & alteration in that physical form, etc., there arise sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief & despair."
"...and seeing what benefit does your
teacher teach the subduing of passion & desire for physical form, etc.?"
"...when a person is free from
passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for physical form, etc., then from any
change & alteration in that physical form, etc., sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief
& despair do not arise."
S xxii.2
Both formerly & now, Anuradha, it is
only stress (suffering) that I describe, and the stopping of stress.
S xxii.86
(Back To
Episode 4 Commentary)
LINKS TO
BUDDHIST WEB SITES
