In the Mahasaccaka Sutta the Buddha describes his enlightenment as obtaining the three knowledges. The second knowledge which specifically has to do with kamma the Buddha describes as thus (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings -- who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings -- who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.This passage states clearly that the second insight the Buddha achieved by the means of the “divine eye” or psychic power was that good and bad actions or kamma can result in a person going to heaven or hell.
This appears to be straight forward and with no ambiguity. However, if we look at this passage with closer scrutiny there does appear to be incongruencies between different ideas expressed in the passage.
The first thing that seems somewhat contrived in this passage is the phrase, “by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human” which follows right after, “I saw” which is actually "I see" (passāmi). Notice that the first sentence talked about the mind being, “purified” (pariyodāta) and now immediately after we have another perceiving faculty, the “divine eye” (dibbena cakkhunā), described as being “purified” (visuddhena) as well. So now there are two perceiving faculties described when one beginning the passage would have done. This duplication seems to interrupt the flow of the sutta which indicates to me that the “divine eye” was possibly a latter addition.
What also makes me suspicious of this passage is the fact that the “divine eye” is described as “surpassing the human.” This assigning of super human or almost god like powers to the Buddha can be seen in many suttas which scholars usually argue are later additions to the canon as such passages are indicative of the propensity in religious traditions to endow their founder with super human qualities as the tradition grows.
The next sentence after the divine eyes continues with the Buddha who is said to have seen, “beings passing away & re-appearing and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.” This to me is the key part of the passage. Here the Buddha is describing the vision of beings arising and passing away and seeing that they differ in status, looks and fortune by virtue of their actions or kamma.
If the sutta was to end at this point then the question of the meaning of this key sentence could have multiple interpretations. The sutta continues, however, attempts to rescue us from this possibility by abruptly continuing with a stock passage in a commentarial like fashion, describing how good kamma leads to heaven while bad kamma leads to hell while at no time really clarifying or elaborating on the notion of kamma having to do with “beautiful & ugly” (suvaṇṇa & dubbaṇṇe), and “inferior & superior” (hīne & paṇīte). This in itself seems a little fishy, but when this impression is coupled with medley nature of the following sections that interrupts the flow of the passage, a decent argument can be made that the “heaven and hell” sentence was a later addition.
If these proposed interpolations are exercised out, the passage can be distilled down to the following: “I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.”
Having greatly shortened the passage, the question becomes whether it still makes sense and if it does, what is the meaning of it? And assuming a realistic meaning can be provided is it authentic and possibly the original meaning?
To begin with, the first part of the sentence states, “I saw beings passing away (cavamāne) & re-appearing (upapajjamāne).” This simply indicates a recollection of many different beings dying and being born. The passage continues, “and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance (yathākammūpage) with their kamma.” Here the second part of the sentence is describing clearly that the differences among people are due to their actions.
Now I do believe the Buddha is relating that there are indeed differences among people due to birth, background and general fortune, this much the Buddha grants by recalling all the many beings coming and going which obviously differed in circumstances and physical characteristics. However, I do not believe, he grants that these difference by virtue of circumstances or birth to be ultimately important.
What differences I do believe the Buddha thinks are important are those differences created by acts or kamma which he expresses in the second part of the sentence. If the differences in beauty, wealth and fortune the Buddha is mentioning can be interpreted in a figurative sense rather than a literal sense, the Buddha is essentially saying, for example, that a beautiful person is one that performs beautiful acts (compassion, kindness) rather than one being born beautiful due to previous acts.
In summary, it can be argued that this stripped down sentence can be interpreted as expressing the idea that the important differences in people are not by virtue of their birth, but by virtue of their actions.
Is this idea a crazy one? Can we find other similar passages in the Pali canon that express a similar idea thus lending some credence to it?
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker. - Buddha
ReplyDeleteSire Bouncy, I am glad you read my posts and comment, but I don't think this is an actual quote of the Buddha.
ReplyDeleteI can't find this phrase in the Pali Canon.
Thanks for your input.
I have the PTS/Woodward edition of the AN here and in volume 1, page 157 (Book of Threes, Chapter VII "The Great Chapter") Sutta 61 is called "Tenets"
ReplyDeleteThe Buddha describing one tenet: "Whatsoever weal or woe or neutral feeling is experienced, all that is due to some previous action..."
And his answer: "...for those who fall back on the former deed as the essential reason there is neither desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed..." and he further says this leads to the necessity for action or inaction "not being found to exist" on that basis. So this is a wrong view.
He clearly noticed that our circumstances now are the result of past actions, but he just as clearly states that this is not the sole cause of our current state, and we're not locked in to our miseries by those past actions; our actions now and going forward are what's critical.
About the repetitions as later additions, it's good to keep in mind that saying the same thing three times in a row, in three different ways (or whatever) is a feature of the canon's oral history. Seems doubtful that Gotama himself bored his audience with such repetitive talk, so then in that case the variations would have to be later additions, wouldn't they? And my theory is that those setting the suttas up for oral transmission will have done their very best to illuminate the suttas with an accurate description of what they understood that the Buddha said and did -- so the late additions could only be as good as the knowledge and insight of those working out what to put in there. This same sort of process would take place when translating suttas from one dialect or language to another, too.
ReplyDeleteStar, I totally agree with you. The Buddha clearly held a view karma which allowed one to change one's trajectory in one's life.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, the whole notion of karma provides a philsophical foundation that is based on the individual -- we are the one's ultimately responsible for the mental world we create. It also works as a framework for ethics.
But it is also important to note that the Buddha considered SN IV, 230-231, that feelings are not always caused by past actions but by the humors (medical conditions), weather, random acts of violence and so on.
To comment on the oral history, yes, the repititions clearly indicate it, helping to clearly show the antiquity of the texts which were pretextual.
ReplyDeleteIn a post (hopefully I will get to it), I will argue that these two insights were not original and added later.
Pleased to hear you say that you will hopefully get to a post! It would be great to have new posts of yours, I'm finding what you're writing about very helpful.
ReplyDelete