Pāli Pericope and Wrong View

In Richard Gombrich’s article, Three Souls, One or None: The Vagaries of a Pāli Pericope, Gombrich demonstrates how pericopes or stock phrases in the Pali Canon can arise in various suttas that can result in confusion of meaning within the larger context of the sutta it is embedded in.

Gombrich indicates that the pericope makes only perfect sense in its original context, and when supplanted into a different context it sometimes makes no sense at all.

This form of textual contamination or corruption can be seen throughout the Pāli Canon. One particular example is the frequently quoted passage in the Pāli Canon that defines wrong view (taken from the Sāleyyaka Sutta of the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha):

There is no gift, no offering, no sacrifice. There is no fruit of good and bad actions. There is not this world nor a world beyond. There is no mother, no father, no beings who are spontaneously born. There are no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the world beyond.

What is interesting about this passage is that wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi) is actually composed of a series of views, one view of which denies the efficacy of sacrifice. The mention of sacrifice in this passage is referring to Brahmin sacrificial actions of killing animals to propitiate the gods.

What makes this passage so dubious is that the Buddha never condoned the killing of any animals, especially for empty rituals whose soteriology he explicitly denied and spoke against.

The originating text for this pericope can be found in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. This sutta, considered by many scholars to be contain early elements, relates the exposition the Buddha gives on being asked by King Ajatasattu on what is the “reward visible here and now as a fruit of the homeless life.”

Prior to the Buddha answering the question, the King tells of the replies given by other religious leaders when asked this same question. The King goes ahead and quotes the answer of Makkahali Gosala and Purana Kassapa before relating Ajita Kesakambali’s answer (translation from Walshe’s Long Discourses of the Buddha):

‘Ajita Kesakambali said: “Your Majesty, there is nothing given, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world; no other world; no mother; no father; no beings that are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and Brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.”’

After relating the replies of three more leading teachers the Buddha finally provides his own answer never explicitly condemning or belittling the other answers.

While the Buddha most certainly disagreed with the overall notion that actions do not lead to any result, he never went ahead and refuted every point expressed by Ajita Kesakambali. Yet we find in the suttas the Buddha preaching this exact passage as being wrong view as these words are his very own.

The fact of the matter is that these words were never spoken by the Buddha but were spoken by King Ajatasattu who was giving an account of what Ajita Kesakambali purportedly said.

Here is an excellent example of the lifting out an ancient passage and applying to a foreign context where it is elevated as an essential doctrine. In reality, the lifting out of the text is merely a self-made fictional, corrupting construction that disguises itself as an authentic piece of doctrine.

I will show in future posts of other suttas concerned with question of rebirth and karma that have pericopes which obscure the meaning by promulgating metaphysical notions of rebirth which underlining text does not support. The result of which is a mischaracterization of the Buddha’s innovative notion of karma as a psychological process rather than a metaphysical one.

Meaning of Upekkhā

The Pali word, upekkhā, which is generally translated in English as equanimity does not quite capture the full meaning of this ancient and important word.

Upekkhā is encountered throughout the Pali canon being associated with the four immeasurables or divine abodes of Brahma and as an important element of the fourth jhana which is considered in the scriptures to be the jumping point to Nirvana.

By examining the word’s construction, we can get a better idea of its meaning.

Upekkhā is formed from the prefix upa and the root ikh meaning, “to see.” The prefix upa generally means unto, to, towards, near, with; it has the notion of bringing towards or with.

Putting these two elements together the meaning of upekkhā can be understood as bringing towards what is one seeing, or a type of seeing which is characterized as bringing into one’s vision or bringing with one’s vision. In short, an inclusive sort of seeing that takes in things.

When we contrast this idea with apekkha the meaning of upekkhā becomes a lot clearer. Apekkha which is translated as longing for or desire has the same root as upekkhā (ikh) but with a different prefix, apa. The prefix apa is in some senses opposed to the prefix upa in that the prefix signifies away from, forth, down or on. Apekkha can thus be understood as looking away or a type of seeing that is characterized by looking forth towards something. This can be interpreted as a form of seeing which goes away from what is one currently seeing to the thing looked upon; a form of vision which leaves or excludes all except the thing desired.

Upekkhā being in a sense the opposite of apekkha, can now be undetstood as a form of seeing that gracefully includes whatever comes into the field of vision.

Unlike apekkha that is characterized by the exclusive movement of the mind away to something, upekkhā is characterized by the inclusive movement of the mind that brings in something. While the desire expressed in apekkha is discriminatory in that it distinguishes and focuses on one aspect of reality, upekkhā is nondiscriminatory in that it does not break up reality but includes all in it.

It is important to not get confused at this point and understand upekkhā as indifference. Indifference is not upekkhā because indifference is discriminatory while upekkhā is not. Unlike apekkha that focuses on one thing at the expense of other things, indifference excludes by focusing away from some things (generally things not considered important). As such indifference always involves value judgments unlike upekkhā that does not.

Hopefully at this point, upekkhā can be seen as a far richer word than the English word of equanimity. From this analysis, upekkhā can be better understood as a noncritical quality that embraces reality and the totality of existence.

Buddha's Second Insight Altered? - Part 2

One of the most important passages from the Pali Canon that elucidates the Buddha’s view on what differentiates humans from each other comes from the Vasettha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata. The sutta begins with two Brahmin students arguing on whether it is by birth or by a person’s actions that make him a Brahmin. On reaching an impasse, they decide to travel and meet the Buddha to see if he can resolve the argument.

The Buddha responds to the question by first pointing out that there are different species of plants, insects, snakes, fish and mammals. The Buddha then contrasts the differences in animal species to that of humans and notes:

Unlike in other species there is not among men differences in kinds of species with regards to their eyes, ears, mouths, noses, lips, eyebrows and even their hair – all are of the same type. . . . [Humans] do not have the variety of inherited features that other creatures have. In fact, in the case of humans, differences are differences by convention. (608-611)

The Buddha further expands on the notion of convention that differentiates humans by arguing that people are named because of their profession and not by their birth. He explains that a Brahmin is a Brahmin because he performs priestly ceremonies; a person is a soldier because he is paid to kill, and a servant is a servant by virtue that he or she serves and so on.

After this long exposition, he directly answers the Brahmins’ question by definitively stating that a person is a Brahmin by deed and not by birth:

No one is born a Brahmin; no one is born a non-Brahmin. A Brahmin is a Brahmin because of what he does; a man is not because of what he does; a man who is not a Brahmin is not a Brahmin because of what he does. (648-650)

The Buddha concludes his sermon by stating the centrality of karma:

The world exists because of casual actions; all things are governed by and bound by casual actions. They are fixed like the rolling of the wheel of a cart, fixed by the pin of its axle shaft. (654)

In direct contrast to the passage which indicates a person is such and such because of actions in a past life, the Buddha is clearly indicating that who we are is not the result of our past lives but the result of our actions or kamma in this very life which bounds us and governs us.

The implications of this important sutta are quite radical. The main purport is that no person by virtue of their background, birth or physical appearance has any more special claims or privilege for being a “superior” person. The Buddha would say that these supposed differences are merely, “conventions”, and do not exist outside an agreed upon human concept.

Because it is the actions that make the man or woman, then it follows that any person with a mind and an ability to act has the capability of bettering themselves and thus making themselves “superior.” And of course for the Buddha, the ultimate action is achieving enlightenment.

The Buddha in his time took converts from all classes in Indian society from the very highest class (Brahmins) to the lowest class (Sudras). He did not distinguish between a person’s gender whether or not one could become enlightened and allowed for the creation of the Buddhist order of nuns, which in a patriarchal society was a controversial thing to do. The Buddha allowed people from all walks of life and genders to listen and practice his teachings because he saw no distinction in people due to their background or gender in their capability to become enlightened.

This is fundamentally a message of hope that encourages us to go beyond the conventional labels of our society and define ourselves by our actions and not by our heritage or circumstances.

Summary

By looking at this important sutta and comparing it to the passage of the Buddha’s second insight which indicates our past life karma is responsible for the differences in people, there is a definite conflict. If the deterministic cosmological context is stripped out, we find both passages agreeing in spirit and expressing a more profound picture of kamma. Because of this and the medley sentences surrounding the key sentence of the second insight, I believe the second insight was altered and thus the Buddha never made such a cosmological statement about kamma.