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.