A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta

his activities, and thus keep him in a continuous process of suffering and enjoyment. The karma matter thus accumulated in the soul produces a kind of coloration called _les’ya_, such as white, black, etc., which marks the character of the soul. The

idea of the s’ukla and k@r@s@na karmas of the Yoga system was probably suggested by the Jaina view. But when a man is free from passions, and acts in strict compliance with the rules of conduct, his actions produce karma which lasts but for a moment and is then annihilated. Every karma that the sage has previously earned has its predestined limits within which it must take effect and be purged away. But when by contemplation and the strict adherence to the five great vows, no new karma is generated, and when all the karmas are exhausted the worldly existence of the person rapidly draws towards its end. Thus in the last stage of contemplation, all karma being annihilated, and all activities having ceased, the soul leaves the body and goes up to the top of the universe, where the liberated souls stay for ever.

Buddhism also contributes some new traits to the karma theory which however being intimately connected with their metaphysics will be treated later on.

2. _The Doctrine of Mukti_.

Not only do the Indian systems agree as to the cause of the inequalities in the share of sufferings and enjoyments in the case of different persons, and the manner in which the cycle of births and rebirths has been kept going from beginningless time, on the basis of the mysterious connection of one’s actions with the happenings of the world, but they also agree in believing that this beginningless chain of karma and its fruits, of births and rebirths, this running on from beginningless time has somewhere its end. This end was not to be attained at some distant time or in some distant kingdom, but was to be sought within us. Karma leads us to this endless cycle, and if we could divest ourselves of all such emotions, ideas or desires as lead us to action we should find within us the actionless self which neither suffers nor enjoys, neither works nor undergoes rebirth. When the Indians, wearied by the endless bustle and turmoil of worldly events, sought for and believed that somewhere a peaceful goal could be found, they generally hit upon the self of man. The belief that the soul could be realized in some stage as being permanently divested of all action, feelings or ideas, led logically to the conclusion that the connection of the soul with these worldly elements was extraneous, artificial or even illusory. In its true nature the soul is untouched by the impurities of our ordinary life, and it is through ignorance

and passion as inherited from the cycle of karma from beginningless time that we connect it with these. The realization of this transcendent state is the goal and final achievement of this endless cycle of births and rebirths through karma. The Buddhists did not admit the existence of soul, but recognized that the final realization of the process of karma is to be found in the ultimate dissolution called Nirva@na, the nature of which we shall discuss later on.

3. _The Doctrine of Soul_.

All the Indian systems except Buddhism admit the existence of a permanent entity variously called atman, puru@sa or jiva. As to the exact nature of this soul there are indeed divergences of view. Thus while the Nyaya calls it absolutely qualityless and characterless, indeterminate unconscious entity, Sa@mkhya describes it as being of the nature of pure consciousness, the Vedanta says that it is that fundamental point of unity implied in pure consciousness (_cit_), pure bliss (_ananda_), and pure being (_sat_). But all agree in holding that it is pure and unsullied in its nature and that all impurities of action or passion do not form a real part of it. The _summum bonum_ of life is attained when all impurities are removed and the pure nature of the self is thoroughly and permanently apprehended and all other extraneous connections with it are absolutely dissociated.

The Pessimistic Attitude towards the World and the Optimistic Faith in the end.

Though the belief that the world is full of sorrow has not been equally prominently emphasized in all systems, yet it may be considered as being shared by all of them. It finds its strongest utterance in Sa@mkhya, Yoga, and Buddhism. This interminable chain of pleasurable and painful experiences was looked upon as nearing no peaceful end but embroiling and entangling us in the meshes of karma, rebirth, and sorrow. What appear as pleasures are but a mere appearance for the attempt to keep them steady is painful, there is pain when we lose the pleasures or when we are anxious to have them. When the pleasures are so much associated with pains they are but pains themselves. We are but duped when we seek pleasures, for they are sure to lead us to pain. All our experiences are essentially sorrowful and ultimately sorrow-begetting. Sorrow is the ultimate truth of this process of the

world. That which to an ordinary person seems pleasurable appears to a wise person or to a yogin who has a clearer vision as painful. The greater the knowledge the higher is the sensitiveness to sorrow and dissatisfaction with world experiences. The yogin is like the pupil of the eye to which even the smallest grain of disturbance is unbearable. This sorrow of worldly experiences cannot be removed by bringing in remedies for each sorrow as it comes, for the moment it is remedied another sorrow comes in. It cannot also be avoided by mere inaction or suicide, for we are continually being forced to action by our nature, and suicide will but lead to another life of sorrow and rebirth. The only way to get rid of it is by the culmination of moral greatness and true knowledge which uproot sorrow once for all. It is our ignorance that the self is intimately connected with the experiences of life or its pleasures, that leads us to action and arouses passion in us for the enjoyment of pleasures and other emotions and activities. Through the highest moral elevation a man may attain absolute dispassion towards world-experiences and retire in body, mind, and speech from all worldly concerns. When the mind is so purified, the self shines in its true light, and its true nature is rightly conceived. When this is once done the self can never again be associated with passion or ignorance. It becomes at this stage ultimately dissociated from _citta_ which contains within it the root of all emotions, ideas, and actions. Thus emancipated the self for ever conquers all sorrow. It is important, however, to note in this connection that emancipation is not based on a general aversion to intercourse with the world or on such feelings as a disappointed person may have, but on the appreciation of the state of mukti as the supremely blessed one. The details of the pessimistic creed of each system have developed from the logical necessity peculiar to each system. There was never the slightest tendency to shirk the duties of this life, but to rise above them through right performance and right understanding. It is only when a man rises to the highest pinnacle of moral glory that he is fit for aspiring to that realization of selfhood in comparison with which all worldly things or even the joys of Heaven would not only shrink into insignificance, but appear in their true character as sorrowful and loathsome. It is when his mind has thus turned from all ordinary joys that he can strive towards his ideal of salvation. In fact it seems to me that a sincere religious craving after some

ideal blessedness and quiet of self-realization is indeed the fundamental fact from which not only her philosophy but many of the complex phenomena of the civilization of India can be logically deduced. The sorrow around us has no fear for us if we remember that we are naturally sorrowless and blessed in ourselves. The pessimistic view loses all terror as it closes in absolute optimistic confidence in one’s own self and the ultimate destiny and goal of emancipation.

Unity in Indian Sadhana (philosophical, religious and ethical endeavours).

As might be expected the Indian systems are all agreed upon the general principles of ethical conduct which must be followed for the attainment of salvation. That all passions are to be controlled, no injury to life in any form should be done, and that all desire for pleasures should be checked, are principles which are almost universally acknowledged. When a man attains a very high degree of moral greatness he has to strengthen and prepare his mind for further purifying and steadying it for the attainment of his ideal; and most of the Indian systems are unanimous with regard to the means to be employed for the purpose. There are indeed divergences in certain details or technical names, but the means to be adopted for purification are almost everywhere essentially the same as those advocated by the Yoga system. It is only in later times that devotion (_bhakti_) is seen to occupy a more prominent place specially in Vai@s@nava schools of thought. Thus it was that though there were many differences among the various systems, yet their goal of life, their attitude towards the world and the means fur the attainment of the goal (_sadhana_) being fundamentally the same, there was a unique unity in the practical sadhana of almost all the Indian systems. The religious craving has been universal in India and this uniformity of sadhana has therefore secured for India a unity in all her aspirations and strivings.

CHAPTER V

BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY

Many scholars are of opinion that the Sa@mkhya and the Yoga represent the earliest systematic speculations of India. It is also suggested that Buddhism drew much of its inspiration from them. It may be that there is some truth in such a view, but the systematic Sa@mkhya and Yoga treatises as we have them had decidedly been written after Buddhism. Moreover it is well-known to every student of Hindu philosophy that a conflict with the Buddhists has largely stimulated philosophic enquiry in most of the systems of Hindu thought. A knowledge of Buddhism is therefore indispensable for a right understanding of the different systems in their mutual relation and opposition to Buddhism. It seems desirable therefore that I should begin with Buddhism first.

The State of Philosophy in India before the Buddha.

It is indeed difficult to give a short sketch of the different philosophical speculations that were prevalent in India before Buddhism. The doctrines of the Upani@sads are well known, and these have already been briefly described. But these were not the only ones. Even in the Upani@sads we find references to diverse atheistical creeds [Footnote ref 1]. We find there that the origin of the world and its processes were sometimes discussed, and some thought that “time” was the ultimate cause of all, others that all these had sprung forth by their own nature (_svabhava_), others that everything had come forth in accordance with an inexorable destiny or a fortuitous concourse of accidental happenings, or through matter combinations in general. References to diverse kinds of heresies are found in Buddhist literature also, but no detailed accounts of these views are known. Of the Upani@sad type of materialists the two schools of Carvakas (Dhurtta and Sus’ik@sita) are referred to in later literature, though the time in which these flourished cannot rightly be discovered [Footnote ref 2]. But it seems

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: S’vetas’vatara, I. 2, _kala@h svabhabo niyatiryad@rccha bhutani yoni@h puru@sa iti cintyam._]

[Footnote 2: Lokayata (literally, that which is found among people in general) seems to have been the name by which all carvaka doctrines were generally known. See Gu@naratna on the Lokayatas.]

probable however that the allusion to the materialists contained in the Upani@sads refers to these or to similar schools. The Carvakas did not believe in the authority of the Vedas or any other holy scripture. According to them there was no soul. Life and consciousness were the products of the combination of matter, just as red colour was the result of mixing up white with yellow or as the power of intoxication was generated in molasses (_madas’akti_). There is no after-life, and no reward of actions, as there is neither virtue nor vice. Life is only for enjoyment. So long as it lasts it is needless to think of anything else, as everything will end with death, for when at death the body is burnt to ashes there cannot be any rebirth. They do not believe in the validity of inference. Nothing is trustworthy but what can be directly perceived, for it is impossible to determine that the distribution of the middle term (_hetu_) has not depended upon some extraneous condition, the absence of which might destroy the validity of any particular piece of inference. If in any case any inference comes to be true, it is only an accidental fact and there is no certitude about it. They were called Carvaka because they would only eat but would not accept any other religious or moral responsibility. The word comes from _carv_ to eat. The Dhurtta Carvakas held that there was nothing but the four elements of earth, water, air and fire, and that the body was but the result of atomic combination. There was no self or soul, no virtue or vice. The Sus’ik@sita Carvakas held that there was a soul apart from the body but that it also was destroyed with the destruction of the body. The original work of the Carvakas was written in sutras probably by B@rhaspati. Jayanta and Gu@naratna quote two sutras from it. Short accounts of this school may be found in Jayanta’s _Nyayamanjari_, Madhava’s _Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha_ and Gu@naratna’s _Tarkarahasyadipika_. _Mahabharata_ gives an account of a man called Carvaka meeting Yudhi@s@thira.

Side by side with the doctrine of the Carvaka materialists we are reminded of the Ajivakas of which Makkhali Gosala, probably a renegade disciple of the Jain saint Mahavira and a contemporary of Buddha and Mahavira, was the leader. This was a thorough-going determinism denying the free will of man and his moral responsibility for any so-called good or evil. The essence of Makkhali’s system is this, that “there is no cause, either proximate or remote, for the depravity of beings or for their purity. They

become so without any cause. Nothing depends either on one’s own efforts or on the efforts of others, in short nothing depends on any human effort, for there is no such thing as power or energy, or human exertion. The varying conditions at any time are due to fate, to their environment and their own nature [Footnote ref 1].”

Another sophistical school led by Ajita Kesakambali taught that there was no fruit or result of good or evil deeds; there is no other world, nor was this one real; nor had parents nor any former lives any efficacy with respect to this life. Nothing that we can do prevents any of us alike from being wholly brought to an end at death [Footnote ref 2].

There were thus at least three currents of thought: firstly the sacrificial Karma by the force of the magical rites of which any person could attain anything he desired; secondly the Upani@sad teaching that the Brahman, the self, is the ultimate reality and being, and all else but name and form which pass away but do not abide. That which permanently abides without change is the real and true, and this is self. Thirdly the nihilistic conceptions that there is no law, no abiding reality, that everything comes into being by a fortuitous concourse of circumstances or by some unknown fate. In each of these schools, philosophy had probably come to a deadlock. There were the Yoga practices prevalent in the country and these were accepted partly on the strength of traditional custom among certain sections, and partly by virtue of the great spiritual, intellectual and physical power which they gave to those who performed them. But these had no rational basis behind them on which they could lean for support. These were probably then just tending towards being affiliated to the nebulous Sa@mkhya doctrines which had grown up among certain sections. It was at this juncture that we find Buddha erecting a new superstructure of thought on altogether original lines which thenceforth opened up a new avenue of philosophy for all posterity to come. If the Being of the Upani@sads, the superlatively motionless, was the only real, how could it offer scope for further new speculations, as it had already discarded all other matters of interest? If everything was due to a reasonless fortuitous concourse of circumstances, reason could not proceed further in the direction to create any philosophy of the unreason. The magical

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Samannaphala-sutta_, _Digha_, II. 20. Hoernle’s article on the Ajivakas, E.R.E.]

[Footnote 2: _Samannaphala-sutta_, II. 23.]

force of the hocus-pocus of sorcery or sacrifice had but little that was inviting for philosophy to proceed on. If we thus take into account the state of Indian philosophic culture before Buddha, we shall be better able to understand the value of the Buddhistic contribution to philosophy.

Buddha: his Life.

Gautama the Buddha was born in or about the year 560 B.C. in the Lumbini Grove near the ancient town of Kapilavastu in the now dense terai region of Nepal. His father was Suddhodana, a prince of the Sakya clan, and his mother Queen Mahamaya. According to the legends it was foretold of him that he would enter upon the ascetic life when he should see “A decrepit old man, a diseased man, a dead man, and a monk.” His father tried his best to keep him away from these by marrying him and surrounding him with luxuries. But on successive occasions, issuing from the palace, he was confronted by those four things, which filled him with amazement and distress, and realizing the impermanence of all earthly things determined to forsake his home and try if he could to discover some means to immortality to remove the sufferings of men. He made his “Great Renunciation” when he was twenty-nine years old. He travelled on foot to Rajag@rha (Rajgir) and thence to Uruvela, where in company with other five ascetics he entered upon a course of extreme self-discipline, carrying his austerities to such a length that his body became utterly emaciated and he fell down senseless and was believed to be dead. After six years of this great struggle he was convinced that the truth was not to be won by the way of extreme asceticism, and resuming an ordinary course of life at last attained absolute and supreme enlightenment. Thereafter the Buddha spent a life prolonged over forty-five years in travelling from place to place and preaching the doctrine to all who would listen. At the age of over eighty years Buddha realized that the time drew near for him to die. He then entered into Dhyana and passing through its successive stages attained nirvana [Footnote ref 1]. The vast developments which the system of this great teacher underwent in the succeeding centuries in India and in other countries have not been thoroughly studied, and it will probably take yet many years more before even the materials for

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Mahaparinibbanasuttanta_, _Digha_, XVI. 6, 8, 9.]

such a study can be collected. But from what we now possess it is proved incontestably that it is one of the most wonderful and subtle productions of human wisdom. It is impossible to overestimate the debt that the philosophy, culture and civilization of India owe to it in all her developments for many succeeding centuries.

Early Buddhist Literature.

The Buddhist Pali Scriptures contain three different collections: the Sutta (relating to the doctrines), the Vinaya (relating to the discipline of the monks) and the Abhidhamma (relating generally to the same subjects as the suttas but dealing with them in a scholastic and technical manner). Scholars of Buddhistic religious history of modern times have failed as yet to fix any definite dates for the collection or composition of the different parts of the aforesaid canonical literature of the Buddhists. The suttas were however composed before the Abhidhamma and it is very probable that almost the whole of the canonical works were completed before 241 B.C., the date of the third council during the reign of King Asoka. The suttas mainly deal with the doctrine (Dhamma) of the Buddhistic faith whereas the Vinaya deals only with the regulations concerning the discipline of the monks. The subject of the Abhidhamma is mostly the same as that of the suttas, namely, the interpretation of the Dhamma. Buddhaghos@a in his introduction to _Atthasalini_, the commentary on the _Dhammasa@nga@ni_, says that the Abhidhamma is so called (_abhi_ and _dhamma_) because it describes the same Dhammas as are related in the suttas in a more intensified (_dhammatireka_) and specialized (_dhammavisesatthena_) manner. The Abhidhammas do not give any new doctrines that are not in the suttas, but they deal somewhat elaborately with those that are already found in the suttas. Buddhagho@sa in distinguishing the special features of the suttas from the Abhidhammas says that the acquirement of the former leads one to attain meditation (_samadhi_) whereas the latter leads one to attain wisdom (_pannasampadam_). The force of this statement probably lies in this, that the dialogues of the suttas leave a chastening effect on the mind, the like of which is not to be found in the Abhidhammas, which busy themselves in enumerating the Buddhistic doctrines and defining them in a technical manner, which is more fitted to produce a reasoned

insight into the doctrines than directly to generate a craving for following the path of meditation for the extinction of sorrow. The Abhidhamma known as the _Kathavatthu_ differs from the other Abhidhammas in this, that it attempts to reduce the views of the heterodox schools to absurdity. The discussions proceed in the form of questions and answers, and the answers of the opponents are often shown to be based on contradictory assumptions.

The suttas contain five groups of collections called the Nikayas. These are (1) _Digha Nikaya_, called so on account of the length of the suttas contained in it; (2) _Majjhima Nikaya_ (middling Nikaya), called so on account of the middling extent of the suttas contained in it; (3) _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ (Nikayas relating to special meetings), called sa@myutta on account of their being delivered owing to the meetings (_sa@myoga_) of special persons which were the occasions for them; (4) _A@nguttara Nikaya_, so called because in each succeeding book of this work the topics of discussion increase by one [Footnote ref 1]; (5) _Khuddaka Nikaya_ containing _Khuddaka pa@tha, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Sutta Nipata, Vimana-vatthu, Petavatthu, Theragatha, Therigatha, Jataka, Niddesa, Pa@tisambhidamagga, Apadana, Buddhava@msa, Caryapi@taka._

The Abhidhammas are _Pa@t@thana, Dhammasa@nga@ni, Dhatukatha, Puggalapannatti, Vibha@nga, Yamaka_ and _Kathavatthu_. There exists also a large commentary literature on diverse parts of the above works known as atthakatha. The work known as _Milinda Panha_ (questions of King Milinda), of uncertain date, is of considerable philosophical value.

The doctrines and views incorporated in the above literature is generally now known as Sthaviravada or Theravada. On the origin of the name Theravada (the doctrine of the elders) _Dipava@msa_ says that since the Theras (elders) met (at the first council) and collected the doctrines it was known as the Thera Vada [Footnote ref 2]. It does not appear that Buddhism as it appears in this Pali literature developed much since the time of Buddhagho@sa (4OO A.D.), the writer of _Visuddhimagga_ (a compendium of theravada doctrines) and the commentator of _Dighanikaya, Dhammasa@nga@ni_, etc.

Hindu philosophy in later times seems to have been influenced by the later offshoots of the different schools of Buddhism, but it does not appear that Pali Buddhism had any share in it. I

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Buddhagho@sa’s _Atthasalini_, p. 25.]

[Footnote 2: Oldenberg’s _Dipava@msa_, p. 31.]

have not been able to discover any old Hindu writer who could be considered as being acquainted with Pali.

The Doctrine of Causal Connection of early Buddhism [Footnote ref 1].

The word Dhamma in the Buddhist scriptures is used generally in four senses: (1) Scriptural texts, (2) quality (_gu@na_), (3) cause (_hetu_) and (4) unsubstantial and soulless (_nissatta nijjiva_ [Footnote ref 2]). Of these it is the last meaning which is particularly important, from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy. The early Buddhist philosophy did not accept any fixed entity as determining all reality; the only things with it were the unsubstantial phenomena and these were called dhammas. The question arises that if there is no substance or reality how are we to account for the phenomena? But the phenomena are happening and passing away and the main point of interest with the Buddha was to find out “What being what else is,” “What happening what else happens” and “What not being what else is not.” The phenomena are happening in a series and we see that there being certain phenomena there become some others; by the happening of some events others also are produced. This is called (_pa@ticca-samuppada_) dependent origination. But it is difficult to understand what is the exact nature of this dependence. The question as _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ (II. 5) has it with which the Buddha started before attaining Buddhahood was this: in what miserable condition are the people! they are born, they decay, they die, pass away and are born again; and they do not know the path of escape from this decay, death and misery.

How to know the Way to escape from this misery of decay and death. Then it occurred to him what being there, are decay and death, depending on what do they come? As he thought deeply into the root of the matter, it occurred to him that decay and death can only occur when there is birth (_jati_), so they depend

_____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: There are some differences of opinion as to whether one could take the doctrine of the twelve links of causes as we find it in the _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ as the earliest Buddhist view, as Sa@myutta does not represent the oldest part of the suttas. But as this doctrine of the twelve causes became regarded as a fundamental Buddhist doctrine and as it gives us a start in philosophy I have not thought it fit to enter into conjectural discussions as to the earliest form. Dr E.J. Thomas drew my attention to this fact.]

[Footnote 2: _Atthasatini_, p. 38. There are also other senses in which the word is used, as _dhamma-desana_ where it means religious teaching. The _La@nkavatara_ described Dharmma as _gu@nadravyapurvaka dharmma_, i.e. Dharmmas are those which are associated as attributes and substances.]

on birth. What being there, is there birth, on what does birth depend? Then it occurred to him that birth could only be if there were previous existence (_bhava_) [Footnote ref 1]. But on what does this existence depend, or what being there is there _bhava_. Then it occurred to him that there could not be existence unless there were holding fast (_upadana_) [Footnote ref 2]. But on what did upadana depend? It occurred to him that it was desire (_ta@nha_) on which upadana depended. There can be upadana if there is desire (_tanha_) [Footnote ref 3]. But what being there, can there be desire? To this question it occurred to him that there must be feeling (_vedana_) in order that there may be desire. But on what does vedana depend, or rather what must be there, that there may be feeling (_vedana_)? To this it occurred to him that there must be a sense-contact (_phassa_) in order that there may be feeling [Footnote ref 4]. If there should be no sense-contact there would be no feeling. But on what does sense-contact depend? It occurred to him that as there are six sense-contacts, there are the six fields of contact (_ayatana_) [Footnote ref 5]. But on what do the six ayatanas depend? It occurred to him that there must be the mind and body (_namarupa_) in order that there may be the six fields of contact [Footnote ref 6]; but on what does namarupa depend? It occurred to him that without consciousness (_vinnana_) there could be no namarupa [Footnote ref 8]. But what being there would there

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This word bhava is interpreted by Candrakirtti in his _Madhyamika v@rtti,_ p. 565 (La Vallee Poussin’s edition) as the deed which brought about rebirth (_punarbhavajanaka@m karma samutthapayali kayena vaca manasa ca_).]

[Footnote 2: _Atthasalini_, p. 385, upadanantida@lhagaha@na@m. Candrakirtti in explaining upadana says that whatever thing a man desires he holds fast to the materials necessary for attaining it (_yatra vastuni sat@r@s@nastasya vastuno ‘rjanaya vi@dhapanaya upadanamupadatte tatra tatra prarthayate_). _Madhyamika v@rtti_, p. 565.]

[Footnote 3: Candrakirtti describes t@r@s@na as _asvadanabhinandanadhyavasanasthanadatmapriyarupairviyogo ma bhut, nityamaparityago bhavediti, yeyam prarthana_–the desire that there may not ever be any separation from those pleasures, etc., which are dear to us. _Ibid._ 565.]

[Footnote 4: We read also of phassayatana and phassakaya. _M. N._ II. 261, III. 280, etc. Candrakirtti says that _@sa@dbhirayatanadvarai@h k@rtyaprak@riya@h pravarttante prajnayante. tannamarupapratyaya@m @sa@dayatanamucyate. sa@dbhyas`cayatanebhya@h @sa@tspars`akaya@h pravarttante. M.V._ 565.]

[Footnote 5: Ayatana means the six senses together with their objects. Ayatana literally is “Field of operation.” Sa@layatana means six senses as six fields of operation. Candrakirtti has _ayatanadvarai@h_.]

[Footnote 6: I have followed the translation of Aung in rendering namarupa as mind and body, _Compendium_, p. 271. This seems to me to be fairly correct. The four skandhas are called nama in each birth. These together with rupa (matter) give us namarupa (mind and body) which being developed render the activities through the six sense-gates possible so that there may be knowledge. Cf. _M. V._ 564. Govindananda, the commentator on S’a@nkara’s bhasya on the _Brahma sutras_ (II. ii. 19), gives a different interpretation of Namarupa which may probably refer to the Vijnanavada view though we have no means at hand to verify it. He says–To think the momentary as the permanent is Avidya; from there come the samskaras of attachment, antipathy or anger, and infatuation; from there the first vijnana or thought of the foetus is produced, from that alayavijnana, and the four elements (which are objects of name and are hence called nama) are produced, and from those are produced the white and black, semen and blood called rupa. Both Vacaspati and Amalananda agree with Govindananda in holding that nama signifies the semen and the ovum while rupa means the visible physical body built out of them. Vijnana entered the womb and on account of it namarupa were produced through the association of previous karma. See _Vedantakalpataru_, pp 274, 275. On the doctrine of the entrance of vijnana into the womb compare _D N_ II. 63.]

be vinnana. Here it occurred to him that in order that there might be vinnana there must be the conformations (_sa@nkhara_) [Footnote ref 1]. But what being there are there the sa@nkharas? Here it occurred to him that the sa@nkharas can only be if there is ignorance (_avijja_). If avijja could be stopped then the sa@nkharas will be stopped, and if the sa@nkharas could be stopped vinnana could be stopped and so on [Footnote ref 2].

It is indeed difficult to be definite as to what the Buddha actually wished to mean by this cycle of dependence of existence sometimes called Bhavacakra (wheel of existence). Decay and death (_jaramarana_) could not have happened if there was no birth [Footnote ref 3]. This seems to be clear. But at this point the difficulty begins. We must remember that the theory of rebirth was

_____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: It is difficult to say what is the exact sense of the word here. The Buddha was one of the first few earliest thinkers to introduce proper philosophical terms and phraseology with a distinct philosophical method and he had often to use the same word in more or less different senses. Some of the philosophical terms at least are therefore rather elastic when compared with the terms of precise and definite meaning which we find in later Sanskrit thought. Thus in _S N_ III. p. 87, “_Sankhata@m abdisa@nkharonta_,” sa@nkhara means that which synthesises the complexes. In the _Compendium_ it is translated as will, action. Mr. Aung thinks that it means the same as karma; it is here used in a different sense from what we find in the word sa@nkhata khandha (viz mental states). We get a list of 51 mental states forming sa@nkhata khandha in _Dhamma Sangam_, p 18, and another different set of 40 mental states in _Dharmasamgraha_, p. 6. In addition to these forty _cittasamprayuktasa@mskara_, it also counts thirteen _cittaviprayuktasa@mskara_. Candrakirtti interprets it as meaning attachment, antipathy and infatuation, p 563. Govindananda, the commentator on S’a@nkara’s _Brahma sutra_ (II. ii. 19), also interprets the word in connection with the doctrine of _Pratityasamutpada_ as attachment, antipathy and infatuation.]

[Footnote 2: _Samyutta Nikaya_, II. 7-8.]

[Footnote 3: Jara and marana bring in s’oka (grief), paridevana (lamentation), duhkha (suffering), daurmanasya (feeling of wretchedness and miserableness) and upayasa (feeling of extreme destitution) at the prospect of one’s death or the death of other dear ones. All these make up suffering and are the results of jati (birth). _M. V._ (B.T.S.p. 208). S’a@nkara in his bhasya counted all the terms from jara, separately. The whole series is to be taken as representing the entirety of duhkhaskandha.]

enunciated in the Upani@sads. The B@rhadara@nyaka says that just as an insect going to the end of a leaf of grass by a new effort collects itself in another so does the soul coming to the end of this life collect itself in another. This life thus presupposes another existence. So far as I remember there has seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to prove or disprove the doctrine of rebirth [Footnote ref 1]. All schools of philosophy except the Carvakas believed in it and so little is known to us of the Carvaka sutras that it is difficult to say what they did to refute this doctrine. The Buddha also accepts it as a fact and does not criticize it. This life therefore comes only as one which had an infinite number of lives before, and which except in the case of a few emancipated ones would have an infinite number of them in the future. It was strongly believed by all people, and the Buddha also, when he came to think to what our present birth might be due, had to fall back upon another existence (_bhava_). If bhava means karma which brings rebirth as Candrakirtti takes it to mean, then it would mean that the present birth could only take place on account of the works of a previous existence which determined it. Here also we are reminded of the Upani@sad note “as a man does so will he be born” (_Yat karma kurute tadabhisampadyate_, Brh IV. iv. 5). Candrakirtti’s interpretation of “bhava” as Karma (_punarbhavajanakam karma_) seems to me to suit better than “existence.” The word was probably used rather loosely for _kammabhava_. The word bhava is not found in the earlier Upani@sads and was used in the Pali scriptures for the first time as a philosophical term. But on what does this bhava depend? There could not have been a previous existence if people had not betaken themselves to things or works they desired. This betaking oneself to actions or things in accordance with desire is called upadana. In the Upani@sads we read, “whatever one betakes himself to, so does he work” (_Yatkraturbhavati tatkarmma kurute_, B@rh. IV. iv. 5). As this betaking to the thing depends upon desire {_t@r@s@na_}, it is said that in order that there may be upadana there must be tanha. In the Upani@sads also we read “Whatever one desires so does he betake himself to” (_sa yathakamo bhavati tatkraturbhavati_). Neither the word upadana nor t@rs@na (the Sanskrit word corresponding

______________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The attempts to prove the doctrine of rebirth in the Hindu philosophical works such as the Nyaya, etc., are slight and inadequate.]

to ta@nha) is found in the earlier Upani@sads, but the ideas contained in them are similar to the words “_kratu_” and “_kama_.” Desire (ta@nha) is then said to depend on feeling or sense-contact. Sense-contact presupposes the six senses as fields of operation [Footnote ref 1]. These six senses or operating fields would again presuppose the whole psychosis of the man (the body and the mind together) called namarupa. We are familiar with this word in the Upani@sads but there it is used in the sense of determinate forms and names as distinguished from the indeterminate indefinable reality [Footnote ref 2]. Buddhagho@sa in the _Visuddhimagga_ says that by “Name” are meant the three groups beginning with sensation (i.e. sensation, perception and the predisposition); by “Form” the four elements and form derivative from the four elements [Footnote ref 3]. He further says that name by itself can produce physical changes, such as eating, drinking, making movements or the like. So form also cannot produce any of those changes by itself. But like the cripple and the blind they mutually help one another and effectuate the changes [Footnote ref 4]. But there exists no heap or collection of material for the production of Name and Form; “but just as when a lute is played upon, there is no previous store of sound; and when the sound comes into existence it does not come from any such store; and when it ceases, it does not go to any of the cardinal or intermediate points of the compass;…in exactly the same way all the elements of being both those with form and those without, come into existence after having previously been non-existent and having come into existence pass away [Footnote ref 5].” Namarupa taken in this sense will not mean the whole of mind and body, but only the sense functions and the body which are found to operate in the six doors of sense (_sa@layatana_). If we take namarupa in this sense, we can see that it may be said to depend upon the vinnana (consciousness). Consciousness has been compared in the _Milinda Panha_ with a watchman at the middle of

_____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The word ayatana is found in many places in the earlier Upani@sads in the sense of “field or place,” Cha. I. 5, B@rh. III. 9. 10, but @sa@dayatana does not occur.]

[Footnote 2: Candrakirtti interprets nama as _Vedanadayo’ rupi@nas’catvara@h skandhastatra tatra bhave namayantili nama. saha rupaskandhena ca nama rupam ceti namarupamucyate._ The four skandhas in each specific birth act as name. These together with rupa make namarupa. _M. V._ 564.]

[Footnote 3: Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 184.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ p. 185, _Visuddhimagga_, Ch. XVII.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ pp. 185-186, _Visuddhimagga_, Ch. XVII.]

the cross-roads beholding all that come from any direction [Footnote ref 1]. Buddhagho@sa in the _Atthasalini_ also says that consciousness means that which thinks its object. If we are to define its characteristics we must say that it knows (_vijanana_), goes in advance (_pubba@ngama_), connects (_sandhana_), and stands on namarupa (_namarupapada@t@thanam_). When the consciousness gets a door, at a place the objects of sense are discerned (_arammana-vibhavana@t@thane_) and it goes first as the precursor. When a visual object is seen by the eye it is known only by the consciousness, and when the dhammas are made the objects of (mind) mano, it is known only by the consciousness [Footnote ref 2]. Buddhagho@sa also refers here to the passage in the _Milinda Panha_ we have just referred to. He further goes on to say that when states of consciousness rise one after another, they leave no gap between the previous state and the later and consciousness therefore appears as connected. When there are the aggregates of the five khandhas it is lost; but there are the four aggregates as namarupa, it stands on nama and therefore it is said that it stands on namarupa. He further asks, Is this consciousness the same as the previous consciousness or different from it? He answers that it is the same. Just so, the sun shows itself with all its colours, etc., but he is not different from those in truth; and it is said that just when the sun rises, its collected heat and yellow colour also rise then, but it does not mean that the sun is different from these. So the citta or consciousness takes the phenomena of contact, etc., and cognizes them. So though it is the same as they are yet in a sense it is different from them [Footnote ref 3].

To go back to the chain of twelve causes, we find that jati (birth) is the cause of decay and death, _jaramara@na_, etc. Jati is the appearance of the body or the totality of the five skandhas [Footnote ref 4]. Coming to bhava which determines jati, I cannot think of any better rational explanation of bhava, than that I have already

________________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 182, _Milinda Panha_ (628).]

[Footnote 2: _Atthasalini_, p. 112…]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._ p. 113, _Yatha hi rupadini upadaya pannatta suriyadayo na atthato rupadihi anne honti ten’ eva yasmin samaye suriyo udeti tasmin samaye tassa teja-sa@nkhatam rupa@m piti eva@m vuccamane pi na rupadihi anno suriyo nama atthi. Tatha cittam phassadayo dhamme upadaya pannapiyati. Atthato pan’ ettha tehi annam eva. Tena yasmin samaye cittam uppanna@m hoti eka@msen eva tasmin samaye phassadihi atthato annad eva hoti ti_.]

[Footnote 4: “_Jatirdehajanma pancaskandhasamudaya@h,_” Govindananda’s _Ratnaprabha_ on S’a@nkara’s bha@sya, II. ii. 19.]

suggested, namely, the works (_karma_) which produce the birth [Footnote ref 1]. Upadana is an advanced t@r@s@na leading to positive clinging [Footnote ref 2]. It is produced by t@r@s@na (desire) which again is the result of vedana (pleasure and pain). But this vedana is of course vedana with ignorance (_avidya_), for an Arhat may have also vedana but as he has no avidya, the vedana cannot produce t@r@s@na in turn. On its development it immediately passes into upadana. Vedana means pleasurable, painful or indifferent feeling. On the one side it leads to t@r@s@na (desire) and on the other it is produced by sense-contact (_spars’a_). Prof. De la Vallee Poussin says that S’rilabha distinguishes three processes in the production of vedana. Thus first there is the contact between the sense and the object; then there is the knowledge of the object, and then there is the vedana. Depending on _Majjhima Nikaya_, iii. 242, Poussin gives the other opinion that just as in the case of two sticks heat takes place simultaneously with rubbing, so here also vedana takes place simultaneously with spars’a for they are “produits par un meme complexe de causes (_samagri_) [Footnote ref 3].”

Spars’a is produced by @sa@dayatana, @sa@dayatana by namarupa, and namarupa by vijnana, and is said to descend in the womb of the mother and produce the five skandhas as namarupa, out of which the six senses are specialized.

Vijnana in this connection probably means the principle or germ of consciousness in the womb of the mother upholding the five elements of the new body there. It is the product of the past karmas (_sa@nkhara_) of the dying man and of his past consciousness too.

We sometimes find that the Buddhists believed that the last thoughts of the dying man determined the nature of his next

_______________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Govindananda in his _Ratnaprabha_ on S’a@nkara’s bha@sya, II. ii. 19, explains “bhava” as that from which anything becomes, as merit and demerit (_dharmadi_). See also _Vibhanga_, p. 137 and Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 201. Mr Aung says in _Abhidhammatthasa@ngaha_, p. 189, that bhavo includes kammabhavo (the active side of an existence) and upapattibhavo (the passive side). And the commentators say that bhava is a contraction of “_kammabhava_” or Karma-becoming i.e. karmic activity.]

[Footnote 2: Prof. De la Vallee Poussin in his _Theoric des Douze Causes_, p. 26, says that _S’alistambhasutra_ explains the word “upadana” as “t@r@s@navaipulya” or hyper-t@r@s@na and Candrakirtti also gives the same meaning, _M. V._ (B.T.S.p. 210). Govmdananda explains “upadana” as prav@rtti (movement) generated by t@r@s@na (desire), i.e. the active tendency in pursuance of desire. But if upadana means “support” it would denote all the five skandhas. Thus _Madhyamaka v@rtti_ says _upadanam pancaskandhalak@sa@nam…pancopadanaskandhakhyam upadanam. M.V._ XXVII. 6.]

[Footnote 3: Poussin’s _Theorie des Douze Causes_, p. 23.

birth [Footnote ref 1]. The manner in which the vijnana produced in the womb is determined by the past vijnana of the previous existence is according to some authorities of the nature of a reflected image, like the transmission of learning from the teacher to the disciple, like the lighting of a lamp from another lamp or like the impress of a stamp on wax. As all the skandhas are changing in life, so death also is but a similar change; there is no great break, but the same uniform sort of destruction and coming into being. New skandhas are produced as simultaneously as the two scale pans of a balance rise up and fall, in the same manner as a lamp is lighted or an image is reflected. At the death of the man the vijnana resulting from his previous karmas and vijnanas enters into the womb of that mother (animal, man or the gods) in which the next skandhas are to be matured. This vijnana thus forms the principle of the new life. It is in this vijnana that name (_nama_) and form (_rupa_) become associated.

The vijnana is indeed a direct product of the sa@mskaras and the sort of birth in which vijnana should bring down (_namayati_) the new existence (_upapatti_) is determined by the sa@mskaras [Footnote ref 2], for in reality the happening of death (_mara@nabhava_) and the instillation of the vijnana as the beginning of the new life (_upapattibhava_) cannot be simultaneous, but the latter succeeds just at the next moment, and it is to signify this close succession that they are said to be simultaneous. If the vijnana had not entered the womb then no namarupa could have appeared [Footnote ref 3].

This chain of twelve causes extends over three lives. Thus avidya and sa@mskara of the past life produce the vijnana, namarupa,

_____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The deities of the gardens, the woods, the trees and the plants, finding the master of the house, Citta, ill said “make your resolution, ‘May I be a cakravartti king in a next existence,'” _Sa@myutta_, IV. 303.]

[Footnote 2: “_sa cedanandavijnana@m matu@hkuk@sim navakrameta, na tat kalalam kalalatvaya sannivartteta_,” _M. V._ 552. Compare _Caraka, S’arira_, III. 5-8, where he speaks of a “upapiduka sattva” which connects the soul with body and by the absence of which the character is changed, the senses become affected and life ceases, when it is in a pure condition one can remember even the previous births; character, purity, antipathy, memory, fear, energy, all mental qualities are produced out of it. Just as a chariot is made by the combination of many elements, so is the foetus.]

[Footnote 3: _Madhyamaka v@riti_ (B.T.S. 202-203). Poussin quotes from _Digha_, II. 63, “si le vijnana ne descendait pas dans le sein maternel la namarupa s’y constituerait-il?” Govindananda on S’a@nkara’s commentary on the _Brahma-sutras_ (II. ii. 19) says that the first consciousness (vijnana) of the foetus is produced by the sa@mskaras of the previous birth, and from that the four elements (which he calls nama) and from that the white and red, semen and ovum, and the first stage of the foetus (_kalala-budbudavastha_} is produced.]

@sa@dayatana, spars’a, vedana, t@r@s@na, upadana and the bhava (leading to another life) of the present actual life. This bhava produces the jati and jaramara@na of the next life [Footnote ref l].

It is interesting to note that these twelve links in the chain extending in three sections over three lives are all but the manifestations of sorrow to the bringing in of which they naturally determine one another. Thus _Abhidhammatthasa@ngaha_ says “each of these twelve terms is a factor. For the composite term ‘sorrow,’ etc. is only meant to show incidental consequences of birth. Again when ‘ignorance’ and ‘the actions of the mind’ have been taken into account, craving (_t@r@s@na_), grasping (_upadana_) and (_karma_) becoming (_bhava_) are implicitly accounted for also. In the same manner when craving, grasping and (_karma_) becoming have been taken into account, ignorance and the actions of the mind are (implicitly) accounted for, also; and when birth, decay, and death are taken into account, even the fivefold fruit, to wit (rebirth), consciousness, and the rest are accounted for. And thus:

Five causes in the Past and Now a fivefold ‘fruit.’

Five causes Now and yet to come a fivefold ‘fruit’ make up the Twenty Modes, the Three Connections (1. sa@nkhara and vinnana, 2. vedana and tanha, 3. bhava and jati) and the four groups (one causal group in the Past, one resultant group in the Present, one causal group in the Present and one resultant group in the Future, each group consisting of five modes) [Footnote ref 2].”

These twelve interdependent links (_dvadas’a@nga_) represent the pa@ticcasamuppada (_pratatyasamutpada_) doctrines (dependent origination) [Footnote ref 3] which are themselves but sorrow and lead to cycles of sorrow. The term pa@ticcasamuppada or pratityasamutpada has been differently interpreted in later Buddhist literature [Footnote ref 4].

___________________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This explanation probably cannot be found in the early Pali texts; but Buddhagho@sa mentions it in _Suma@ngalavilasini_ on _Mahanidana suttanta_. We find it also in _Abhidhammatthasa@ngaha_, VIII. 3. Ignorance and the actions of the mind belong to the past; “birth,” “decay and death” to the future; the intermediate eight to the present. It is styled as tri@ka@n@daka (having three branches) in _Abhidkarmakos’a_, III. 20-24. Two in the past branch, two in the future and eight in the middle “_sa pratityasamutpado dvadas’a@ngastrika@n@daka@h purvaparantayordve dve madhye@s@tau_.”]

[Footnote 2: Aung and Mrs Rhys Davids’ translation of _Abhidhammatthasa@ngaha_, pp. 189-190.]

[Footnote 3: The twelve links are not always constant. Thus in the list given in the _Dialogues of the Buddha_, II. 23 f., avijja and sa@nkhara have been omitted and the start has been made with consciousness, and it has been said that “Cognition turns back from name and form; it goes not beyond.”]

[Footnote 4: _M. V._ p. 5 f.]

Samutpada means appearance or arising (_pradurbhdava_) and pratitya means after getting (_prati+i+ya_); combining the two we find, arising after getting (something). The elements, depending on which there is some kind of arising, are called hetu (cause) and paccaya (ground). These two words however are often used in the same sense and are interchangeable. But paccaya is also used in a specific sense. Thus when it is said that avijja is the paccaya of sa@nkhara it is meant that avijja is the ground (_@thiti_) of the origin of the sa@nkharas, is the ground of their movement, of the instrument through which they stand (_nimitta@t@thiti_), of their ayuhana (conglomeration), of their interconnection, of their intelligibility, of their conjoint arising, of their function as cause and of their function as the ground with reference to those which are determined by them. Avijja in all these nine ways is the ground of sa@nkhara both in the past and also in the future, though avijja itself is determined in its turn by other grounds [Footnote ref 1]. When we take the betu aspect of the causal chain, we cannot think of anything else but succession, but when we take the paccaya aspect we can have a better vision into the nature of the cause as ground. Thus when avijja is said to be the ground of the sa@nkharas in the nine ways mentioned above, it seems reasonable to think that the sa@nkharas were in some sense regarded as special manifestations of avijja [Footnote ref 2]. But as this point was not further developed in the early Buddhist texts it would be unwise to proceed further with it.

The Khandhas.

The word khandha (Skr. skandha) means the trunk of a tree and is generally used to mean group or aggregate [Footnote ref 3]. We have seen that Buddha said that there was no atman (soul). He said that when people held that they found the much spoken of soul, they really only found the five khandhas together or any one of them. The khandhas are aggregates of bodily and psychical states which are immediate with us and are divided into five

________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Pa@tisambhidamagga_, vol. I.p. 50; see also _Majjhima Nikaya_, I. 67, _sa@nkhara…avijjanidana avijjasamudaya avijjajatika avijjapabhava_.]

[Footnote 2: In the Yoga derivation of asmita (egoism), raga (attachment), dve@sa (antipathy) and abhinives’a (self love) from avidya we find also that all the five are regarded as the five special stages of the growth of avidya (_pancaparvi avidya_).]

[Footnote 3: The word skandha is used in Chandogya, II. 23 (_trayo dharmaskandha@h yajna@h adhyayanam danam_) in the sense of branches and in almost the same sense in Maitri, VII. II.]

classes: (1) rupa (four elements, the body, the senses), sense data, etc., (2) vedana (feeling–pleasurable, painful and indifferent), (3) sanna (conceptual knowledge), (4) sa@nkhara (synthetic mental states and the synthetic functioning of compound sense-affections, compound feelings and compound concepts), (5) vinnana (consciousness) [Footnote ref 1].

All these states rise depending one upon the other (_pa@ticcasamuppanna_) and when a man says that he perceives the self he only deludes himself, for he only perceives one or more of these. The word rupa in rupakhandha stands for matter and material qualities, the senses, and the sense data [Footnote ref 2]. But “rupa” is also used in the sense of pure organic affections or states of mind as we find in the _Khandha Yamaka_, I.p. 16, and also in _Sa@myutta Nikaya_, III. 86. Rupaskandha according to _Dharmasa@mgraha_ means the aggregate of five senses, the five sensations, and the implicatory communications associated in sense perceptions _vijnapti_).

The elaborate discussion of _Dhammasa@nga@ni_ begins by defining rupa as “_cattaro ca mahabhuta catunnanca mahabhntanam upadaya rupam_” (the four mahabhutas or elements and that proceeding from the grasping of that is called rupa) [Footnote ref 3]. Buddhagho@sa explains it by saying that rupa means the four mahabhutas and those which arise depending (_nissaya_) on them as a modification of them. In the rupa the six senses including their affections are also included. In explaining why the four elements are called mahabhutas, Buddhagho@sa says: “Just as a magician (_mayakara_) makes the water which is not hard appear as hard, makes the stone which is not gold appear as gold; just as he himself though not a ghost nor a bird makes himself appear as a ghost or a bird, so these elements though not themselves blue make themselves appear as blue (_nilam upada rupam_), not yellow, red, or white make themselves appear as yellow, red or white (odatam upadarupam), so on account of their similarity to the appearances created by the magician they are called mahabhuta [Footnote ref 4].”

In the _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ we find that the Buddha says, “O Bhikkhus it is called rupam because it manifests (_rupyati_); how

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Sa@myutta Nikaya_, III. 86, etc.]

[Footnote 2: _Abhidhammatthasangaha_, J.P.T.S. 1884, p. 27 ff.]

[Footnote 3: _Dhammasa@nga@ni_, pp. 124-179.]

[Footnote 4: _Atthasalini_, p. 299.]

does it manifest? It manifests as cold, and as heat, as hunger and as thirst, it manifests as the touch of gnats, mosquitos, wind, the sun and the snake; it manifests, therefore it is called rupa [Footnote ref 1].”

If we take the somewhat conflicting passages referred to above for our consideration and try to combine them so as to understand what is meant by rupa, I think we find that that which manifested itself to the senses and organs was called rupa. No distinction seems to have been made between the sense-data as colours, smells, etc., as existing in the physical world and their appearance as sensations. They were only numerically different and the appearance of the sensations was dependent upon the sense-data and the senses but the sense-data and the sensations were “rupa.” Under certain conditions the sense-data were followed by the sensations. Buddhism did not probably start with the same kind of division of matter and mind as we now do. And it may not be out of place to mention that such an opposition and duality were found neither in the Upani@sads nor in the Sa@mkhya system which is regarded by some as pre-Buddhistic. The four elements manifested themselves in certain forms and were therefore called rupa; the forms of affection that appeared were also called rupa; many other mental states or features which appeared with them were also called rupa [Footnote ref 2]. The ayatanas or the senses were also called rupa [Footnote ref 3]. The mahabhutas or four elements were themselves but changing manifestations, and they together with all that appeared in association with them were called rupa and formed the rupa khandha (the classes of sense-materials, sense-data, senses and sensations).

In _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ (III. 101) it is said that “the four mahabhutas were the hetu and the paccaya for the communication of the rupakkhandha (_rupakkhandhassa pannapanaya_). Contact (sense-contact, phassa) is the cause of the communication of feelings (_vedana_); sense-contact was also the hetu and paccaya for the communication of the sannakkhandha; sense-contact is also the hetu and paccaya for the communication of the sa@nkharakkhandha. But namarupa is the hetu and the paccaya for the communication of the vinnanakkhandha.” Thus not only feelings arise on account of the sense-contact but sanna and sa@nkhara also arise therefrom. Sanna is that where specific knowing or

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Sa@myutta Nikaya_, III. 86.]

[Footnote 2: _Khandhayamaka_.]

[Footnote 3: _Dhammasanga@ni_, p. 124 ff.]

conceiving takes place. This is the stage where the specific distinctive knowledge as the yellow or the red takes place.

Mrs. Rhys Davids writing on sanna says: “In editing the second book of the Abhidhamma pi@taka I found a classification distinguishing between sanna as cognitive assimilation on occasion of sense, and sanna as cognitive assimilation of ideas by way of naming. The former is called perception of resistance, or opposition (_patigha-sanna_). This, writes Buddhagho@sa, is perception on occasion of sight, hearing, etc., when consciousness is aware of the impact of impressions; of external things as different, we might say. The latter is called perception of the equivalent word or name (_adhivachana-sanna_) and is exercised by the _sensus communis_ (mano), when e.g. ‘one is seated…and asks another who is thoughtful: “What are you thinking of?” one perceives through his speech.’ Thus there are two stages of sanna-consciousness, 1. contemplating sense-impressions, 2. ability to know what they are by naming [Footnote ref 1].”

About sa@nkhara we read in _Sa@myutta Nikaya_ (III. 87) that it is called sa@nkhara because it synthesises (_abhisa@nkharonti_), it is that which conglomerated rupa as rupa, conglomerated sanna as sanna, sa@nkhara as sa@nkhara and consciousness (_vinnana_) as consciousness. It is called sa@nkhara because it synthesises the conglomerated (_sa@nkhatam abhisa@nkharonti_). It is thus a synthetic function which synthesises the passive rupa, sanna, sa@nkhara and vinnana elements. The fact that we hear of 52 sa@nkhara states and also that the sa@nkhara exercises its synthetic activity on the conglomerated elements in it, goes to show that probably the word sa@nkhara is used in two senses, as mental states and as synthetic activity.

Vinnana or consciousness meant according to Buddhagho@sa, as we have already seen in the previous section, both the stage at which the intellectual process started and also the final resulting consciousness.

Buddhagho@sa in explaining the process of Buddhist psychology says that “consciousness(_citta_)first comes into touch (_phassa_) with its object (_aramma@na_) and thereafter feeling, conception (_sanna_) and volition (_cetana_) come in. This contact is like the pillars of a palace, and the rest are but the superstructure built upon it (_dabbasambharasadisa_). But it should not be thought that contact

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Buddhist Psychology_, pp. 49, 50.]

is the beginning of the psychological processes, for in one whole consciousness (_ekacittasmi@m_) it cannot be said that this comes first and that comes after, so we can take contact in association with feeling (_vedana_), conceiving (_sanna_) or volition (_cetana_); it is itself an immaterial state but yet since it comprehends objects it is called contact.” “There is no impinging on one side of the object (as in physical contact), nevertheless contact causes consciousness and object to be in collision, as visible object and visual organs, sound and hearing; thus impact is its _function_; or it has impact as its _essential property_ in the sense of attainment, owing to the impact of the physical basis with the mental object. For it is said in the Commentary:–“contact in the four planes of existence is never without the characteristic of touch with the object; but the function of impact takes place in the five doors. For to sense, or five-door contact, is given the name ‘having the characteristic of touch’ as well as ‘having the function of impact.’ But to contact in the mind-door there is only the characteristic of touch, but not the function of impact. And then this Sutta is quoted ‘As if, sire, two rams were to fight, one ram to represent the eye, the second the visible object, and their collision contact. And as if, sire, two cymbals were to strike against each other, or two hands were to clap against each other; one hand would represent the eye, the second the visible object and their collision contact. Thus contact has the characteristic of touch and the function of impact [Footnote ref 1]’. Contact is the manifestation of the union of the three (the object, the consciousness and the sense) and its effect is feeling (_vedana_); though it is generated by the objects it is felt in the consciousness and its chief feature is experiencing (_anubhava_) the taste of the object. As regards enjoying the taste of an object, the remaining associated states enjoy it only partially. Of contact there is (the function of) the mere touching, of perception the mere noting or perceiving, of volition the mere coordinating, of consciousness the mere cognizing. But feeling alone, through governance, proficiency, mastery, enjoys the taste of an object. For feeling is like the king, the remaining states are like the cook. As the cook, when he has prepared food of diverse tastes, puts it in a basket, seals it, takes it to the king, breaks the seal, opens the basket, takes the best of all the soup and curries, puts them in a dish, swallows (a portion) to find out

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Atthasalini_, p. 108; translation, pp. 143-144.]

whether they are faulty or not and afterwards offers the food of various excellent tastes to the king, and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, even so the mere tasting of the food by the cook is like the partial enjoyment of the object by the remaining states, and as the cook tastes a portion of the food, so the remaining states enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure so feeling being lord expert, and master, enjoys the taste of the object and therefore it is said that enjoyment or experience is its function [Footnote ref 1].”

The special feature of sanna is said to be the recognizing (_paccabhinna_) by means of a sign (_abhinnanena_). According to another explanation, a recognition takes place by the inclusion of the totality (of aspects)–_sabbasa@ngahikavasena_. The work of volition (_cetana_) is said to be coordination or binding together (_abhisandahana_). “Volition is exceedingly energetic and makes a double effort, a double exertion. Hence the Ancients said ‘Volition is like the nature of a landowner, a cultivator who taking fifty-five strong men, went down to the fields to reap. He was exceedingly energetic and exceedingly strenuous; he doubled his strength and said “Take your sickles” and so forth, pointed out the portion to be reaped, offered them drink, food, scent, flowers, etc., and took an equal share of the work.’ The simile should be thus applied: volition is like the cultivator, the fifty-five moral states which arise as factors of consciousness are like the fifty-five strong men; like the time of doubling strength, doubling effort by the cultivator is the doubled strength, doubled effort of volition as regards activity in moral and immoral acts [Footnote ref 2].” It seems that probably the active side operating in sa@nkhara was separately designated as cetana (volition).

“When one says ‘I,’ what he does is that he refers either to all the khandhas combined or any one of them and deludes himself that that was ‘I.’ Just as one could not say that the fragrance of the lotus belonged to the petals, the colour or the pollen, so one could not say that the rupa was ‘I’ or that the vedana was ‘I’ or any of the other khandhas was ‘I.’ There is nowhere to be found in the khandhas ‘I am [Footnote ref 3]’.”

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Atthasalini_, pp. 109-110; translation, pp. 145-146.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ p. 111; translation, pp. 147-148.]

[Footnote 3: _Samyutta Nikaya_, III. 130.]

Avijja and Asava.

As to the question how the avijja (ignorance) first started there can be no answer, for we could never say that either ignorance or desire for existence ever has any beginning [Footnote ref 1]. Its fruition is seen in the cycle of existence and the sorrow that comes in its train, and it comes and goes with them all. Thus as we can never say that it has any beginning, it determines the elements which bring about cycles of existence and is itself determined by certain others. This mutual determination can only take place in and through the changing series of dependent phenomena, for there is nothing which can be said to have any absolute priority in time or stability. It is said that it is through the coming into being of the asavas or depravities that the avijja came into being, and that through the destruction of the depravities (_asava_) the avijja was destroyed [Footnote ref 2]. These asavas are classified in the _Dhammasa@nga@ni_ as kamasava, bhavasava, di@t@thasava and avijjasava. Kamasava means desire, attachment, pleasure, and thirst after the qualities associated with the senses; bhavasava means desire, attachment and will for existence or birth; di@t@thasava means the holding of heretical views, such as, the world is eternal or non-eternal, or that the world will come to an end or will not come to an end, or that the body and the soul are one or are different; avijjasava means the ignorance of sorrow, its cause, its extinction and its means of extinction. _Dhammasa@nga@ni_ adds four more supplementary ones, viz. ignorance about the nature of anterior mental khandhas, posterior mental khandhas, anterior and posterior together, and their mutual dependence [Footnote ref 3]. Kamasava and bhavasava can as Buddhagho@sa says be counted as one, for they are both but depravities due to attachment [Footnote ref 4].

________________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_ (_Visuddhimagga_, chap. XVII.), p. 175.]

[Footnote 2: _M. N._ I.p. 54. Childers translates “asava” as “depravities” and Mrs Rhys Davids as “intoxicants.” The word “asava” in Skr. means “old wine.” It is derived from “su” to produce by Buddhagho@sa and the meaning that he gives to it is “_cira parivasika@t@thena_” (on account of its being stored up for a long time like wine). They work through the eye and the mind and continue to produce all beings up to Indra. As those wines which are kept long are called “asavas” so these are also called asavas for remaining a long time. The other alternative that Buddhagho@sa gives is that they are called asava on account of their producing sa@msaradukkha (sorrows of the world), _Atthasalini_, p. 48. Contrast it with Jaina asrava (flowing in of karma matter). Finding it difficult to translate it in one word after Buddhagho@sa, I have translated it as “depravities,” after Childers.]

[Footnote 3: See _Dhammasa@nga@ni_, p. 195.]

[Footnote 4: Buddhagho@sa’s _Atthasalini_, p. 371.]

100

The di@t@thasavas by clouding the mind with false metaphysical views stand in the way of one’s adopting the true Buddhistic doctrines. The kamasavas stand in the way of one’s entering into the way of Nirva@na (_anagamimagga_) and the bhavasavas and avijjasavas stand in the way of one’s attaining arha or final emancipation. When the _Majjhima Nikaya_ says that from the rise of the asavas avijja rises, it evidently counts avijja there as in some sense separate from the other asavas, such as those of attachment and desire of existence which veil the true knowledge about sorrow.

The afflictions (_kilesas_) do not differ much from the asavas for they are but the specific passions in forms ordinarily familiar to us, such as covetousness (_lobha_), anger or hatred (_dosa_), infatuation (_moha_), arrogance, pride or vanity (_mana_), heresy (_di@t@thi_), doubt or uncertainty (_vicikiccha_), idleness (_thina_), boastfulness (_udhacca_), shamelessness (_ahirika_) and hardness of heart _anottapa_); these kilesas proceed directly as a result of the asavas. In spite of these varieties they are often counted as three (lobha, dosa, moha) and these together are called kilesa. They are associated with the vedanakkhandha, sannakkhandha, sa@nkharakkhandha and vinnanakkhandha. From these arise the three kinds of actions, of speech, of body, and of mind [Footnote ref 1].

Sila and Samadhi.

We are intertwined all through outside and inside by the tangles of desire (_ta@nha ja@ta_), and the only way by which these may be loosened is by the practice of right discipline (_sila_), concentration (_samadhi_) and wisdom (_panna_). Sila briefly means the desisting from committing all sinful deeds (_sabbapapassa akara@nam_). With sila therefore the first start has to be made, for by it one ceases to do all actions prompted by bad desires and thereby removes the inrush of dangers and disturbances. This serves to remove the kilesas, and therefore the proper performance of the sila would lead one to the first two successive stages of sainthood, viz. the sotapannabhava (the stage in which one is put in the right current) and the sakadagamibhava (the stage when one has only one more birth to undergo). Samadhi is a more advanced effort, for by it all the old roots of the old kilesas are destroyed and the ta@nha or desire is removed and

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Dhammasa@nga@ni,_ p. 180.]

101

by it one is led to the more advanced states of a saint. It directly brings in panna (true wisdom) and by panna the saint achieves final emancipation and becomes what is called an arhat [Footnote ref 1]. Wisdom (_panna_) is right knowledge about the four ariya saccas, viz. sorrow, its cause, its destruction and its cause of destruction.

Sila means those particular volitions and mental states, etc. by which a man who desists from committing sinful actions maintains himself on the right path. Sila thus means 1. right volition (_cetana_), 2. the associated mental states (_cetasika_), 3. mental control (_sa@mvara_) and 4. the actual non-transgression (in body and speech) of the course of conduct already in the mind by the preceding three silas called avitikkama. Sa@mvara is spoken of as being of five kinds, 1. Pa@timokkhasa@mvara (the control which saves him who abides by it), 2. Satisa@mvara (the control of mindfulness), 3. Nanasa@mvara (the control of knowledge), 4. Khantisa@mvara (the control of patience), 5. Viriyasa@mvara (the control of active self-restraint). Pa@timokkhasa@mvara means all self-control in general. Satisa@mvara means the mindfulness by which one can bring in the right and good associations when using one’s cognitive senses. Even when looking at any tempting object he will by virtue of his mindfulness (_sati_) control himself from being tempted by avoiding to think of its tempting side and by thinking on such aspects of it as may lead in the right direction. Khantisa@mvara is that by which one can remain unperturbed in heat and cold. By the proper adherence to sila all our bodily, mental and vocal activities (_kamma_) are duly systematized, organized, stabilized (_samadhanam, upadhara@na@m, pati@t@tha_) [Footnote ref 2].

The sage who adopts the full course should also follow a number of healthy monastic rules with reference to dress, sitting, dining, etc., which are called the dhuta@ngas or pure disciplinary parts [Footnote ref 3]. The practice of sila and the dhutangas help the sage to adopt the course of samadhi. Samadhi as we have seen means the concentration of the mind bent on right endeavours (_kusalacittekaggata samadhi@h_) together with its states upon one particular object (_ekaramma@na_) so that they may completely cease to shift and change (_samma ca avikkhipamana_) [Footnote ref 4].

_______________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Visuddhimagga Nidanadikatha_.]

[Footnote 2: _Visuddhimagga-silaniddeso_, pp. 7 and 8.]

[Footnote 3: _Visuddhimagga_, II.]

[Footnote 4: _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 84-85.]

102

The man who has practised sila must train his mind first in particular ways, so that it may be possible for him to acquire the chief concentration of meditation called jhana (fixed and steady meditation). These preliminary endeavours of the mind for the acquirement of jhanasamadhi eventually lead to it and are called upacara samadhi (preliminary samadhi) as distinguished from the jhanasamadhi called the appanasamadhi (achieved samadhi) [Footnote ref 1]. Thus as a preparatory measure, firstly he has to train his mind continually to view with disgust the appetitive desires for eating and drinking (_ahare pa@tikkulasanna_) by emphasizing in the mind the various troubles that are associated in seeking food and drink and their ultimate loathsome transformations as various nauseating bodily elements. When a man continually habituates himself to emphasize the disgusting associations of food and drink, he ceases to have any attachment to them and simply takes them as an unavoidable evil, only awaiting the day when the final dissolution of all sorrows will come [Footnote ref 2]. Secondly he has to habituate his mind to the idea that all the parts of our body are made up of the four elements, k@siti (earth), ap (water), tejas (fire) and wind (air), like the carcase of a cow at the butcher’s shop. This is technically called catudhatuvavatthanabhavana (the meditation of the body as being made up of the four elements) [Footnote ref 3]. Thirdly he has to habituate his mind to think again and again (_anussati_) about the virtues or greatness of the Buddha, the sa@ngha (the monks following the Buddha), the gods and the law (_dhamma_) of the Buddha, about the good effects of sila, and the making of gifts (_caganussati_), about the nature of death (_mara@nanussati_) and about the deep nature and qualities of the final extinction of all phenomena (_upasamanussati_) [Footnote ref 4].

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: As it is not possible for me to enter into details, I follow what appears to me to be the main line of division showing the interconnection of jhana (Skr. _dhyana_) with its accessory stages called parikammas (_Visuddhimagga,_ pp. 85 f.).]

[Footnote 2: _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 341-347; mark the intense pessimistic attitude, “_Iman ca pana ahare pa@tikulasanna@m anuyuttassa bhikkhu@no rasata@nhaya cittam pa@tiliyati, pa@tiku@t@tati, pa@tiva@t@tati; so, kantaranitthara@na@t@thiko viya puttama@msa@m vigatamado ahara@m ahareti yavad eva dukkhassa ni@t@thara@natthaya_,” p. 347. The mind of him who inspires himself with this supreme disgust to all food, becomes free from all desires for palatable tastes, and turns its back to them and flies off from them. As a means of getting rid of all sorrow he takes his food without any attachment as one would eat the flesh of his own son to sustain himself in crossing a forest.]

[Footnote 3: _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 347-370.]

[Footnote 4: _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 197-294.]

103

Advancing further from the preliminary meditations or preparations called the upacara samadhi we come to those other sources of concentration and meditation called the appanasamadhi which directly lead to the achievement of the highest samadhi. The processes of purification and strengthening of the mind continue in this stage also, but these represent the last attempts which lead the mind to its final goal Nibbana. In the first part of this stage the sage has to go to the cremation grounds and notice the diverse horrifying changes of the human carcases and think how nauseating, loathsome, unsightly and impure they are, and from this he will turn his mind to the living human bodies and convince himself that they being in essence the same as the dead carcases are as loathsome as they [Footnote ref.1] This is called asubhakamma@t@thana or the endeavour to perceive the impurity of our bodies. He should think of the anatomical parts and constituents of the body as well as their processes, and this will help him to enter into the first jhana by leading his mind away from his body. This is called the kayagatasati or the continual mindfulness about the nature of the body [Footnote ref 2]. As an aid to concentration the sage should sit in a quiet place and fix his mind on the inhaling (_passasa_) and the exhaling (_assasa_) of his breath, so that instead of breathing in a more or less unconscious manner he may be aware whether he is breathing quickly or slowly; he ought to mark it definitely by counting numbers, so that by fixing his mind on the numbers counted he may fix his mind on the whole process of inhalation and exhalation in all stages of its course. This is called the anapanasati or the mindfulness of inhalation and exhalation [Footnote ref 3]

Next to this we come to Brahmavihara, the fourfold meditation of metta (universal friendship), karu@na (universal pity), mudita (happiness in the prosperity and happiness of all) and upekkha (indifference to any kind of preferment of oneself, his friend, enemy or a third party). In order to habituate oneself to the meditation on universal friendship, one should start with thinking how he should himself like to root out all misery and become happy, how he should himself like to avoid death and live cheerfully, and then pass over to the idea that other beings would also have the same desires. He should thus habituate himself to think that his friends, his enemies, and all those with whom he is not

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Visuddhimagga,_ VI.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ pp. 239-266.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._ pp. 266-292.]

104

connected might all live and become happy. He should fix himself to such an extent in this meditation that he would not find any difference between the happiness or safety of himself and of others. He should never become angry with any person. Should he at any time feel himself offended on account of the injuries inflicted on him by his enemies, he should think of the futility of doubling his sadness by becoming sorry or vexed on that account. He should think that if he should allow himself to be affected by anger, he would spoil all his sila which he was so carefully practising. If anyone has done a vile action by inflicting injury, should he himself also do the same by being angry at it? If he were finding fault with others for being angry, could he himself indulge in anger? Moreover he should think that all the dhammas are momentary (_kha@nikatta_); that there no longer existed the khandhas which had inflicted the injury, and moreover the infliction of any injury being only a joint product, the man who was injured was himself an indispensable element in the production of the infliction as much as the man who inflicted the injury, and there could not thus be any special reason for making him responsible and of being angry with him. If even after thinking in this way the anger does not subside, he should think that by indulging in anger he could only bring mischief on himself through his bad deeds, and he should further think that the other man by being angry was only producing mischief to himself but not to him. By thinking in these ways the sage would be able to free his mind from anger against his enemies and establish himself in an attitude of universal friendship [Footnote ref 1]. This is called the metta-bhavana. In the meditation of universal pity (_karu@na_) also one should sympathize with the sorrows of his friends and foes alike. The sage being more keen-sighted will feel pity for those who are apparently leading a happy life, but are neither acquiring merits nor endeavouring to proceed on the way to Nibbana, for they are to suffer innumerable lives of sorrow [Footnote ref 2].

We next come to the jhanas with the help of material things as objects of concentration called the Kasi@nam. These objects of concentration may either be earth, water, fire, wind, blue colour, yellow colour, red colour, white colour, light or limited space (_paricchinnakasa_). Thus the sage may take a brown ball of earth and concentrate his mind upon it as an earth ball, sometimes

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 295-314.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ pp. 314-315.]

105

with eyes open and sometimes with eyes shut. When he finds that even in shutting his eyes he can visualize the object in his mind, he may leave off the object and retire to another place to concentrate upon the image of the earth ball in his mind.

In the first stages of the first meditation (_pathamam jhanam_) the mind is concentrated on the object in the way of understanding it with its form and name and of comprehending it with its diverse relations. This state of concentration is called vitakka (discursive meditation). The next stage of the first meditation is that in which the mind does not move in the object in relational terms but becomes fixed and settled in it and penetrates into it without any quivering. This state is called vicara (steadily moving). The first stage vitakka has been compared in Buddhagho@sa’s _Visuddhimagga_ to the flying of a kite with its wings flapping, whereas the second stage is compared to its flying in a sweep without the least quiver of its wings. These two stages are associated with a buoyant exaltation (_piti_) and a steady inward bliss called sukha [Footnote ref 1] instilling the mind. The formation of this first jhana roots out five ties of avijja, kamacchando (dallying with desires), vyapado (hatred), thinamiddham (sloth and torpor), uddhaccakukkuccam (pride and restlessness), and vicikiccha (doubt). The five elements of which this jhana is constituted are vitakka, vicara, plti, sukham and ekaggata (one pointedness).

When the sage masters the first jhana he finds it defective and wants to enter into the second meditation (_dutiyam jhanam_), where there is neither any vitakka nor vicara of the first jhana, but the mind is in one unruffled state (_ekodibhavam_). It is a much steadier state and does not possess the movement which characterized the vitakka and the vicara stages of the first jhana and is therefore a very placid state (_vitakka-vicarakkhobha-virahe@na ativiya acalata suppasannata ca_). It is however associated with piti, sukha and ekaggata as the first jhana was.

When the second jhana is mastered the sage becomes disinclined towards the enjoyment of the piti of that stage and becomes indifferent to them (_upekkhako_). A sage in this stage sees the objects but is neither pleased nor displeased. At this stage all the asavas of the sage become loosened (khi@nasava). The enjoyment of sukha however still remains in the stage and the

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Where there is piti there is sukha, but where there is sukha there may not necessarily be piti. _Visuddhimagga_, p. 145.]

106

mind if not properly and carefully watched would like sometimes to turn back to the enjoyment of piti again. The two characteristics of this jhana are sukha and ekaggata. It should however be noted that though there is the feeling of highest sukha here, the mind is not only not attached to it but is indifferent to it (_atimadhhurasukhe sukhaparamippatte pi tatiyajjhane upekkhako, na tattha sukhabhisangena aka@d@dhiyati_) [Footnote ref 1]. The earth ball (_pa@thavi_) is however still the object of the jhana.

In the fourth or the last jhana both the sukha (happiness) and the dukkha (misery) vanish away and all the roots of attachment and antipathies are destroyed. This state is characterized by supreme and absolute indifference (_upekkha_) which was slowly growing in all the various stages of the jhanas. The characteristics of this jhana are therefore upekkha and ekaggata. With the mastery of this jhana comes final perfection and total extinction of the citta called cetovimutti, and the sage becomes thereby an arhat [Footnote ref 2]. There is no further production of the khandhas, no rebirth, and there is the absolute cessation of all sorrows and sufferings–Nibbana.

Kamma.

In the Katha (II. 6) Yama says that “a fool who is blinded with the infatuation of riches does not believe in a future life; he thinks that only this life exists and not any other, and thus he comes again and again within my grasp.” In the Digha Nikaya also we read how Payasi was trying to give his reasons in support of his belief that “Neither is there any other world, nor are there beings, reborn otherwise than from parents, nor is there fruit or result of deeds well done or ill done [Footnote ref 3].” Some of his arguments were that neither the vicious nor the virtuous return to tell us that they suffered or enjoyed happiness in the other world, that if the virtuous had a better life in store, and if they believed in it, they would certainly commit suicide in order to get it at the earliest opportunity, that in spite of taking the best precautions we do not find at the time of the death of any person that his soul goes out, or that his body weighs less on account of the departure of his soul, and so on. Kassapa refutes his arguments with apt illustrations. But in spite of a few agnostics of

_______________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Visuddhimagga_, p. 163.]

[Footnote 2: _Majjhima Nikaya_, I.p. 296, and _Visuddhimagga_, pp. 167-168.]

[Footnote 3: _Dialogues of the Buddha_, II. p. 349; _D. N._ II. pp. 317 ff.]

107

Payasi’s type, we have every reason to believe that the doctrine of rebirth in other worlds and in this was often spoken of in the Upani@sads and taken as an accepted fact by the Buddha. In the _Milinda Panha_, we find Nagasena saying “it is through a difference in their karma that men are not all alike, but some long lived, some short lived, some healthy and some sickly, some handsome and some ugly, some powerful and some weak, some rich and some poor, some of high degree and some of low degree, some wise and some foolish [Footnote ref 1].” We have seen in the third chapter that the same soil of views was enunciated by the Upani@sad sages.

But karma could produce its effect in this life or any other life only when there were covetousness, antipathy and infatuation. But “when a man’s deeds are performed without covetousness, arise without covetousness and are occasioned without covetousness, then inasmuch as covetousness is gone these deeds are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra tree and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future [Footnote ref 2].” Karma by itself without craving (_ta@nha_) is incapable of bearing good or bad fruits. Thus we read in the _Mahasatipa@t@thana sutta_, “even this craving, potent for rebirth, that is accompanied by lust and self-indulgence, seeking satisfaction now here, now there, to wit, the craving for the life of sense, the craving for becoming (renewed life) and the craving for not becoming (for no new rebirth) [Footnote ref 3].” “Craving for things visible, craving for things audible, craving for things that may be smelt, tasted, touched, for things in memory recalled. These are the things in this world that are dear, that are pleasant. There does craving take its rise, there does it dwell [Footnote ref 4].” Pre-occupation and deliberation of sensual gratification giving rise to craving is the reason why sorrow comes. And this is the first arya satya (noble truth).

The cessation of sorrow can only happen with “the utter cessation of and disenchantment about that very craving, giving it up, renouncing it and emancipation from it [Footnote ref 5].”

When the desire or craving (_ta@nha_) has once ceased the sage becomes an arhat, and the deeds that he may do after that will bear no fruit. An arhat cannot have any good or bad

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 215.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ pp. 216-217.]

[Footnote 3: _Dialogues of the Buddha_, II. p. 340.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ p. 341.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 341.]

108

fruits of whatever he does. For it is through desire that karma finds its scope of giving fruit. With the cessation of desire all ignorance, antipathy and grasping cease and consequently there is nothing which can determine rebirth. An arhat may suffer the effects of the deeds done by him in some previous birth just as Moggallana did, but in spite of the remnants of his past karma an arhat was an emancipated man on account of the cessation of his desire [Footnote ref 1].

Kammas are said to be of three kinds, of body, speech and mind (_kayika_, _vacika_ and _manasika_). The root of this kamma is however volition (_cetana_) and the states associated with it [Footnote ref 2]. If a man wishing to kill animals goes out into the forest in search of them, but cannot get any of them there even after a long search, his misconduct is not a bodily one, for he could not actually commit the deed with his body. So if he gives an order for committing a similar misdeed, and if it is not actually carried out with the body, it would be a misdeed by speech (_vacika_) and not by the body. But the merest bad thought or ill will alone whether carried into effect or not would be a kamma of the mind (_manasika_) [Footnote ref 3]. But the mental kamma must be present as the root of all bodily and vocal kammas, for if this is absent, as in the case of an arhat, there cannot be any kammas at all for him.

Kammas are divided from the point of view of effects into four classes, viz. (1) those which are bad and produce impurity, (2) those which are good and productive of purity, (3) those which are partly good and partly bad and thus productive of both purity and impurity, (4) those which are neither good nor bad and productive neither of purity nor of impurity, but which contribute to the destruction of kammas [Footnote ref 4].

Final extinction of sorrow (_nibbana_) takes place as the natural result of the destruction of desires. Scholars of Buddhism have tried to discover the meaning of this ultimate happening, and various interpretations have been offered. Professor De la Vallee Poussin has pointed out that in the Pali texts Nibbana has sometimes been represented as a happy state, as pure annihilation, as an inconceivable existence or as a changeless state [Footnote ref 5].

__________________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Kathavatthu_ and Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, pp, 221 ff.]

[Footnote 2: _Atthasalini_, p. 88.]

[Footnote 3: See _Atthasalini_, p. 90.]

[Footnote 4: See _Atthasalini_, p. 89.]

[Footnote 5: Prof. De la Vallae Poussin’s article in the _E. R.E._ on Nirva@na. See also _Cullavagga_, IX. i. 4; Mrs Rhys Davids’s _Psalms of the early Buddhists_, I. and II., Introduction, p. xxxvii; _Digha_, II. 15; _Udana_, VIII.; _Sa@myutta_, III. 109.]

109

Mr Schrader, in discussing Nibbana in _Pali Text Society Journal_, 1905, says that the Buddha held that those who sought to become identified after death with the soul of the world as infinite space (_akasa_) or consciousness (_vinnana_) attained to a state in which they had a corresponding feeling of infiniteness without having really lost their individuality. This latter interpretation of Nibbana seems to me to be very new and quite against the spirit of the Buddhistic texts. It seems to me to be a hopeless task to explain Nibbana in terms of worldly experience, and there is no way in which we can better indicate it than by saying that it is a cessation of all sorrow; the stage at which all worldly experiences have ceased can hardly be described either as positive or negative. Whether we exist in some form eternally or do not exist is not a proper Buddhistic question, for it is a heresy to think of a Tathagata as existing eternally (_s’as’vata_) or not-existing (_as’as’vata_) or whether he is existing as well as not existing or whether he is neither existing nor non-existing. Any one who seeks to discuss whether Nibbana is either a positive and eternal state or a mere state of non-existence or annihilation, takes a view which has been discarded in Buddhism as heretical. It is true that we in modern times are not satisfied with it, for we want to know what it all means. But it is not possible to give any answer since Buddhism regarded all these questions as illegitimate.

Later Buddhistic writers like Nagarjuna and Candrakirtti took advantage of this attitude of early Buddhism and interpreted it as meaning the non-essential character of all existence. Nothing existed, and therefore any question regarding the existence or non-existence of anything would be meaningless. There is no difference between the worldly stage (_sa@msara_) and Nibbana, for as all appearances are non-essential, they never existed during the sa@msara so that they could not be annihilated in Nibbana.

Upani@sads and Buddhism.

The Upani@sads had discovered that the true self was ananda (bliss) [Footnote ref 1]. We could suppose that early Buddhism tacitly presupposes some such idea. It was probably thought that if there was the self (_atta_) it must be bliss. The Upani@sads had asserted that the self(_atman_) was indestructible and eternal [Footnote ref 2]. If we are allowed

__________________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Tait, II.5.]

[Footnote 2: B@rh. IV. 5. 14. Ka@tha V. 13.]

110

to make explicit what was implicit in early Buddhism we could conceive it as holding that if there was the self it must be bliss, because it was eternal. This causal connection has not indeed been anywhere definitely pronounced in the Upani@sads, but he who carefully reads the Upani@sads cannot but think that the reason why the Upani@sads speak of the self as bliss is that it is eternal. But the converse statement that what was not eternal was sorrow does not appear to be emphasized clearly in the Upani@sads. The important postulate of the Buddha is that that which is changing is sorrow, and whatever is sorrow is not self [Footnote ref 1]. The point at which Buddhism parted from the Upani@sads lies in the experiences of the self. The Upani@sads doubtless considered that there were many experiences which we often identify with self, but which are impermanent. But the belief is found in the Upani@sads that there was associated with these a permanent part as well, and that it was this permanent essence which was the true and unchangeable self, the blissful. They considered that this permanent self as pure bliss could not be defined as this, but could only be indicated as not this, not this (_neti neti_) [Footnote ref 2]. But the early Pali scriptures hold that we could nowhere find out such a permanent essence, any constant self, in our changing experiences. All were but changing phenomena and therefore sorrow and therefore non-self, and what was non-self was not mine, neither I belonged to it, nor did it belong to me as my self [Footnote ref 3].

The true self was with the Upani@sads a matter of transcendental experience as it were, for they said that it could not be described in terms of anything, but could only be pointed out as “there,” behind all the changing mental categories. The Buddha looked into the mind and saw that it did not exist. But how was it that the existence of this self was so widely spoken of as demonstrated in experience? To this the reply of the Buddha was that what people perceived there when they said that they perceived the self was but the mental experiences either individually or together. The ignorant ordinary man did not know the noble truths and was not trained in the way of wise men, and considered himself to be endowed with form (_rupa_) or found the forms in his self or the self in the forms. He

________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Sa@myutta Nikuya_, III. pp. 44-45 ff.]

[Footnote 2: See B@rh. IV. iv. Chandogya, VIII. 7-12.]

[Footnote 3: _Sa@myutta Nikaya_, III 45.]

111

experienced the thought (of the moment) as it were the self or experienced himself as being endowed with thought, or the thought in the self or the self in the thought. It is these kinds of experiences that he considered as the perception of the self [Footnote ref 1].

The Upani@sads did not try to establish any school of discipline or systematic thought. They revealed throughout the dawn of an experience of an immutable Reality as the self of man, as the only abiding truth behind all changes. But Buddhism holds that this immutable self of man is a delusion and a false knowledge. The first postulate of the system is that impermanence is sorrow. Ignorance about sorrow, ignorance about the way it originates, ignorance about the nature of the extinction of sorrow, and ignorance about the means of bringing about this extinction represent the fourfold ignorance (_avijja_) [Footnote ref 2]. The avidya, which is equivalent to the Pali word avijja, occurs in the Upani@sads also, but there it means ignorance about the atman doctrine, and it is sometimes contrasted with vidya or true knowledge about the self (_atman_) [Footnote ref 3]. With the Upani@sads the highest truth was the permanent self, the bliss, but with the Buddha there was nothing permanent; and all was change; and all change and impermanence was sorrow [Footnote ref 4]. This is, then, the cardinal truth of Buddhism, and ignorance concerning it in the above fourfold ways represented the fourfold ignorance which stood in the way of the right comprehension of the fourfold cardinal truths (_ariya sacca_)–sorrow, cause of the origination of sorrow, extinction of sorrow, and the means thereto.

There is no Brahman or supreme permanent reality and no self, and this ignorance does not belong to any ego or self as we may ordinarily be led to suppose.

Thus it is said in the _Visuddhimagga_ “inasmuch however as ignorance is empty of stability from being subject to a coming into existence and a disappearing from existence…and is empty of a self-determining Ego from being subject to dependence,–…or in other words inasmuch as ignorance is not an Ego, and similarly with reference to Karma and the rest–therefore is it to be understood of the wheel of existence that it is empty with a twelvefold emptiness [Footnote ref 5].”

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Samyutta Nikaya_, II. 46.]

[Footnote 2: _Majjhima Nikaya_, I.p. 54.]

[Footnote 3: Cha. I.i. 10. B@rh. IV. 3.20. There are some passages where vidya and avidya have been used in a different and rather obscure sense, I’s’a 9-11.]

[Footnote 4: _A@ng. Nikaya_, III. 85.]

[Footnote 5 Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_ (_Visuddhimagga_, chap. XVII.), p. 175.]

112

The Schools of Theravada Buddhism.

There is reason to believe that the oral instructions of the Buddha were not collected until a few centuries after his death. Serious quarrels arose amongst his disciples or rather amongst the successive generations of the disciples of his disciples about his doctrines and other monastic rules which he had enjoined upon his followers. Thus we find that when the council of Vesali decided against the V@rjin monks, called also the Vajjiputtakas, they in their turn held another great meeting (Mahasa@ngha) and came to their own decisions about certain monastic rules and thus came to be called as the Mahasa@nghikas [Footnote ref 1]. According to Vasumitra as translated by Vassilief, the Mahasa@nghikas seceded in

A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta (page 3)