Welcome everybody, this is the 9th lecture.
In my course Purification Ethics and Karma in Early Buddhist Discourse.
First I have a small announcement again to make.
We have now established a website, giving you here the link and I will also be putting
that link up on the blog, where the past 8 lectures can be downloaded as audio files.
So whereas these video recordings are copyrighted because I am giving you extracts from the
Madhyama Agama translation, the audio recordings are freely available on this webpage together
with the lecture notes, abbreviated lecture notes.
And it is the same webpage also where there is also an announcement of the course next
year and where we will also then be the registration everything.
Right last time we went through 3 discourses, so I start by first reviewing them.
The first was the Madhyama Nikaya No. 12, we had this discussion with the Vapa, follow
of the Giants and the basic message that this discourse was giving us is that from
an early Buddhist perspective, the fully awakened one, the Arahant, is beyond the influxes,
the Asavas.
And we were given this simile that the situation of the Arahant is comparable to the shadow
of a tree, just once the tree is cut down and into pieces, the shadow will certainly
be gone as well.
And in a similar way, the Arahant is always untouched by anything that happens to the
sense doors, he or she remains equanimous and mindful.
This discourse has not caused any comments on the blog, but I would just like to make
my own comment now, I find this simile very powerful, the sense experience is being compared
to the shadow of a tree, even when the tree is there, it's just a shadow, nothing substantial.
And even that shadow is gone with full awakening, even that assembly of something real is just
completely gone.
And this emphasis on equanimity and mindfulness is something that from a practical perspective
seems to me to be of considerable importance.
This is what I would see as the essence of Satipatthana meditation practice.
So this simile together with this throwing into relief these two qualities of the Arahant
has a very powerful impact, I think, if one considers it from a practical perspective.
Then the next discourse, Magyama Aghama number 13, was taking up three different views.
One of these views was that everything is caused by what has been done in previous lives.
The second one was that everything that one does is caused and created by a supreme divine
being.
And the third one is that whatever one does is without any cause of condition.
So instead of these three views, which we could summarize as calming determinism, almighty
creator-god and denial of causality, instead of these three views, this discourse proposes
insight into the four noble truths.
On the block there was an inquiry by, I think, Laura de Bernadi, if I remember correctly,
about the notion of a creator-god in early Buddhism.
And I thought I wanted to say a little bit about that.
The denizens of ancient Indian heavens, all these gods, are part and parcel of early Buddhist
discourse.
The mode how these fit into early Buddhist view has been referred to as inclusivism by
scholars.
I just write the word here, inclusivism.
In the sense that these gods are included in the Buddhist worldview, but with some rather
decisive changes or shifts of perspective.
So the existence of Brahma, the creator-god in ancient India, is never denied.
However, Brahma's claim to being a creator-god or to being omniscient is in a way made fun
of.
We get one very nice tale in the Brahma-jala sutta, that is the first discourse in the
Digha Nikaya.
So according to ancient Indian cosmological ideas, the whole universe goes through repeated
cycles of expansion and contraction, or repeated cycles of destruction.
So after one such period of destruction when the whole planet earth has disappeared and
lower Brahma worlds have also become empty, then the world starts to evolve again, and
a Brahma world, an empty Brahma world, appears.
And now a certain living being, in accordance with its karma and merits, is reborn in this
empty Brahma world.
And so he's there in this Brahma world, and he feels a little lonely.
So he's there by himself and thinks, wouldn't it be nice if some other beings would be here?
And as he keeps thinking, some other beings in accordance with their karma and merits
are also reborn in this Brahma world.
And then the one born there first thinks, look, I'm their creator.
I thought, wouldn't it be nice if other beings are also here?
And look, here they come.
And the other beings reborn in this Brahma world think, look, he's our creator.
He was there first.
And then the story continues that some recluse or bhamin later on being reborn as a human
being, and going forth as a recluse and brahmin develops the ability to recollect past lives.
This according to early Buddhist meditation theory, it is possible to remember one's past
lives once one has developed a sufficient degree of concentration.
And he remembers this situation and then starts to tell others about this creator god.
This whole story obviously is making fun at a brahminical creation myth found in the,
I think in the Brihat Aranika Upanishad somewhere.
I don't have the reference now offhand here.
And it shows the way early Buddhism deals with the notion of a creator god saying that
in the end it is just the outcome of somebody who is feeling lonely.
Then we have another also very humorous description in another discourse also found in the Dighanikaya,
the Kivadasuta.
And there the story we are told is that there is a monk and he wants to know what transcends
the four elements, earth, water, fire, air.
What is it that goes beyond them?
That's the ageless question about transcending the world.
And so he has the meditative power apparently to visit the different heavens.
And so we get this description how he goes from one heaven to the next, always higher
and trying to get an answer to his question and is unable to get an answer.
And he finally comes to the Brahma world and there's many Brahmas and they say, oh
you wait until Mahabrahma comes and Mahabrahma will give you the answer.
And finally Mahabrahma appears and the monk goes up and says, can you please tell me where
earth, water, fire and air, where these are transcended?
And Mahabrahma answers, I am the great Mahabrahma, I know everything, I am omniscient.
And the monk says, yeah, that's very nice, but that's not an answer to my question.
Actually I wanted to know about the four elements.
And Mahabrahma looks at him and says, yes, I am Mahabrahma, I know everything, I am omniscient.
And so this goes forth and back for a few times.
And eventually Mahabrahma realizes that he cannot get around this monk in this way.
So he takes him to the side and says, look, all these others here in the Brahma world,
they think I know everything and I am the great Brahma, but so I can't frustrate them
by telling you in front of them, but actually I also don't know.
You are actually a fool.
I mean, if you want to have an answer to this question, you better go back down on earth
and ask the Buddha, he'll be able to tell you.
So here we find again a very humorous tale where we see early Buddhist discourse making
fun at the notion of an omniscient Brahma, and at the same time clearly placing the Buddha
with his knowledge highly above the God of the Brahmins, above the Mahabrahma.
This way, this aspect of inclusivism, that is this kind of accepting that there is a
Brahma, but in a very joking manner making clear that his claims to being a creator and
to being all-knowing are not to be taken too seriously is, however, only one side of
the way the creator God, the ancient Indian creator God takes part in Buddhism.
There's also another Brahma.
We have actually quite a number of Brahmins in the early discourses, and he has the name
Sahampati, and he is a devoted disciple, devoted supporter of Buddhism.
He comes up again and again supporting the Buddha, encouraging the Buddha, telling the
Buddha about Devadatta, confirming the Buddha's decision that the Buddha should only rely
on his own discovery and not on another teacher.
And he also features rather prominently in the Arya-Pariyasanasottam, that is the autobiographical
record of the Buddha's awakening.
Here we get the story that right at the moment when the Buddha had become a Buddha, when
he had reached awakening, he thought that he would not teach.
That would be a vexation for him if others should not understand him, so according to
this discourse, he feels he should rather keep his discovery to himself.
And our Brahma-Sahampati, up there in the heavens, realizes what is taking place and
thinking, oh gosh, the world is going to be lost.
He comes down with folded hands, begs the Buddha, please teach.
And it is according to the Arya-Pariyasanasottam, after this request only, that the Buddha surveys
the world with his eye of compassion, realizes that there are some who will understand him,
and there only decides to teach.
This Brahma episode is not found in the Madhyama-Aghama parallel.
Nevertheless, it is found in a large range of texts that record the Buddha's awakening.
So in this case, I am myself uncertain if the Brahma episode is a later addition in
all the other texts, or a loss, or even a conscious removal in the Madhyama-Aghama version.
Because the whole idea that the Buddha would not be willing to teach stands in contrast
to the later notion that he had prepared himself over so many generations in his bodhisattva
career to become a Buddha.
Whatever the last word on this episode, if we look at it from the perspective of the
Pali canonical tradition, in this instance, Brahma, the creator god Brahma, is the one
who creates the occasion for Buddhism to come into being in the first place.
Without Brahma, without somebody Brahma asking the Buddha to fall at hand to teach,
we would have little to talk about when we want to discuss Buddhism.
And this scene of Brahma, often accompanied by Sakka, the king of the heaven of the 33,
is a very frequent representation in iconography and ancient Indian sculpture.
We already have it in what is generally referred to as the anikonic period, a period where
the Buddha himself was not portrayed, but only his presence shown in a symbolic way.
So we might get an empty throne of enlightenment, the seat of awakening, and then on the left
and right side we have Brahma and Sakka standing there with folded hands, scenes that quite
probably depict this crucial moment in the history of Buddhism according to tradition.
Coming to the end of my little excursion into the creator god Brahma, and I think we will
get more opportunity to talk about inclusivism, Brahma and other gods doing future lectures.
We clearly see that although the notion that a god is responsible for the creation of the
world and beings is put aside, and also the notion that god is omniscient, is made fun of,
the ancient Indian creator god Brahma is clearly part of the early Buddhist worldview, an integral
part, and he plays a rather crucial role.
Yeah, at this point I think I just stop very briefly to see if there is any question in
regard to Brahma, the creator god, or what I said so far, and after that I would go into
the next discourse.
Good, then I continue reviewing in the next discourse, that was the discourse to Rahula,
Madhyama Agama number 14, and the main theme of falsehood has been very much discussed with very
interesting contributions in the blog. I just quickly go through the similes we had, there
were these altogether five similes to illustrate the problem of speaking falsehood. We had the
Buddha using a water vessel, with which he apparently had just washed his feet, so the
first simile found in both versions, he shows that there is very little water left, and so it's kind
of useless, and the second simile is about discarded water, the water is being thrown out,
so it's also useless. Then the third simile in the Madhyama Agama, the vessel is just tipped
over in the Madhyamanika is put upside down, and the fourth vessel then in the Madhyama Agama we get
the upside down vessel, and in the Madhyamanika the empty vessel. And following on these water
vessel illustrations, we also get the image of an elephant, that protects his trunk, and then
afterwards he even he's given up any fear and doesn't even protect his trunk, he's using his
trunk even in in a battle situation, showing that one who speaks evil will be willing, one who speaks
a falsehood, I'm sorry, one who speaks falsehood will be willing to do any evil. And I think this
pronouncement has really caused some controversies and some discussion, there's a nice contribution
by Michael Dov, Michael Dov says, my reading is that a small offense, like a small lie, carries
the potential seed and perhaps unwittingly also waters the ground for a serious offense. I think
this very succinctly captures the image that we get with this simile of the elephant. And then
as a very insightful comment from Manfred Wiesbergen, he said, the most harmful aspect about not being
truthful is lying to oneself, and each little white lie increases the tendency to untruthfulness,
dishonesty and insincerity. And a similar comment made by Robert Crosh, the most severe harm is that
one clouds one's own view or maybe one's own vision, and prevents oneself from seeing and
accepting the truth. I think these two comments clearly point the point out the reason why early
Buddhism is so severe or so much concerned with the speaking of truth and avoiding of falsehood,
because the principle is that in order for a lie to be convincing, now if I want to tell you now
something falsely, something untrue, and I obviously want you to believe it, and in order to be
believable, for at least a moment, I have to pretend to myself that I'm also believing it. I
have to pretend to myself it's true what I'm saying. Only then I will be able to really tell
it in a way that is convincing. So every time I am speaking of falsehood, I am actually training
myself to do the very opposite of what the whole enterprise of meditation, etc., is about, about
seeing things as they really are. I'm training myself consciously to see things not as they
really are, different from what they really are. I'm training myself in self-deception. So this
obviously goes diametrically in the opposite direction, opposite to where according to early
Buddhist photoreology we are supposed to go. And the point is also, I mean, is there anybody who
really wants to do evil from the depth of his or her heart? Maybe a few, but most people from the
depth of their heart, I presume, would not really want to do evil, but rather when they're doing
something evil, there is a moment of dishonesty with oneself. One pretends it's okay to do it,
or one does it very quickly in order to pass by the stage of reflection. This crucial moment of
honesty reflecting on the nature of a deed of what we are about to do, what we are doing, what we have
done as the Raulovada Sutta teaches us, is so crucial. And speaking of falsehood is undermining
that whole, that whole pattern, that whole construction. Falsehood is also very important
in the training of Buddhist monastics. In fact, it's kind of assumed in Vinaya regulations that
that a monk will not speak a lie. Professor von Hinnuben, who has done a lot of studies on
on Vinaya texts and has given us a whole range of insight for publications, he says the following,
let me just paste it in. One of the basic principles of early Buddhist law as laid down in the
party mokam is that the monk involved has to admit his intention to commit an offense.
Speaking the truth is taken more or less for granted here, as in the Brahminical tradition,
where it is thought that Brahmins speak the truth by the very nature. Much much of our Vinaya
regulations of dealing with a monk who has done something that is actually based on getting him
to admit it. And this is so, so crucial to the whole procedure that applying the same in modern
day world, we will probably not stand much chances of getting our regulations to work. And on the
other side, if somebody has done something evil and he or she tries to conceal it, I'm talking
about monastics now, and it is found out that they have spoken falsehood, then this person is
pretty much kind of lost all respect that he or she could expect normally from his co monks or
conons. So in the case of a monk, then he will be pronounced to be a monk of evil character for
having spoken falsehood. And when a monk has been determined to be of evil character, then he will
be divested of all possible privileges. He will not be allowed to have a novice as his attendance. He
will not be allowed to give teachings to nuns. He will not be allowed to take a place of honor or
benefit from any community decision. It's pretty much has exonerated himself to such an extent that
he's no longer able to fulfill the role of a normal monk. He is still a bhikkhu. It's not a
paragica, but still it's very severely offense that he has done by just speaking falsehood. Just,
I'm saying from the modern day perspective. So speaking of falsehood, particularly when being
interrogated by other monks was seen as a rather grave wrongdoing. And on the opposite side,
that's again something already pointed out by Manfred Wiesberger. We have this notion of a
statement of truth. This is not specifically Buddhist. It's a general ancient Indian notion
that by making a statement of truth, there's a certain power and even magical power that can
be used to influence things. An example of this statement of truth in a Buddhist discourse we
find in the Angulimala tale, Angulimala suttan. The former murderer Angulimala has become a monk
and he goes down the road and sees a woman in difficult labor. And so when he comes back and
tells the Buddha, the Buddha tells me, you make a statement of truth. And while making a statement
of truth, the woman will be delivered. And so when he makes a statement of truth, which is actually a
little ambivalent in its formulation, but basically he says that since my, according to the Pali
version, since my noble birth, I have not harmed any living being. He has been a murderer, but the
noble birth then is meant to refer to his being a monk. So he makes a declaration of truth that I
have been a murderer before, but since I've become a monk, I have not harmed anyone. That's maybe also
a statement meant to let people in town know that he has really changed himself. And this statement
of truth has not only helped that woman in labor, but it's still a protective chant used nowadays in
the Theravaya tradition, the Angulimala paritta. So there is a certain power and maybe we need not
believe in the magical aspects of the statement of truth. We could still see that there is a certain
power that goes with speaking the truth and not speaking falsehood. However, there's another comment
here by Sergio Guillermo Canova. He says, according to Buddhism, are we supposed to tell the truth or
just not tell deliberate lies? And that is a very good point. I was very glad that Sergio came up with
this point. Yeah, and I think the thing is that we have this commitment to not saying something false,
but truth is something that needs to be considered if it's the right time and the right circumstances
to speak it. There's a nice example in the Vinaya. There's a story of, excuse me, soon after the Buddha
had become awakened and he had taught the first five monks and there's a layman, he meets Yasa. Yasa has run away
from home and come to meet the Buddha and so he sits there and the Buddha gives him a discourse and
Yasa becomes a stream-enterer. Now next, the father comes into the scene. He's desperately looking for the
son. Yasa was apparently from a very rich family and so their parents are perhaps afraid that he had
been kidnapped or something untoward has happened to him. Now the Buddha has through a feat of
magical power has hidden Yasa so that the father cannot see him. Now the father, according to the
Pali Vinaya account, walks up to the Buddha and says, have you seen my son Yasa? Now we have this
distressed father who is worried that his son might be dead, might be kidnapped. What the Buddha does
is he says, you sit down here. If you sit down here, you might see Yasa sooner or later. See,
he is not speaking the truth. I'm sorry. He's not saying, yes, Yasa is just sitting here behind the
corner. I've just been talking to him. Don't worry. No, he just told him, you just sit here and wait.
Then obviously he gives him a discourse. The householders, the father of Yasa becomes a
stream-enterer and doing that same discourse, Yasa, then I think he becomes an arahant and then the
Buddha retreats his feat of magical power and makes Yasa visible. Even if we don't believe in
the feat of magical power, perhaps Yasa has been just sitting around the corner. The story would
still function. See my point. The Buddha is not, is a fully awakened one. He is not forced to blurt
out the truth to say, well somebody asked where is Yasa and he just has to force, he's forced to say
Yasa is sitting here there. There is no, there is the possibility of evaluating the situation and I
assume the idea behind the story is that the Buddha knew if they now meet, Yasa will not progress
further. The father will not get stream-ended, but if I can stop the father here and I am able to
allay his fear by telling me you're going to see your son, he's going to be receptive to a discourse
and that discourse is going to be good for him and Yasa is also going to be progressing further. So
presumably on assessing the whole situation he decides not to tell the truth. He doesn't
say a falsehood, but he also doesn't say the truth. And I think that's quite, quite, quite a,
quite a nice story to show the early Buddhist attitude towards the speaking of truth.
And because this, excuse me again, a little cough today, because this whole issue of speaking
falsehood and truth has been so much discussed on the blog, I would like to go into a few more
passages because I believe this is, this is a rather important issue.
So the first passage I like to take up is from the Abhaya Rajakumara Suttan, Majimani Kaya 58.
What type of speech would the Buddha use? And so the presentation we get distinguishes from three
different perspectives or three categories for evaluation. I have called them here in my handout.
One is, is this speech, is it false or is it true? The second one, is it unbeneficial or is it
beneficial? And the third one, is it pleasant or unpleasant? And so we get these six different
cases. And before we get into them, I already like to mention that the distinction unpleasant
or pleasant makes no difference. This is not, not, not really a criterion. The others are
criteria, but whether it is pleasant or unpleasant is not a criteria for deciding the type, whether
this speech can be used or not. Therefore, I have put the variations unpleasant, pleasant, always
together so that we just get three different cases. The first case, speech that is false and
unbeneficial, the Buddha would not use such speech. This is nota bene, the only case of false
speech. There is no false speech that is beneficial. This is simply not considered in this analysis
there. I think there was, was there some example on the block of somebody wanting to, I think from
Robert, I don't remember exactly, I went through the block before the lecture, but there were so many
interesting things that I don't have it all in my mind. But I think Robert made this example of
somebody wanting to kill another person and then asking us where that person is. And we have to tell
a falsehood to save that, that other person, something of that type. This possibility of speaking
of falsehood that is beneficial because it saves the human being's life is simply not considered
here. We get only false, unbeneficial, unpleasant, false, unbeneficial, pleasant. Both such type of
speeches the Buddha won't use. In the second category we get true but unbeneficial. Again,
whether it's pleasant or unpleasant the Buddha would not use it. And we get the third case true,
beneficial, unpleasant. The Buddha will know the time when to use it. True, beneficial, pleasant.
Again, the Buddha will know the time, color new, know the time. Even it's true, even it's beneficial,
not just blurted out. Watch circumstances, know when it's time to speak it, know when it's time
not to speak it. Another passage I like to touch on is from Anguttranikaya. It's among the fours,
discourse number 100. And it's an examination of four different cases.
The first is you criticize what deserves criticism. The second is you praise what
deserves praise. The third is you neither criticize what deserves criticism nor praise what deserves
praise. And the fourth is you criticize what deserves criticism and you praise what deserves
praise. By the way, you might remember last time I spoke about this Tetra lemma. This is again this
Tetra lemma type of presentation. Yes, no, neither yes, no, no, yes and no. Anyhow, the
point that this discourse makes is which of these three options is the best? What will you say?
What is the best? Criticize only what deserves criticism without praising. Praising what deserves
praise without criticizing. Just keeping completely quiet or doing both. Any suggestions?
Both.
I would say it depends on the situation, but in general both, says Robert, and Hedvig has also said both.
Yeah, both, but at times not speak at all. Yeah, well done. Yeah, both is the, you hit the right
solution. That is the solution the Buddha proposes. And his visitor had said that in principle it's
better not to say anything. He had chosen the option three because that according to the visitor
shows extreme equanimity. And the Buddha disagrees and he says, as you all said, I mean sometimes
three might be right, but in principle both is the right option because it shows one knows the proper
time. One knows the proper time when something deserves criticism, one will criticize. When
something deserves praise, one will praise. And I think if we look at it from that perspective of
the proper time, it will also include the point that are made by both of you, that it depends
somewhat on the situation. But in principle to just simply say nothing, assuming that this is
equanimity is criticized by the Buddha. Thank you for joining me in this. Yeah, then here just to
put a counterpart to this and to confirm also the suggestion made by both of you that it depends on
the situation. At times one should not speak at all. This is also correct. And we find that
here in the Kindisuddha, Majimini Kaya 103, when should we criticize someone?
And this discourse gives us three categories for evaluation. This is the situation as
some, it's among monastics, somebody has done offense or transgression and should we reprove
him? But I think we can apply this in general also to laity, we need not restrict it to monks.
So there's three aspects that should be considered before we decide to intervene. The first is will
I be troubled? The second is will the other get upset? And the third or C, will it be possible
to establish the other person in what is wholesome? Obviously, if I'm not going to get
troubled, if the other is not going to get upset, and the other is probably going to be
established in what is wholesome, then full way ahead we criticize. Even if it means that I get
troubled, even if the other gets upset, you still speak. However, if one anticipates that, and now
I'm quoting from the sutra, I cannot make that person emerge from the own wholesome and establish
him in the wholesome. One should not underrate equanimity towards such a person. I think that
confirms the point made by both of you there that there are times when one should keep quiet.
Yeah, then we had this mirror simile in Madhyama Agama 14 to illustrate reflection and this
reflection should be done in regard to bodily, verbal and mental action. And it should be done
before the action, doing the action and after the action. And as I said before, there is this close
relationship to the speaking of falsehood in a way because of this need of honesty.
Danger will always be to pretend to ourselves that it's not so bad or I needed to do it,
but instead just as a mirror does not a proper mirror, does not change the image, does not
interpret it, but simply reflects what is there. So mindfulness should be the mirror that simply
reflects what is there so that we are able to recognize its wholesome or unwholesome nature and
repercussions. It's a very nice comment made by Laura de Bernardi.
She says, the specificity of the instructions to Rahula to attend to actions before,
during and afterwards suggests the attentiveness and dedication, diligence and discipline one must
bring to Salem. This specificity seems to me like the meter in poetry. Many a poet has risen to great
heights because they couldn't use 30 syllables in a line as the meter was such that only 15 syllables
could be used. The constriction itself was a factor in their creativity. I find that I really
appreciate that image. It shows us that the restriction by keeping to certain rules of
sealer can actually have a very positive effect, can make us more creative than if we just do
whatever comes to our mind without any kind of restraint or concern. Then there's another
comment again by Manfred Wiesbergam. I'm making a lot of use of his wisdom in today's lecture.
He says, it seems to be typical in western societies to focus on the negative aspects of
something. So I'm not surprised that up to now nobody has commented on the idea in the suit of
rejoicing about one's pure actions. How about not not doing evil but doing good in body, speech and
mind and thus filling the space where anomalousness could creep in. And that is also a very very good
point that shows us the importance of positive reflection, rejoicing in the positive sides of
our bodily, verbal and mental actions before, during and after. Yeah, this was basically my
review of those three discourses we had last time. Unless there are any questions or comments
on what I have covered so far, I would go to the next discourse.
Yeah, the next discourse, the next two discourses are both rather tricky from the viewpoint of oral
transmission. In the present case, I have the rather strong impression that something went wrong
with the Pali parallel. And the next one parallel to the Kalama sutta, I am under the impression that
something went wrong with the Madhyama, our version. Both cases we have considerable differences and
this gives us an idea of what sometimes can happen because most of the discourses we have
seen so far were in relatively close agreement, except sometimes little changes in the sequence.
So this discourse is parallel to the Karajakaya sutta, among the tens of the Anguttarani kaya.
I start by reading the first part. Thus have I heard, at one time the Buddha was staying at
Savatthi in Jyutta's grove for Naratapinika's park. At that time the blessed one told the monks,
if a person does an action intentionally, then he will have to experience its results,
either in this life or in the next life, I say. If a person does an action unintentionally,
then he will not have to experience the result, I say. Now the Anguttarani kaya parallel
starts quite differently. The first is similar, I am sorry, the difference comes in the second
part. So the first is, I do not say monks that without being experienced, there is a coming to
an end of intentional deeds that have been undertaken and accumulated. And this is with
slightly different words, saying the same as the Magyama-Agama version and is in full
accordance with what we find in other early Buddhist discourse on the relationship between
karma and its fruit. As you would already know, such statements need to be contextualized. We saw
the discourse on the piece of salt telling us that just as the same piece of salt has a different
effect depending on whether it is thrown into a small cup of water or into a whole large river
full of water. So a particular deed, the effects of a particular deed depend on the overall moral
development of the person who has done this deed. However, whether it is the small cup of the river,
the salt will have an effect on making the water salty, even though in the river we will not be
able to taste it. But perhaps with some modern scientific method, we would still be able to
prove that the water has become so and so millis percentage more salty. Similarly, the effects of
the deed will definitely be experienced. Now we come to the second part of the Anguttara Nikaya
passage. It says, yet monks, I do not say that there is a make and an end of dukkha without
having experienced the fruits of intentional deeds that have been undertaken and accumulated.
And I'm also giving you the Pali of this passage.
This passage has been a continuous puzzle for many of us.
Bhikkhu Bodhi told me that already his teacher Vinyanaponeka was puzzled by it and I was
puzzled by it and we simply don't know how to make sense of it. If the making and end of dukkha
requires experiencing all the fruits of our intentional deeds from the past, which we know
samsara is beginningless, then it seems impossible to ever make an end of it.
This position that all the fruits have to inevitably be experienced and thereby be
annihilated in order to reach liberation is a position held in the attributed to the Jaina
tradition. In discourses like the Devadahasutta, which we will come to shortly, we are told that
this is the idea underlying the undertaking of our ascetic practices by Jaina monks and nuns,
believing that all of the karmic retribution of our past has to be expiated. This is not the
Buddhist tradition. In fact, we are told that the purpose of living the life as a monk or a nun in
Buddhism is not to alter or eradicate karmic retribution, but to develop insight into the
Four Noble Truths. I'm giving you the passage for that and I'm also reading it out now. This
is Anguttarnikaya Nines, the 13th Discourse, Volume 4, page 382 to 385 of the PTS edition.
And the nature of the early Buddhist conception of the relationship between karma and liberation
can very nicely be illustrated by the tale of the murderer Angulimala, whom I had already mentioned
earlier. Now Angulimala, as I said, he killed a number of people. Then he was converted by the
Buddha, he became a monk and he became an Arahant. So the retribution of his killing
could not have been exhausted in that short period of time. And the retribution of all this
killing is still there awaiting his fruition, but Angulimala was able to escape that fruition
because he had become an Arahant and thus was not going to be reborn. That is, that stack of,
I think it's a hundred people that he killed or however many it is, that stack of killings,
the comical effect, some of it was going to happen in that same lifetime and it indeed
happened. He got beaten up when he went begging in town by some of those whose relatives had been
killed by him when he was a murderer before. And when he come back with bleeding head and
torn robes and broken ball, the Buddha said, bear it, bear it. These are the fruits of your evil
deeds. Bear it patiently. But the much presumably much more severe retributions for his killings
that were awaiting him after his passing away, where he should have been reborn in hell to suffer,
he had cut that off because he had become an Arahant. So the point is that from an early Buddhist
perspective, it is definitely not the case that as we are told here, I do not say that there's a
making end of dukkha without having experienced the fruits of intentional deeds that have been
undertaken and accumulated. I will come back to this difference again towards the end of going
through the Madhyama Agama discourse, but I had just wanted to make you aware of this rather
puzzling statement in the Pali version, which I believe to be the result of a transmission error.
Not only this statement, but also when we continue now in Madhyama Agama, we get a description of the
overcoming that leads up to the overcoming of the hindrances and the radiation of loving-kindness.
All this is also not found in the Anguttara Nikaya parallel, but it's found in a comparable fashion
in the two preceding discourses in the Anguttara collection. I have in fact published a paper
in which I translate Madhyama Agama 15 and try to sort out all these problems,
because somehow it seems that a transmission error has resulted in creating three different
discourses. This Anguttara Nikaya 208 and the two preceding ones, there seems to be like a split,
a loss of text to split and leading to these three different discourses, all of which have this
this this this this puzzling statement. This is again one of these articles which I am not allowed
to put out on the internet, but any of you who wishes to read that can just do like last time,
send me an email to that Madhyama Agama email account and I'll send you the pdf of the article
under the provision that you just keep it for yourself and don't don't spread it out.
Anyway let us now first continue with the Madhyama Agama version. I'm reading the text again.
In this connection there are three intentionally done bodily actions that are unwholesome,
have dukkha as their fruit and result in the experience of dukkha. There are four intentionally
done verbal actions and three intentionally done mental actions that are unwholesome,
have dukkha as their fruit and result in the experience of dukkha. What are the three
intentionally done bodily actions that are unwholesome, have dukkha as their fruit and
result in the experience of dukkha? Now we get into the 10 pathways of action Kamapata in Pali.
These are 10 types of actions that are singled out for their karmic potency.
The first is killing living beings. Someone is extremely evil and bloodthirsty,
has the desire to harm, has no compassion towards any kind of living beings including insects.
This is a notable difference recurrently found in Madhyama Agama discourses that in descriptions
of killing living beings there is an explicit mention to insects. We do not get the mention
of insects in Pali discourses but only in the Pali Vinayam. I continue with the discourse.
The second is taking what is not given. Someone has attachment to another's property and with
thieving intent takes it. The third is sexual misconduct. Someone has sexual relations with
the woman who is under the protection of her father or under the protection of her mother
or under the protection of her clan or with the woman who is married to another man
in spite of the fear of being punished or with a woman who has been garlanded as a sign of
Beethrothal. Just another remark it is interesting that sexual misconduct in the early Buddhist
discourse is always described from the perspective of a male. I find this rather noticeable and
last week I was at the IAPS conference in Taiwan and scholar Alice Collette.
She's working on women in early Buddhism. She has gathered all passages relating to female
sexuality and has shown that wherever this topic comes up it's always the text always show the
male as the aggressor. I found that rather a significant counterbalance of the stereotype
that we get in some discourses that women are always interested in sex it seems that
the texts themselves rather show the opposite. Just as an aside on this topic continuing with
the discourse what are the four intentionally done verbal actions that are unwholesome
have a dukkha as their fruit and result in the experience of dukkha. The first is false speech
someone on being told say what you know claims to know what he does not know or claims not to know
what he does know claims to have seen what he has not seen or claims to have seen what he did see
claims not to have seen what he did see be it for his own sake or for the sake of others
or for the sake of profit he knowingly speaks falsehood. The second is divisive speech
someone wishes to divide others hearing something from this person he tells it to that person
in order to harm this person hearing something from that person he tells it to this person
in order to harm that person he desires to divide those who are united and to further
split those who are already divided he creates factions delights infections and praises factions
the third is harsh speech someone utter speech that is rough and rude in tone offensive words
that grate on the ear that people neither enjoy nor desire he utters such speech as causes others
dukkha and vexation that is not conductive to concentration. The fourth is frivolous speech
someone makes talk that is untimely untrue talk meaningless talk talk that is contrary to the
dharma that is not calming furthermore he praises what is not conducive to calming and teaches and
admonishes others in untimely and unwholesome way. What are the three intentionally done mental
actions that are unwholesome have dukkha as their fruit and result in the experience of dukkha
the first is covetousness someone views another's wealth and lifestyle constantly longing for them
and wishing if only i could get that the second is ill will someone's mind is filled with ill will
and he thinks those beings should be killed bound arrested removed banished his wishes for
them to experience immeasurable dukkha the third is wrong view someone holds distorted views views
such as these tenets such as these there's no offering no sacrifice there are no incantations
no wholesome or unwholesome actions no results of wholesome or unwholesome actions there is
neither this world nor another world there are no father and mother there are no true persons in the
world who are headed for a supreme attainment who are well gone and well directed who have known
and realized for themselves this world and the other world and to dwell having personally realized
it yes again a comment i like to make one thing is there's no no offering no sacrifice no incantation
ati yitang hutang we have in pali it's the same it's just something i do not understand
why wrong view denial of the efficacy of sacrifice right view the affirmation of brahminical
sacrifice why this is buddhist right view is something i have so far not been able to understand
the second is that in the pali version we also have the affirmation or negation of the existence
of spontaneously arisen beings satva or papadika this are devas or other celestial beings who
take birth not from a womb but by a spontaneous appearance according to the pali version standard
description of wrong view wrong view is to denial their existence right view is to affirm the
existence so those of you who do not believe in gods and devas and celestial beings be reassured
according at least to the madhyama agama version you are not holding wrong views
and another thing i just like to explain there is no father there is no mother this is a short
abbreviated statement it obviously does not mean the denial of the physical fact that we are born
from a mother who has had a relationship with the father but it rather means there is no
responsibility towards one's parents there is no obligation towards one's parents
okay i continue with the madhyama agama version
learned noble disciple abundance unwholesome bodily actions and practices wholesome bodily
actions he abandons unwholesome verbal and mental actions and practices wholesome verbal
and mental actions
that learned disciple abandons ill will and quarrel discards love and torpor is without
restlessness and conceit he cuts off doubt he transcends arrogance has right mindfulness
and right attentiveness and is without confusion with a mind imbued with loving kindness he
dwells pervading one direction likewise the second the third and the fourth direction and also the
four intermediate directions above and below all around everywhere with a mind imbued with loving
kindness free from fetters or resentment without ill will or quarrel he dwells pervading the entire
world with the mind that is boundless exalted immeasurable and well cultivated he thinks
formerly my mind was narrow and not well cultivated no my mind is immeasurable and well cultivated
if the learned noble disciple whose mind is now thus immeasurable and well cultivated
had earlier been negligent because of bad friends and done unwholesome actions then he will no
longer be led along by them they cannot corrupt him and will not accompany him further
suppose there were a young boy or a young girl who since birth had been able to practice
liberation of the mind through loving kindness would he or she later perform unwholesome action
the monks replied no blessed one and why not since he or she has never done an evil deed
how could evil deeds arise the buddha continued therefore a man or woman whether lay person or
recluse should always diligently practice liberation of the mind through loving kindness
if that man or woman whether lay person or recluse practices liberation of the mind through loving
kindness since when going towards the other world he or she will not take this body along
he or she will proceed just in accordance with the developed quality of their mind
monks you should think like this formerly i was negligent and did unwholesome leads
let all their results be experienced now not in the next life
just an aside this injunction is not found in the Pali version i continue
one who practices liberation of the mind through loving kindness in this way immeasurable and well
cultivated will definitely attain the fruit of non-returning or else attain that which is still
higher then the text goes through the same description for compassion
empathic joy or sympathetic joy and equanimity
now i like to come back to the difficult passage that i mentioned before
and after this difficult passage before coming to the radiation of loving kindness etc
the angutra nikaya discourse continues like this it says that noble disciple monks in this way
free from courtlessness, ill will and delusion i have given the Pali
now this reference to that noble disciple hangs in the air because in the angutra nikaya version
so far a noble disciple has not been mentioned at all therefore my impression is that a piece of
text has been lost here in fact woodward the pts translator of angutra nikaya has a note
on this passage and he says all this is introduced without any apparent reason thus suddenly
means that in the madhyama agama version the initial statement on the retribution for coming
deeds then gets an illustration through the detailed exposition of the 10 unwholesome actions
the karma pata and after that we get the opposite the noble disciple who abstains from these
develops the brahma miharas there's this there's a logical sequence in the exposition
and i believe that the kara jakaya sutta has suffered in transmission it has lost this whole
part which has become part of the other two discourses in angutra nikaya that preceded
and i believe that there also could have happened something to
the actual statement and here i propose a very simple solution
before i come to my solution i should also mention that the kara jakaya sutta now is
among the tens of the angutra nikaya but it has no tens the point of putting a discourse in the
section on tens is that it should have some item that counts up to ten ten of this or ten of that
and the ten would in fact be the ten pathways of action the ten kama pata but as they are not
found in the angutra nikaya there is no meaning in placing this angutra nikaya version among the
tens and i think this placement confirms my suspicion that an exposition on the ten
pathways of action has been lost at some point later than after the discourse had
already been placed among the tens of the angutra nikaya there's a problem that can easily happen
in transmission because uh regarding negations you see in in in the uh indic languages sanskrit
and pai the way to say no is simply to put an ah before something so uh lecture uh if i don't
give a lecture it's an ah lecture or not house it's an ah house just you just put an ah like like
my name uh actually alaya and then my name is actually ah alaya not alaya and then there's
just an end put in between because two hours together that doesn't work one one recognizes
so an alaya there's always this this pattern of just putting an ah before something in order to
get a negation and the problem is also that this indic language is usually the words do not come
one by one but they they come together and there's something something we call sundae
where if one word ends in a vowel and the next word starts in a vowel then these two
vowels kind of combine and one of them can disappear so in my experience of excuse me
working with uh especially with the chinese translations i have found several cases where i
think a negation has been lost or has been added by mistake and because of this
recurrent pattern of negations being lost or added i propose that the difficult statement
we have in yang kutara nikaya could also be the outcome of uh confusion of negation
so here i'm giving you first the statement as we have it in the original where it says
i do not say that there is a making an end of tukka without having experienced the up
patisang viditva without having experienced intentional deeds etc and now if instead of
this up patisang viditva we just forget about the negation we just have patisang viditva
then we get the statement yet monks i do not say that there's a making an end of tukka through
having experienced the fruits of intentional deeds that have been undertaken and accumulated
and suddenly we are full fledged within the scope of early buddhist doctrine on karma
it makes full sense it is the opposite of the giant view and it also fits the the remainder
of the discourse it sets in fact the whole discourse ends with the attainment of non-return
or full awakening and makes it very clear that the experiencing of intentional needs is not
a necessary condition to be fulfilled in order to reach awakening yeah i presented my arguments
here very shortly as i said before if you have the patience and interest to get all the details
then let me know and i'll be happy to send you the the full paper leaving aside our problems with
the oral transmission errors the main points that we get are the description of these 10
pathways of actions i've listed them here again killing stealing sexual misconduct false speech
malicious speech harsh speech gossiping covetousness ill will and wrong views
and in contrast overcoming the hindrances cultivating the four divine abodes the brahma
vihara loving kindness compassion sympathetic joy and equanimity and these lead to a good rebirth
and to non-return or arahantship
yeah i have still 15 minutes time i still owe you five minutes from last time but maybe i
i keep accumulating my depth and still hit the next discourse because it's kind of a
contrast where i think the madhyama agam version has
not preserved everything properly unless there is a question now
yeah then let me let me go into the madhyama agam apparel to the kalamasutta
and based on what happens on the blog i can review these two discourses in more detail
during the next session so the kalamasutta is a very famous discourse often quoted
to show a very specific buddhist attitude chart of free inquiry sometimes so-called and
you will probably be rather disappointed to find that the chinese version does not give us this
type of charter of free inquiry so i read the discourse thus have i heard at one time the buddha
was wandering in the territory of the kalamas together with the great company of monks having
arrived at kisaputta was staying in a rosewood grove north of kisaputta next we get a description
of how the kalamas hear about the good reputation of the buddha and they decide to visit him
i get a teaching by the buddha and now i continue with the discourse
then the kalamas having been taught dharma by the buddha having been exalted encouraged and delighted
rose from their seats arranged their clothes so as to bear one shoulder saluted the buddha by
placing their palms together and sad to the blessed one kutama some recluse of brahmin approaches us
kalamas and just praises what himself has come to know and see while denouncing and disparaging
what others have come to know and see and then gautama another recluse of brahmin approaches us
kalamas and also praises what himself has come to know and see while denouncing and disparaging
what others have come to know and see gautama having heard these we have come to doubt
which of these recluses for brahmin is right and which is wrong the blessed one told them kalamas
do not doubt why when there is doubt hesitation arises
and the anguttara version is considerably different at this point the buddha actually
tells them that they should doubt that they have that they are entitled to doubt i continue with
the magyama agama a little further kalamas you yourself do not have clear knowledge about whether
there is a next life or whether there is no next life kalamas you yourself also do not have clear
knowledge about what action is an offense and what action is not an offense so the anguttara
nikaya version instead as i said the buddha acknowledges that there is good reason for them
to have doubt as they have doubts in regard to something which is really doubtful a doubtful
matter and then the buddha continues by listing different sources of knowledge
he mentions oral tradition a lineage of teachings hearsay a particular collection of scriptures
logical reasoning inferential reasoning reflection on reasons acceptance of a view after pondering
seeming competence of a speaker and liking one's teacher none of these are mentioned in the chinese
version and then there comes the famous dictum the charter of free inquiry when you know for
yourself these things are unwholesome these things are blameable these things are censored
by the wise these things if undertaken practice lead to harm and suffering then you should abandon
them not found in the manyama agama version manyama agama version continues kalamas you should know
that all actions have three causes sources roots causal conditions what are the three
again different different style of teaching and buddha just tells them what's happening in
the anguttara nikaya he he inquires he says is loba desire is it for someone's benefit or not
and the kalamas always reply it's not for one's benefit here he just gives a straight teaching
without any interrogation i continue with that straight teaching kalamas desires a cause a source
a root a cause a condition of actions kalamas hatred and ignorance are causes sources roots
causal conditions of actions kalamas someone who has desire becomes overwhelmed by desire
their mind is never satisfied such a one may kill living beings or take what is not given
or engage in sexual misconduct or knowingly speak falsehood or drink intoxicating liquor
side remark again by me the reference to the intoxicating liquor is not mentioned in the
anguttara nikaya again this is a recurrent pattern that the chinese agamas more frequently
refer to the need to refrain from alcohol than palli discourses this is also mentioned sometimes
in palli discourses but not as frequently as in the chinese agamas i continue with the manyama
agama version kalamas someone who has hatred becomes overwhelmed by hatred and we get the
full passage and kalamas someone who is ignorant becomes overwhelmed by ignorance and again we get
the full passage that because of being overwhelmed by ignorance may kill living beings etc now we get
the opposite kalamas a learned noble disciple abstains abstains from killing gives up killing
discards blade and cudgel he has shame and scruple and a mind full of loving kindness and compassion
wishing to benefit all beings including insects he purifies his mind with regard to killing living
beings yeah again the anguttara nikaya version is different here this is all an question and answer
kind of thing continue with the madhyama agama kalamas a learned noble disciple abstains from
taking what is not given from sexual activity from false speech from divisive speech from harsh
speech from frivolous speech from covetousness from hatred and from wrong view in this manner
kalamas a learned noble disciple achieves purity of palli actions achieves purity of verbal and
mental actions with the mind imbued with loving kindness he dwells pervading one direction
likewise the second third and the fourth direction and also the four intermediate directions
above and below all around everywhere with the mind imbued with loving kindness
free from fetters and resentment without ill will or quarrel he dwells pervading the entire world
with the mind that is boundless exalted immeasurable and well cultivated it is the same with compassion
empathic joy and equanimity in this way kalamas the mind of a learned noble disciple is free from
fetters and resentment without ill will or quarrel and he obtains four assurances
what are the four one he thinks if there's this world or another world
if there are results of wholesome and unwholesome actions then upholding and being endowed with his
right view and action in conformity with it at the breaking up of the body after my death
i will certainly go to a good realm of existence and be reborn in a heavenly realm thus kalamas
this is the first assurance obtained by a learned noble disciple whose mind is free from fetters and
resentment without ill will or quarrel again kalamas if there is neither this world nor another
world if there are no results of wholesome and unwholesome actions then in this case
in this lifetime i'm not censored by others for this belief but i'm praised for having
wide attentiveness as one who is diligent when is said to have right view thus kalamas this is the
second assurance obtained by a learned noble disciple whose mind is free from fetters and
resentment without ill will or quarrel again kalamas whatever i have done i have certainly done
no evil and i recollect no evil why since i've done no evil whence could dukkha arise
thus kalamas this is the third assurance etc again kalamas whatever i may have done i have
certainly done no evil and i have not violated the customs of the world either out of fear
or without fear i have always had compassion and empathy for the entire world my mind has
been free of contention with beings untainted and delighted thus kalamas this is the fourth assurance
etc in the angudranikaya version the four assurances are somewhat different the first
is the same the second assurance is that if there is no other world and no fruition of actions
then nevertheless in this life i am free from enmity and happy the third assurance is that in
case action causes evil evil occurs to action then at least i'm not intending to do evil
and the fourth is if no evil occurs to actions then i am pure in both respects that is intention
and action the madhyama agama version continues with the kalamas repeating the four assurances
and going for refuge so the main points where both discourses agree pointing out the three
roots of evil as being desire hatred and ignorance and overcoming these evils to develop the four
diviner bolts and this then results in four assurances which are independent of various views
yeah we are right in time
i think i've given you after a long break quite a number of things to reflect on and discuss on
the blog from our entertaining creator god to the tricky passage in the karachikaya sutta and now this
disconcerting finding that our famous kalamasutta is not a crucial passage so often quoted is not
found in the chinese agama parallel i suspect something went wrong with the madhyama agama
parallel but i have no way of proving this so i thank you very much for your attention and presence
and i look forward to continuing next week thank you very much and bye bye