eBook - ePub
Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism
Peter Masefield
This is a test
Share book
- 206 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism
Peter Masefield
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Originally published in 1986.
In this study of initiation in the Nikayas (Discourses of the Buddha), the author presents evidence which makes it clear that salvation in early Buddhism depended upon the intervention of the Buddha's grace. Contrary to the view of Buddhism as a philosophy of self-endeavour, the picture that emerges from examination of the canonical texts is one of Buddhism as a revealed religion in every sense of the term.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoās features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youāll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weāve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism by Peter Masefield in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Theology & Religion & Religion. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Chapter One
The Spiritual Division of
the Buddhist World
The ariyasÄvaka* and the puthujjana
That the Buddhist world is socially divided into monk and layman is obvious ā perhaps too obvious since this has seemingly misled most into assuming that this is also its spiritual1 division. In his discussion of the relationship of animism and Buddhism in the context of the TheravÄda in Burma, Professor Ling appears to favour the view of the anthropologist Mendelson who argues that āit is misleading and incorrect to think in terms of a rigid dichotomy between what is popular and what is monasticā and that rather āone should think in terms of a continuum, from animistic ideas on the one hand, to abstract analyses of the Dhamma on the otherā.2 Mendelson grants that though āthere does appear to be an inexplicable gap between the worship of a host of varied spirits on the one hand, and the practice of an austere, godless, self-renouncing philosophy or way of life on the otherā, when village and monastic life are studied separately, it is nonetheless āpossible to discern that there are connecting links between these two, so that, in fact, Buddhism is in living contact with the popular religion; the two are seen āin their right perspectives as two poles of a continuum which is Burmese religionāā.3
Such a view, it will be noticed, assumes that whether one speaks either in terms of lay and monastic Buddhism or in terms of animism and a self-renouncing philosophy, it is, in either case, the same physical division of the Buddhist world that is involved. Yet it does not follow from the fact that the layman is socially distinct from the monk that he need be spiritually distinct. For it is surely not in the mere shaving of the head and beard and in the donning of the yellow robe that a transformation of oneās being, or of oneās Weltanschauung, should result, as though oneās animistic beliefs should drop away with the falling of each lock of hair (M i 281f):
I, monks, do not say that the recluseship of one who wears an outer cloak depends merely on his wearing of an outer cloak . . . If, monks, the covetousness of one who is covetous and who wears an outer cloak could be got rid of merely by wearing an outer cloak, if the malevolence of mind . . . the wrath . . . the grudging . . . the hypocrisy . . . the spite . . . the jealousy . . . the stinginess . . . the treachery . . . the craftiness . . . the evil desires . . . the wrong view of one who is of wrong view could be got rid of, then his friends and acquaintances, kith and kin, would make him wear an outer cloak from the very day that he was born, would encourage him to wear an outer cloak, saying, āCome, you auspicious-faced, become a wearer of an outer cloak, for on your being a wearer of an outer cloak the covetousness of one who is covetous . . . the wrong view of one who is of wrong view will be got rid of merely by the wearing of an outer cloakā.
But because I, monks, see here some wearers of an outer cloak who are covetous, malevolent in mind, wrathful, grudging, hypocritical, spiteful, jealous, stingy, treacherous, crafty, of evil desires, of wrong view, therefore I do not say that the recluseship of one who wears an outer cloak depends merely on his wearing of an outer cloak.
Indeed the eight-year-old monk is unlikely to be any more spiritually advanced than his eight-year-old lay cousin ā and quite possibly less spiritually advanced than an adult lay-follower. Similarly, the non-meditating adult monk, of which there are many in Ceylon, may well be spiritually inferior to his meditating lay supporter, and several laymen in Ceylon meditate. This sentiment finds expression in the NikÄyas where, for instance, GopikÄ, by her own admission a mere (lay) woman (D ii 272) but nonetheless a sÄvaka* (D ii 273) possessed of the sotÄpattiyaį¹
gas* (D ii 271) ā and thus here probably a sotÄpanna* ā rebukes, upon her rebirth in the TÄvatiį¹sa realm, three former monks reborn in that same realm as mere gandhabbas saying, āWhere were your ears, good sirs, that you did not hear Dhamma from the Lord?ā (Kuto mukhÄ nÄma tumhe mÄrisÄ tassa Bhagavato dhammaį¹ assutvÄ ā D ii 272). One might equally cite the case of the householder Citta who was declared by the Buddha to be chief amongst his sÄvaka* lay-followers who talked on Dhamma (A i 26) and who was called upon to clarify a point of doctrine upon which theras, even, could not agree, such theras subsequently praising Citta on the extent of his paƱƱÄ* (S iv 281ā283); later in the same Saį¹yutta, Citta can also be found teaching first devas and then his relatives upon the subject of the impermanence of things (S iv 302ā304). It is, moreover, worthy of note that in some of the intervening suttas groups of theras are to be found being instructed by the most junior amongst them on this or that point of doctrine of which they themselves are unsure (e.g. S iv 283ā288).
Such passages confirm that neither oneās standing within the monastic community nor indeed the fact that one was a monk at all necessarily entailed spiritual superiority and it is simply fallacious to assume, as most writers on Buddhism appear to have done, that the social division of monk and layman is also the spiritual division of the Buddhist world. It is, of course, true that such a social distinction finds mention in the NikÄyas but it is continuously asserted in these texts that there is another, purely spiritual, division of the Buddhist community in terms of the puthujjana and the sÄvaka* that totally transcends this social division and it is with a detailed examination of these two categories that the remainder of this chapter will be concerned.
The puthujjana is said to be assutavant. Translators have differed in their interpretation of these two, really quite simple, terms and we find assutavÄ puthujjano rendered variously as āuneducated manyfolkā (KS v 316; GS i 8), āunlearned average manā (GS iii 46; GS iv 39f), āunlearned common average folkā (GS iv 108), āuntaught manyfolkā (KS iii 38; KS iv 195), āignorant worldlingā (KS iv 98) and āuninstructed average personā (MLS i 3), whilst puthujjana alone is rendered as āordinary manā (GS ii 170), ā(average) many manā (GS iv 247), āaverage manā (KS i 186), āaverage worldlingā (KS i 167) and so on. Most of these renderings are quite misleading and none conveys the essential connotation that these terms possessed during the NikÄya period. Assutavant means, literally, āone who is not in possession of suta (Vedic Åruta)ā, the oral transmission of the sacred lore or revelation (cp Åruti). The puthujjana is thus one who has not heard the teaching or the tradition (MLS i 3 n 8; cp Dhs trans 258 n 2), that is to say, the Dhamma; it is in this crucial knowledge that he is deficient. This is confirmed by the stock description of the assutavant puthujjana as: ariyÄnaį¹ adassÄvÄ« ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinÄ«to sappurisÄnaį¹ adassÄvÄ« sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinÄ«to (M i 1, 7; S iii 16, 42, 46; S iv 287, etc.). The first of these epithets describes the puthujjana as ariyÄnaį¹ adassÄvÄ«, without the ability to discern who is an ariyan*, the ariyan* being defined as a Buddha, a Paccekabuddha or a sÄvaka* of a Buddha (MA i 21). This inability is paralleled in the second half of the passage by his being also sappurisÄnaį¹ adassÄvÄ«, without the ability to discern who is a sappurisa*, the sappurisa* being defined as a Paccekabuddha or a sÄvaka* of the TathÄgata (MA i 21; cp Asl 349). The CÅ«įø·apuį¹į¹amasutta (M iii 20ff) goes further by asserting that it is impossible for one who is not a sappurisa* to tell of another whether he is a sappurisa* or a non-sappurisa, whereas the sappurisa* can discern either quality in another. According to C. A. F. Rhys Davids, Buddhaghosa āpoints out at some length that the inability to perceive, lit., see, holy persons is no mere visual shortcoming, but a lack of insight or of intelligent inference. The truly noble, as such, seen with the bodily, or with the ādivineā eye, are not really seen. Their appearance (vaį¹į¹o) is apprehended, but not the area of their noble nature, even as dogs and jackals, etc., see them and know them not. Even the personal attendant of a Thera may not discern the hero in his master, so hard is it without insight and understanding to discern the standpoint attained by the saints, or the conditions of true nobilityā (Dhs trans 258 n 4). The reason for this inability seems twofold: firstly, the sappurisa* is, in a sense, not accessible to the puthujjana since when entering upon the plane of the sappurisa* the plane of the puthujjana is transcended (sappurisabhÅ«mim okkanto vÄ«tivatto puthujjanabhÅ«miį¹ ā S iii 225); secondly, the puthujjana may not even be aware that there are such beings as sÄvakas* since he is ariyadhammassa akovido, unconversant with the Dhamma of the ariyans*, and ariyadhamme avinÄ«to, not guided* or instructed in that same Dhamma ā hence the statement that the puthujjana is the man not skilled in the path* (puriso amaggakusalo ti kho Tissa puthujjanassā etaį¹ adhivacanaį¹ ā S iii 108).
Thus leaving the term puthujjana untranslated for the present we find that the puthujjana is one who has not heard the Dhamma, one who is unable to discern who are ariyans*, one who is not guided* in the Dhamma of the ariyans*, one who is unable to discern who are sappurisas*, one who is unconversant with the Dhamma of the sappurisas*, and one who is not guided* in the Dhamma of the sappurisas*.
It is with such a puthujjana that the sÄvaka*, or ariyasÄvaka*, is contrasted (e.g. A iv 68, 157, etc.) and who is said, conversely, to be: sutavÄ ariyasÄvako ariyÄnaį¹ dassÄvÄ« ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinÄ«to sappurisÄnaį¹ dassÄvÄ« sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinÄ«to (M i 8, 300, 310, 434; S iii 17, 44, 47, 102, etc.). The term sÄvaka* is derived, like suta above, from the root Åru and means, literally, āOne who hearsā. Hareās rendering of ariyasÄvaka* as āAriyan listenerā (GS iv 39f) is thus preferable to its more usual rendering as āariyan discipleā (e.g. KS iii 38; and Hare himself at GS iii 46, GS iv 108). However, according to SnA 166 one is an ariyasÄvaka* on account of having heard (Dhamma) in the presence of the ariyans* (ariyÄnaį¹ santike sutattÄ ariyasÄvako) and the whole passage therefore states that the ariyasÄvaka* is one who has heard the Dhamma (in the presence of the ariyans*), one who is able to discern who are ariyans*, one who is conversant with the Dhamma of the ariyans*, one who is well guided* in the Dhamma of the ariyans*, one who is able to discern who are sappurisas*, one who is conversant with the Dhamma of the sappurisas*, and one who is well guided* in the Dhamma of the sappurisas*.
The main point of difference between the puthujjana and the sÄvaka* is therefore that the former, unlike the latter, has not heard the Dhamma.
Now it is such sÄvakas* who constitute the sÄvakasaį¹
gha*, sometimes referred to as the ariyasaį¹
gha*, the stock description of which runs as follows (D iii 227; M i 37; S ii 69f, etc.):
The Lordās sÄvakasaį¹
gha* is of good conduct, the Lordās sÄvakasaį¹
gha* is of upright conduct, the Lordās sÄvakasaį¹
gha* is of right conduct, the Lordās sÄvakasaį¹
gha* is of proper conduct, that is to say the four pairs of men, the eight individuals. The Lordās sÄvakasaį¹
gha* is worthy of sacrifice, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of aƱjali; it is the unsurpassed merit-field for the world.
Now these āfour pairs of men, the eight individualsā are said to be:
1the sotÄpanna*
2the one practising for the sotÄpatti-fruit*
3the sakadÄgÄmin*
4the one practising for the sakadÄgÄmin-fruit*
5the anÄgÄmin*
6the one practising for the anÄgÄmin-fruit*
7the arahant* (although PED, sv sÄvaka, wrongly claims that the sÄvaka* is never an arahant*)
8the one practising for the arahant-fruit*
[A iv 292; cp Sn 227 = Khp VI6; see also S i 233, A iv 293 which state that the four who are practising and the four who are established in the fruits make up the saį¹
gha that is upright (cattÄro ca paį¹ipannÄ cattÄro ca phale į¹hitÄ esa saį¹
gho ujubhÅ«to)]. Thus one may infer that anyone who is an ariyasÄvaka* must, at the same time, be one or other of these eight varieties of ariyapuggala*. This explains how it can be said that ariyasÄvakas* are, through their possession of the four sotÄpattiyaį¹
gas* (sometimes called the four floods of merit ā e.g. A ii 56) of confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saį¹
gha plus possession of that morality (sÄ«la) dear to the ariyans*, spared (further) rebirth in the hells, in an animal womb, on the peta-plane or in any of the four states of loss, in any bad destiny or in the downfall (so parimutto ca nirayÄ parimutto ca tiracchayoniyÄ parimutto ca pittivisayÄ parimutto ca apÄyadug-gativinipÄtÄ ā S v 342), which is usually predicted of the sotÄpanna* (e.g. A iii 211: khÄ«į¹anirayo mhi khÄ«į¹atiracchÄnayoniyo khÄ«į¹apittivisayo khÄ«į¹ÄpÄyaduggativinipÄto, sotÄpanno ham asmi avinipÄtadhammo niyato sambodhiparÄyano) and occasionally of the whole sÄvakasaį¹
gha* (e.g. A iv 378ff). It was these same sotÄpattiyaį¹
gas*, it will be recalled, that were possessed by GopikÄ above; and anyone in whom they are lacking is considered a puthujjana (S v 362f, 381f, 386).
The most important distinguishing feature of the ariyasÄvaka* and upon which, as we shall see, all of his other qualities depend, is his possession of right view*. Unlike the puthujjana he understands as it really is* (yathÄbhÅ«taį¹) dukkha, the uprising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha and the (eightfold) path* leading to the cessation of dukkha (A ii 202); that is to say, he has insight* (paƱƱÄ*) into the Four Truths* (A iii 2, 53; A iv 4). This view and knowledge of the ariyasÄvaka* is ariyan*, supermundane* (lokuttara) and not shared by puthujjanas (ariyaį¹ lokuttaraį¹ asÄdhÄraį¹aį¹ puthujjanehi ā M i 323f; cp M iii 115) and one who possesses such right view* (diį¹į¹hisampanna*, which the commentary explains as an ariyasÄvaka* who is a sotÄpanna* possessing the (right) view* of the (eightfold) path* ā A A ii 1) is thereby incapable of behaviour associated with, and expected of, the puthujjana, such as to regard anything that is compounded as permanent, satisfactory or as the self (A i 27). The puthujjana, on the other hand, living apart from knowledge and conduct, being unversed in conduct, neither knows nor sees things as they really are* (A ii 163) and it is through his inability to understand anything as it really is* (S iii 81ff, 171ff) that he does not understand as it really is* that the mind (citta) is radiant, with the result that there is for him no cultivation (bhÄvanÄ) of that mind (A i 10). Right view*, or seeing things as they really are*, is clearly the province of the ariyasÄvaka* alone (S ii 43 = 44 = 58 = 79; cp S ii 80):
He is called, monks, an ariyasÄvaka* who possesses (right) view*, who possesses vision*, who has come to this true Dhamma*, who sees this true Dhamma*, who is endowed with the knowledge (ƱÄį¹ena) of the sekha* (i.e. a sotÄpanna*, sakadÄgÄmin* or anÄgÄmin*), who is endowed with the wisdom (vijjÄya) of the sekha*, who has attained the Dhamma-ear*, who has the ariyan* insight of revulsion, who stands having arrived at the door to the Deathless*
We may surmise that it is in virtue of this Dhamma-ear* (dhammasota ā see also A iii 288, A v 329 and comments at GS v 96 n 3) that the ariyan* is called a hearer (sÄvaka*) and described as one who has heard the Dhamma (sutavÄ). That sÄvaka* has this restricted sense and never that of hearing in general is confirmed at KhpA 183: āNow all these are sÄvakas* of the Sugata since they hear (su...