Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism

Peter Masefield

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134543786
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Theology & Religion
• Sous-sujet: Religion

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.

Chapter One

The Spiritual Division of
the Buddhist World

The ariyasāvaka* and the puthujjana

That the Buddhist world is socially divided into monk and layman is obvious – 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 Theravāda in Burma, Professor Ling appears to favour the view of the anthropologist Mendelson who argues that ‘it is misleading and incorrect to think in terms of a rigid dichotomy between what is popular and what is monastic’ and that rather ‘one should think in terms of a continuum, from animistic ideas on the one hand, to abstract analyses of the Dhamma on the other’.² Mendelson grants that though ‘there 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 other’, when village and monastic life are studied separately, it is nonetheless ‘possible 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 “in their right perspectives as two poles of a continuum which is Burmese religion”’.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 one’s being, or of one’s Weltanschauung, should result, as though one’s 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, ‘Come, 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 cloak’.

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 – 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 Nikāyas where, for instance, Gopikā, by her own admission a mere (lay) woman (D ii 272) but nonetheless a sāvaka* (D ii 273) possessed of the sotāpattiyaṅgas* (D ii 271) – and thus here probably a sotāpanna* – rebukes, upon her rebirth in the Tāvatiṁsa realm, three former monks reborn in that same realm as mere gandhabbas saying, ‘Where were your ears, good sirs, that you did not hear Dhamma from the Lord?’ (Kuto mukhā nāma tumhe mārisā tassa Bhagavato dhammaṁ assutvā – D ii 272). One might equally cite the case of the householder Citta who was declared by the Buddha to be chief amongst his sāvaka* 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 paññā* (S iv 281–283); later in the same Saṁyutta, Citta can also be found teaching first devas and then his relatives upon the subject of the impermanence of things (S iv 302–304). 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 283–288).

Such passages confirm that neither one’s 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 Nikāyas 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 sāvaka* 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 assutavā puthujjano rendered variously as ‘uneducated manyfolk’ (KS v 316; GS i 8), ‘unlearned average man’ (GS iii 46; GS iv 39f), ‘unlearned common average folk’ (GS iv 108), ‘untaught manyfolk’ (KS iii 38; KS iv 195), ‘ignorant worldling’ (KS iv 98) and ‘uninstructed average person’ (MLS i 3), whilst puthujjana alone is rendered as ‘ordinary man’ (GS ii 170), ‘(average) many man’ (GS iv 247), ‘average man’ (KS i 186), ‘average worldling’ (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 Nikāya period. Assutavant means, literally, ‘one who is not in possession of suta (Vedic śruta)’, the oral transmission of the sacred lore or revelation (cp śruti). 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: ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto (M i 1, 7; S iii 16, 42, 46; S iv 287, etc.). The first of these epithets describes the puthujjana as ariyānaṁ adassāvī, without the ability to discern who is an ariyan*, the ariyan* being defined as a Buddha, a Paccekabuddha or a sāvaka* of a Buddha (MA i 21). This inability is paralleled in the second half of the passage by his being also sappurisānaṁ adassāvī, without the ability to discern who is a sappurisa*, the sappurisa* being defined as a Paccekabuddha or a sāvaka* of the Tathāgata (MA i 21; cp Asl 349). The Cūḷapuṇṇamasutta (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 ‘points 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 ‘divine’ eye, are not really seen. Their appearance (vaṇṇo) 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 nobility’ (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 (sappurisabhūmim okkanto vītivatto puthujjanabhūmiṁ – S iii 225); secondly, the puthujjana may not even be aware that there are such beings as sāvakas* since he is ariyadhammassa akovido, unconversant with the Dhamma of the ariyans*, and ariyadhamme avinīto, not guided* or instructed in that same Dhamma – hence the statement that the puthujjana is the man not skilled in the path* (puriso amaggakusalo ti kho Tissa puthujjanass’ etaṁ adhivacanaṁ – 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 sāvaka*, or ariyasāvaka*, is contrasted (e.g. A iv 68, 157, etc.) and who is said, conversely, to be: sutavā ariyasāvako ariyānaṀ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto sappurisānaṁ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto (M i 8, 300, 310, 434; S iii 17, 44, 47, 102, etc.). The term sāvaka* is derived, like suta above, from the root śru and means, literally, ‘One who hears’. Hare’s rendering of ariyasāvaka* as ‘Ariyan listener’ (GS iv 39f) is thus preferable to its more usual rendering as ‘ariyan disciple’ (e.g. KS iii 38; and Hare himself at GS iii 46, GS iv 108). However, according to SnA 166 one is an ariyasāvaka* on account of having heard (Dhamma) in the presence of the ariyans* (ariyānaṁ santike sutattā ariyasāvako) and the whole passage therefore states that the ariyasāvaka* 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 sāvaka* is therefore that the former, unlike the latter, has not heard the Dhamma.

Now it is such sāvakas* who constitute the sāvakasaṅgha*, sometimes referred to as the ariyasaṅgha*, the stock description of which runs as follows (D iii 227; M i 37; S ii 69f, etc.):

The Lord’s sāvakasaṅgha* is of good conduct, the Lord’s sāvakasaṅgha* is of upright conduct, the Lord’s sāvakasaṅgha* is of right conduct, the Lord’s sāvakasaṅgha* is of proper conduct, that is to say the four pairs of men, the eight individuals. The Lord’s sāvakasaṅgha* is worthy of sacrifice, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of añjali; it is the unsurpassed merit-field for the world.

Now these ‘four pairs of men, the eight individuals’ are said to be:

1the sotāpanna*

2the one practising for the sotāpatti-fruit*

3the sakadāgāmin*

4the one practising for the sakadāgāmin-fruit*

5the anāgāmin*

6the one practising for the anāgāmin-fruit*

7the arahant* (although PED, sv sāvaka, wrongly claims that the sāvaka* 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 saṅgha that is upright (cattāro ca paṭipannā cattāro ca phale ṭhitā esa saṅgho ujubhūto)]. Thus one may infer that anyone who is an ariyasāvaka* must, at the same time, be one or other of these eight varieties of ariyapuggala*. This explains how it can be said that ariyasāvakas* are, through their possession of the four sotāpattiyaṅgas* (sometimes called the four floods of merit – e.g. A ii 56) of confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha plus possession of that morality (sīla) 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 nirayā parimutto ca tiracchayoniyā parimutto ca pittivisayā parimutto ca apāyadug-gativinipātā – S v 342), which is usually predicted of the sotāpanna* (e.g. A iii 211: khīṇanirayo mhi khīṇatiracchānayoniyo khīṇapittivisayo khīṇāpāyaduggativinipāto, sotāpanno ham asmi avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano) and occasionally of the whole sāvakasaṅgha* (e.g. A iv 378ff). It was these same sotāpattiyaṅgas*, it will be recalled, that were possessed by Gopikā above; and anyone in whom they are lacking is considered a puthujjana (S v 362f, 381f, 386).

The most important distinguishing feature of the ariyasāvaka* 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* (yathābhūtaṁ) 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* (paññā*) into the Four Truths* (A iii 2, 53; A iv 4). This view and knowledge of the ariyasāvaka* is ariyan*, supermundane* (lokuttara) and not shared by puthujjanas (ariyaṁ lokuttaraṁ asādhāraṇaṁ puthujjanehi – M i 323f; cp M iii 115) and one who possesses such right view* (diṭṭhisampanna*, which the commentary explains as an ariyasāvaka* who is a sotāpanna* possessing the (right) view* of the (eightfold) path* – 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 (bhāvanā) of that mind (A i 10). Right view*, or seeing things as they really are*, is clearly the province of the ariyasāvaka* alone (S ii 43 = 44 = 58 = 79; cp S ii 80):

He is called, monks, an ariyasāvaka* 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 (ñāṇena) of the sekha* (i.e. a sotāpanna*, sakadāgāmin* or anāgāmin*), who is endowed with the wisdom (vijjāya) 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 – see also A iii 288, A v 329 and comments at GS v 96 n 3) that the ariyan* is called a hearer (sāvaka*) and described as one who has heard the Dhamma (sutavā). That sāvaka* has this restricted sense and never that of hearing in general is confirmed at KhpA 183: ‘Now all these are sāvakas* of the Sugata since they hear (su...