Notes From

Buddhist and
Pali University
for the 1. year

Copy-written,
commented and
edited by ven.
Czech Sarana

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (ONLY SUBJECTS)

B.P.F 101 – Emergence of Buddhism: Historical Background....................................................12

B.P.F 102 – Early Buddhism : Fundamental Studies....................................................................90

P.F.I. 101 – Pāli Canonical Literature..........................................................................................163

P.F.I. 102 – Pāli Language and Grammar...................................................................................218

R.S.F. 101 – Introduction to Religious Studies............................................................................244

R.S.F. 102 – History of Religious Traditions................................................................................327

TABLE OF CONTENTS (DETAILED ONE)

Table of Contents (only subjects)................................................................................................................2

Table of contents (detailed one)...................................................................................................................2
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................11

B.P.F 101 – Emergence of Buddhism: Historical Background....................................................12

Pre-Vedic Religion in India (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)........................................................................................................................................................13
Question: Explain the beginning of Vedic religion and describe the development of Vedic religion........15
Vedic period..............................................................................................................................................16
Question: Vedic literature is a mirror to the evolution of religious concepts.............................................17
The Yama and its concepts (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)
...................................................................................................................................................................18
Question: Discuss the evolution of God concept ......................................................................................19
Question: Explain the nature of believing in God in Vedic period (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original
by ven. Medānanda)...................................................................................................................................20
Brahmin period (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).............21
Origin of Buddhism (How Buddhism Originated).....................................................................................22
Question: Elucidate the Buddhist teaching on kamma and show how it sets aside the view that everything
happens due to past kamma.......................................................................................................................23
Concept of Kamma....................................................................................................................................24
The theory of kamma.................................................................................................................................25
Āranyaka Period (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)............26
Question: Since Upaniṣad's period up to the Buddha's period how religious people sought for Jñāna
(wisdom) or knowledge?...........................................................................................................................27
Question: The path of gnāna (gnāna mārga) is the door which opens to birth of Indian philosophy. Justify
the statement..............................................................................................................................................28
Question: Describe the special characteristics of Karma Mārga and Ñāna Mārga....................................29
Upaniṣad Period (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).............30
Upaniṣad theory (original by ven. Tezaniya).............................................................................................33
Śramaṇa Tradition (lectured by ven. Ananda Vijayaratna) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).........34

2
 Śramaṇa tradition or ascetic movement in India (original by ven. Hunny)................................................36
Śramaṇa tradition or ascetic movement in India........................................................................................37
The basic view of the division into Brahmaṇa and Śramaṇa (original by ven. Kelananda 1995)...............39
Brāhmaṇa and Śramaṇa.............................................................................................................................41
What are the distinguished characteristics of Buddha as an ascetic?.........................................................42
The concept of totality (the all) in the Upaniṣad and early Buddhism (original by ven. Kelananda 1995) 43
Theo-Centric Religion and Monotheism....................................................................................................45
Brāhmaṇa period........................................................................................................................................46
Brāhmaṇ....................................................................................................................................................47
??? (Upaniṣads and Brāhmaṇ)...................................................................................................................48
Question: What is the unity of Brahman and Ātman?................................................................................49
Brahman and Ātman..................................................................................................................................50
Question: Give an account of theory of reality presented by Upaniṣadic thinker (original by ven. Hunny)
...................................................................................................................................................................52
Ātman........................................................................................................................................................53
Concept of Ātman......................................................................................................................................55
Soul theory (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Medananda)...................................................55
Question: How the concept of ātman (self) varied in Hindu religious philosophical tradition?.................56
Being & the World....................................................................................................................................57
Six Religious Teachers in the sixth century BC.........................................................................................58
Sāmaññaphala sutta + six thinkers or teachers...........................................................................................59
Philosophies of six teachers, the contemporaries of the Buddha (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa)..................60
The six important Indian heretical teachers (NOT COMPLETED)...........................................................61
Ajita Kesakambalī.....................................................................................................................................63
Ajita Kesakambalī (September 2006)........................................................................................................64
Self-indulgence and materialism................................................................................................................65
Question: Teaching of the lokāyatavāda deteriorates ethical and spiritual development of individual and
the society. Discuss....................................................................................................................................66
Question: Explain Ucchedavāda (nihilism) in relation to Kāmasukhallikānuyoga (self-indulgence) and
Sassatavāda (eternalism) in relation to Attakilamathānuyoga (self-mortification).....................................66
Question: Elucidate the deterministic theory existing during the time of the Buddha and explain how
Buddhism criticized this theory.................................................................................................................67
Definition of Akiriyavāda according to Buddhism (original by ven. Kelananda 1995).............................68
Self-mortification.......................................................................................................................................70
The Concepts of Karma and Indriya Saṅvara in Jainism and early Buddhism respectively.......................71
The evolution of social institutions (Aggañña Sutta) (original by ven. Kelananda 1995)..........................73
Political thinking (original by ven. Kelananda 1995).................................................................................75
Economics (original by ven. Kelananda 1995)..........................................................................................77
Question: Explain the political and social condition that helped the rise and establishment of Buddhism.79
BONUS: Book: Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy: Vedic Philosophy.....................................................80
BONUS: Book: Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy: Post-Vedic Philosophy.............................................83
Questions...................................................................................................................................................88

B.P.F 102 – Early Buddhism : Fundamental Studies....................................................................90

Five aggregates (lectured by Mr. Udita Garusingha) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...................91
Dukkha (lectured by Mr. Udita Garusingha) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...............................92
Question: Morality (Sīla) and Concentration (Samādhi) cannot be meaningful without the Right view.
Discuss. (Buddhist Doctrine of deliverance and its final goal)..................................................................95
Tilakkhana, Three Characteristics (lectured by Mr. Udita Garusingha) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)........................................................................................................................................................96

3
The Three Characteristics..........................................................................................................................97
Interrelationship of three characteristics (aniccā, dukkha and anattā – tilakkhana)....................................98
Question: Explain how the Buddhist world view is illustrated in the teaching of the three characteristics of
existence....................................................................................................................................................99
The Four Noble Truths (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya)...................................100
Four Noble Truths (1)..............................................................................................................................101
The Four Noble Truths (2).......................................................................................................................102
Question: Explain the Noble Truth of suffering and adduce arguments to show that it is not a pessimistic
view of life...............................................................................................................................................103
Question: Noble Truth of dukkha (suffering) cannot be properly understood in separation from other
Truths. Discuss........................................................................................................................................104
Question: Examine the Buddhist teaching on happiness..........................................................................105
The Doctrine of Kamma..........................................................................................................................106
Question: Explain the statement that „volition itself is kamma“ is relevant to a correct understanding of
kamma.....................................................................................................................................................107
Question: Define the concept of kamma and discuss various divisions of the teachings of kamma.........108
Nature of kamma (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya)............................................109
Kamma (in Sanskrit Karma) – Vipāka (the fruition of kamma) theory (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa)......110
The Theory of Kamma (The fruition of kamma and its different categories)...........................................111
The theory of kamma (the frution of kamma and its different categories) (2)..........................................112
Question: Give broadly the Buddhist criterion how wholesome and unwholesome deeds are determined.
(lectured by Mr. Sanantha Nanayakkara) (original by ven. Tailapon Sundara)........................................114
Question: All happiness and sorrow one experiences in this life is due to past actions. Examine how far
this statement agrees with the Buddhist doctrine of kamma....................................................................115
Question: Examine the Buddhist criteria that can be used to judge good and bad...................................116
Paṭiccasamuppāda (lectured by Mr. Udita Garusingha) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)............117
Dependent origination or causation (paṭiccasamuppāda).........................................................................119
Question: Examine the Paṭiccasamuppāda...............................................................................................120
Paṭiccasamuppāda (ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya).............................................................122
Paṭiccasamuppāda....................................................................................................................................123
Question: Explain the Buddhist doctrine of Paṭiccasamuppāda...............................................................124
Theory of Causality.................................................................................................................................125
Question: Describe the religious and philosophical importance of the twelve links of Dependent
Origination (dvādasaṅga paṭiccasmuppāda).............................................................................................126
Question: Examine how the teaching of Dependent Origination refers to all views and metaphysical
theories....................................................................................................................................................127
Unanswered questions and four-fold propositions and Buddha's attitude towards them..........................128
The fourfold analysis of propositions and category of unanswered questions (NOT COMPLETED).....129
The fourfold analysis of proposition and category of unanswered questions...........................................131
Attakilamathānuyoga – self mortification................................................................................................132
Question: Explain on what ground (reason) the Buddha rejected the Ātman theory................................134
Question: Explain briefly the Buddha's teaching that helps to dispel the belief in a permanent self........135
Question: Examine the relevance of the Buddhist analyses into khandha, āyatana and dhātu to the
elimination of the belief in a soul-entity..................................................................................................136
Question: Examine the practical value of the noble Eightfold Path as a gradual process.........................137
Question: Show the Noble Eightfold Path, as a gradual process, related to morality, concentration and
wisdom....................................................................................................................................................138
Question: Describe clearly the Noble Eightfold Path and examine how it became the via media............139
??? (Salāyatana) (NOT COMPLETED)...................................................................................................140
Mokṣa (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya)............................................................141

4
 Nibbāna (the ultimate goal of Buddhism) (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya)......142
The interpretation of Nibbāna..................................................................................................................143
Question: Describe the nature of Nibbāna as taught in early Buddhism..................................................144
Question: „Nibbāna is the bliss of emancipation achievable in this very life.“ Comment........................145
Question: Show how the Buddhist teaching on Nibbāna is distinct from both eternalism and
annihilationism........................................................................................................................................146
Question: Explain the Nature of Buddhist Ethics, which leads to absolute Deliverance from Saṃsāra. . 147
Question: Explain the social significance of Buddhist morality...............................................................148
Question: The purpose of Buddhist ethics is to help an individual to work for his well being as well as for
the well bbeing of other’s. State your observation...................................................................................149
Question: Examine the role of freedom of thought in Buddhism.............................................................150
Question: Explain how Buddhism upholds the independence and authority of man................................151
Question: Examine the doctrinal significance of „attāhi attano nātho“ - „one is the lord of oneself.“.....151
Question: Elucidate how early Buddhism analyzes the mind...................................................................152
Question: Elucidate the early Buddhist analysis of the mind. .................................................................153
Question: Bring out methodically the Buddhist teaching on Saddhā.......................................................154
Question: Discuss the importance of Saddhā in Buddhism......................................................................155
Yoga meditation (lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa) (original by ven. Tezaniya).............................................156
Common Characteristics of Jhānic happiness..........................................................................................157
About jhāna.............................................................................................................................................158
Abhiññā, jhānas.......................................................................................................................................159
Chaḷabhiññā.............................................................................................................................................159
Shortnotes – Buddhist Philosophy...........................................................................................................160
Questions.................................................................................................................................................161

P.F.I. 101 – Pāli Canonical Literature..........................................................................................163

Pāli Canonical Literature (lectured by ven. Piyadassi).............................................................................164
Three Piṭakas (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).......................165
What is Tipiṭaka? (original by ven. Hunny).............................................................................................167
Question: Examine how all the words of the Buddha incorporated into Dhamma-Vinaya at the first
council.....................................................................................................................................................169
Buddhist Council.....................................................................................................................................170
Question: What are the techniques of the language used in canonical literature?....................................170
Question: Give the meaning of the term sutta and vinaya and show the difference between them. (lectured
by ven. Piyaratana) (1).............................................................................................................................171
Question: Give the meaning of the term Sutta and Vinaya and show the difference between them. (2). .172
Navāṃgasatthusāsana (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)..........173
Nine-Fold Division (Navāṁgasatthusāsana) (original by ven. Tezaniya)................................................175
Question: Examine the Navāṁga Satthu Sāsana......................................................................................176
The basic means of nine-fold dispensation and its commentarial interpretation – Navāṁga-Satthusāsana
(lectured by ven. Uparatana) (original by ven. Nai Soma).......................................................................177
Question: Write a critical note on Navāṅga Sattu Sāsana (nine-fold division).........................................178
Suttanta Piṭaka (Discourses) (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009) 179
Sutta Piṭaka (original by ven. Hunny)......................................................................................................180
Suttanta Piṭaka (lectured by ven. Uparatana) (original by ven. Nai Soma)..............................................180
Suttanta Piṭaka and sayings of the Buddha, sayings of the disciples (lectured by ven. Uparatana)(original
by ven. Tezaniya)....................................................................................................................................182
Sayings of the Buddha and sayings of the disciples as found in the Sutta Piṭaka ....................................183
Suttanta Piṭaka and the teachings of disciples..........................................................................................184
Dīgha Nikāya (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).......................185

5
 Dīgha Nikāya...........................................................................................................................................186
Majjhima Nikāya (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)................187
Saṃyutta Nikāya (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).................187
Question: Write a short account on the topic Saṁyutta nikāya................................................................188
Aṅguttara Nikāya (Numerical Sayings or Gradual Sayings) (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by
ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).......................................................................................................................189
Khuddaka Nikāya (smaller collections) (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)......................................................................................................................................................190
Khuddaka Nikāya....................................................................................................................................191
Question: Write information to one of five Nikāyas................................................................................192
Khuddakapātha........................................................................................................................................193
Niddesa....................................................................................................................................................194
Dhammapada...........................................................................................................................................194
Question: Write a short account on Dhammapada...................................................................................195
Dhammapada...........................................................................................................................................196
Vinaya Piṭaka (Basket of Discipline) (lectured by ven. Mahindaratana) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)......................................................................................................................................................197
Vinaya (Discipline)...............................................................................................................................................197
Vinaya Piṭaka...........................................................................................................................................199
Vinaya Piṭaka...........................................................................................................................................200
Question: Give an account of the Vinaya Piṭaka .....................................................................................201
The Vinaya Piṭaka (original by ven. Hunny)...........................................................................................202
The structure and contents of Vinaya (lectured by ven. Uparatana) (original by ven. Nai Soma)............203
Parivāra Pāli.............................................................................................................................................204
Question: Examine the history of Parivāra Pāḷi.......................................................................................205
Parivāra Pāḷi.............................................................................................................................................205
Kathāvatthu Pakarana (lectured ven. Piyadassi)......................................................................................206
Kathāvatthuppakarana.............................................................................................................................207
Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa (Short notes)........................................................................................................208
The Paṭṭānapakarana (original by ven. Suvara)........................................................................................209
The Paṭṭhānapakarana..............................................................................................................................210
Abhidhamma...........................................................................................................................................211
Abhidhamma Piṭaka (nature and contents of Abhidhamma Piṭaka).........................................................212
Question: Give an account of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka............................................................................213
The Nature and content of Abhidhamma Piṭaka (lectured by ven. Uparatana) (original by ven. Nai Soma)
.................................................................................................................................................................214
Question: Explain the para-canonical texts of Abhidhamma literature (not the canon)...........................215
Questions.................................................................................................................................................216

P.F.I. 102 – Pāli Language and Grammar...................................................................................218

History of Pāli language (Pāli grammar)..................................................................................................219
Question: Opinions given by scholars about the origin of Pāli language should be given. (History of Pāli
language) (Lectured by ven. Piyaratna) (original by ven. Eidariya (Myingyan)).....................................220
Question: Explain with example the classification of alphabet, vowels and consonants. (lectured by ven.
Piyaratna).................................................................................................................................................221
Question: Will be have declension of rāja (king) (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)........................................221
Question: Should be have conjugation „gamu-gam“ (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)...................................223
Question: Should be have modes.. (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)..............................................................224
Question: Should be have conjugation „Bhu“ (lectured by ven. Piyaratna) ...........................................225
Question: Explain the vowel (sandhi) with example (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)...................................226

6
 Question: Explain digu samasa with example in Pāli (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)..................................227
Question: Explain with example the consonant sandhi. (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)..............................228
Question: Explain the kicca suffixes with example and show how to use them in sentences. .................229
Question: Will be absolutives... (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)...................................................................230
Question: Will be, the infinitive (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)..................................................................230
Question: Explain the niggahita ṇ sandhi with example (lectured by ven. Piyaratna)..............................231
Question: What is samasa? how many kinds of samasa? Give an example of each kind of samasa........233
Question: Give a description briefly on the secondary derivation and describe Apaccatha suffixes with
examples..................................................................................................................................................234
Question: Explain numerical derivatives with example...........................................................................234
Question: Explain Bhava compound with example.................................................................................235
Question: ??? (Vowels)............................................................................................................................236
Question: Show with example the features of Prakrit language preserved in Pāli?..................................237
??? (Bonus: History of Pāli (Book: Pāli Language and Literature, p. 42-45)) (Not Completed)..............239
Periods of the Development of Pāli.......................................................................................................................240
Questions.................................................................................................................................................242

R.S.F. 101 – Introduction to Religious Studies............................................................................244

Introduction of Religious Studies (lectured by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)......................................................................................................................................................245
Question: Examine whether one can introduce Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy.....................246
What is Religion?....................................................................................................................................248
Definition of Religion (lectured by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)
.................................................................................................................................................................249
Prof. Ninian Smart.................................................................................................................................................249
Definitions of „Religion“ (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nyāneinda).............................250
What is religion? (lectured by ven. Rāhula).............................................................................................251
What is religion?......................................................................................................................................252
Elements of religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula)........................................................................................253
Origin of Religion (lectured by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...............254
Pre-Historic Religion (lectured by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...........255
Origin of religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula; original from ven. Tejaniya)...............................................257
The Origin of Religion (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nyāneinda).................................258
Question: Examine the religion of pre-historic man (Characteristics of religion)....................................259
Pre-historic religion.................................................................................................................................260
Pre-historical religion (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nyāneinda)..................................261
Concepts of historic (primitive) religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula) ........................................................262
Religion and Science (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon)..................................................................................263
Religion in the Modern World.................................................................................................................264
Question: Discuss the common factors that are significant in Theo-centric religions in the East and West
.................................................................................................................................................................265
Question: Examine the reason for the rapid expansion of philosophical aspects of the Buddha in India. 266
Greek Civilization (lectured by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...............267
Greek Theology.....................................................................................................................................................267
The Greek and Roman God (Retyped by ven. Samnang Phy from paper given by Mr. Jayanta Bogoda)
(2009)......................................................................................................................................................269
The Concept of After-life or hereafter..................................................................................................................271
The ancient religions of Greece and Rome (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nyāneinda). 271
Ancient religion of Greece and Rome (lectured by ven. Rāhula).............................................................272
Greek gods and goddesses (lectured by ven. Rāhula)..............................................................................273
Roman gods and goddesses (lectured by ven. Rāhula)............................................................................274

7
Origin of Egyptian Religion with Myth and First Family (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven.
Nyāneinda)..............................................................................................................................................275
Origin of Ancient Egyptian Religion ......................................................................................................276
Origin of Ancient Egyptian Religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula)..............................................................277
The Myth of Osiris (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nai Nyāneinda)................................278
The myth of Osiris (lectured by ven. Rāhula)..........................................................................................279
Tribal Religion (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nyānida)................................................280
North American Indian Tribal religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula)...........................................................281
African tribal religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula).....................................................................................282
African Tribal Religions (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nai Nyāneinda).......................283
Origin of Korean religion (lectured by ven. Rahula) (original from ven. Panna).....................................284
Discuss the organized arrangements that led to the spread of Christianity throughout the world............285
Question: Discuss the services of Buddhist clergy with regard to the spread of Buddhism worldwide.. .286
Zoroastrianism.........................................................................................................................................287
Shortnotes: Religion – Introduction.........................................................................................................288
BONUS: Encyclopedia Britannica: Prehistoric religion..........................................................................290
Problems: nature and scope of prehistory.............................................................................................................290
Methods.................................................................................................................................................................290
Burial customs and cults of the dead. ...................................................................................................................292
Cannibalism...........................................................................................................................................................292
Sacrifices. .............................................................................................................................................................293
Hunting rites and animal cults. .............................................................................................................................294
Female fertility deities. .........................................................................................................................................295
Shamanism, sorcery, and magic. ..........................................................................................................................295
Religious patterns and economic stages. ..............................................................................................................296
Religious patterns in the various periods. ............................................................................................................296
Prehistoric religions and religions of the early civilizations...............................................................................297
BONUS: Encyclopedia Britannica: Primitive Religion...........................................................................298
Importance and influence of the study of primitive religion.................................................................................298
The problematic meanings of the term primitive and suggested substitutes.........................................................298
Development of the study of primitive religion....................................................................................................299
Specific characteristics and functions in primitive communities, life, and thought..............................................300
Various types of religiocultural configurations.....................................................................................................301
Salient distinctions from or similarities with the advanced religions...................................................................302
Distinction between sacred and profane................................................................................................................302
Dynamistic, daemonistic, and theistic views of the sacred...................................................................................303
Primitive cosmogonies and cosmologies; sacred time and times, sacred space and places..................................303
Primitive views of man's nature, origin, vocation, and destiny.............................................................................304
The role of myth in primitive cult and culture......................................................................................................305
Symbolism in primitive thought and action..........................................................................................................305
Primitive art and iconography...............................................................................................................................306
Primitive religious experience and its expressions................................................................................................306
Basic religious actions...........................................................................................................................................306
Salient rites............................................................................................................................................................307
Worship or veneration centred on natural objects or forces..................................................................................307
Worship or veneration centred on human or ex-human beings and qualities.......................................................307
Special disciplines and practices to attain religious states....................................................................................308
Magical, divinatory, and spiritualistic practices....................................................................................................308
Religious personages; types of religious authority................................................................................................309
BONUS: The Indus Civilization (from Wikipedia, prepared by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)...................310
BONUS: The Encyclopedia of religions - Preanimism............................................................................316
BONUS: Encyclopedia of Religions - Prehistoric religions.....................................................................319
An Overview.........................................................................................................................................................319

8
 BONUS: Religious tendencies in the primitive and prehistoric times (Book: schools of Indian
philosophical thought).............................................................................................................................321
Questions.................................................................................................................................................323
Religions: Class Room Test 01 – Underline the correct answer..............................................................326

R.S.F. 102 – History of Religious Traditions................................................................................327

The History of Religion (lectured by ven. Gallëlle Sumanasiri) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009)328
Chronological Order of Indian history (lectured by ven. Gallëlle Sumanasiri) (original by ven. Samnang
Phy) (2009)..............................................................................................................................................329
Indus Valley Civilization Reveals Important Information On Indian Religious History..........................331
Origin of Indian Religion or Early Indian Religion (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nai
Nārada)....................................................................................................................................................332
Question: Discuss common features pertaining to origin of religion giving special attention to India and
China ......................................................................................................................................................333
Early India Religion (lectured by ven. Rāhula)........................................................................................334
Vedic Religion (lectured by ven. Gallëlle Sumanasiri) (original by ven. Samnang Phy) (2009).............335
Aryans and the Origin of Vedic Religion (lectured by Mr. Ilaṁgakon) (original by ven. Nai Nārada). . .335
Nature of Vedic religion (lectured by ven. Gallelle Sumanasiri).............................................................336
Nature Worship ....................................................................................................................................................337
Basic doctrine of Hinduism can be categorized as follows:.....................................................................340
History of Jainism and its Fundamental Teachings (lectured by ven. Gallëlle Sumanasiri) (original by ven.
Samnang Phy) (2009)..............................................................................................................................341
Theory of Jīva .......................................................................................................................................................342
Jainism.....................................................................................................................................................344
Question: Give a brief account of the historical evolution of Jainism......................................................346
Jainism.....................................................................................................................................................347
Question: Jainism is one of the ancient religions in India. Explain the history of Jainism.......................348
History of Jainism and Its Fundamental Teachings..................................................................................349
Question: The fundamentals of teaching of Jainism and how it is different from Buddhism (lectured by
ven. Gallelle Sumanasiri).........................................................................................................................350
The Fundamental teaching of Jainism and how is it different from Buddhism........................................352
Question: Explain the main teaching of Jainism how it is different from Buddhism...............................353
Question: Describe the main teachings of Jainism and discuss how Buddhism reacts on those teachings?
.................................................................................................................................................................354
Jīva and Ājīva theory in Jainism..............................................................................................................355
Chinese Religious Tradition (lectured by ven. Gallëlle Sumanasiri) (original by ven. Samnang Phy)
(2009)......................................................................................................................................................357
Origin of Chinese and their Civilization...............................................................................................................357
Nature of Pre-historic Religions ...........................................................................................................................357
Pictorial characters................................................................................................................................................358
Pre-Historic Chinese Religions – Archeological and other evidences.....................................................359
Religions of Classical Period – Lao-Tze and Taoism..............................................................................360
Chinese religious tradition (1).................................................................................................................361
Chinese religious tradition (2).................................................................................................................362
Chinese religious tradition (3).................................................................................................................364
Prehistoric Religions in China.................................................................................................................366
Lao-Tze and Taoism (2009 and also previous years)...............................................................................367
Lao-Tze and Taoism (original by ven. Nai Nārada).................................................................................369
Lao-Tze. Taoism......................................................................................................................................370
Confucianism...........................................................................................................................................371
Confucius and Confucianism (lectured by ven. Gallelle Sumanasiri)......................................................372

9
Confucius and Confucianism ..................................................................................................................374
The teaching of Confucius as aimed at the Ethical Development (original by ven. Nai Nārada).............376
Question: Assess the challenges Buddhism had to undergo in China......................................................377
Monotheism (original by ven. Nai Nyāneinda)........................................................................................378
Question: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are homogeneous religions. Discuss.....................................379
Question: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are homogeneous religions. Discuss that..............................380
Judaic – Christian religious tradition (lectured by ven. Gallelle Sumanasiri)..........................................381
History of Judaism (original by ven. Nai Ghosaka).................................................................................382
BONUS: Jainism.....................................................................................................................................383
1. Similar but Very Different................................................................................................................................383
2. The Sacredness of Life......................................................................................................................................384
3. The Precepts of Jainism.....................................................................................................................................384
4. The Swatambara and the Digambara.................................................................................................................385
5. The Sayings of Jainism......................................................................................................................................386
BONUS: Judaism – Christianity – Islam.................................................................................................388
Judaism..................................................................................................................................................................388
Christianity............................................................................................................................................................389
Islam......................................................................................................................................................................390
Questions.................................................................................................................................................392

10
 INTRODUCTION

I have written this series of books „Notes from Buddhist and Pāli University for the 1. year“, „Notes
from Buddhist and Pāli University for the 2. year“, „Notes from Buddhist and Pāli University for the 3. year“
only with the purpose to help the students at the first year, second year and third year as well. Though at the
time of first 'CD edition' I am only a student of the first year, I have a kind of belief that it might be helpful to
all students of above mentioned grades. It might be astonishing and maybe even astounding that a student of
1. year is helping students of 2. year and 3. year. What is my explanation? I believe, that anyone who has the
proper intention, proper skill and proper knowledge can help in the field which is connected with those three.
My intention is to help the students, my skill is quick type-writing and my knowledge is English language.
As such I could help with copy-writing the notes from English medium for the students of the Buddhist and
Pāli University of Sri Lanka. I did it with all sincerety and seriousness thinking about the success of the
students. Every monk should help others, if he can and if he does not want to help others he should help
himself – to attain the Nibbāna (ayaṃ pana me attano mati). I spent more than thousand hours preparing this
kind of 'help', but still there is much to do and much to improve. Moreover, I take this work as a draft which
should be checked, changed and revised for the benefit of students. By this way I would like to ask anyone to
contribute in this manner and either contact me on my telephone number – 0778212445 (Sri Lankan number)
or e-mail me on hostov@[Link]. Any corrections, ideas, critique or editions are cordially welcomed.
We can understand religion as one angle from which we understand the truth. We all have closed
eyes, as we still didn’t realize the real knowledge, we still didn’t attain the Nibbāna. Thus, like people with
closed eyes, we try to realize the truth. We are like them, the people with closed eyes, who are trying to
understand the nature of an elephant. Like this bunch of people, staying at various places and trying to
understand the elephant according to what they perceive by their blind touching by hands, the same way we
try to understand the truth either by religion (belief), science (facts realized by our six senses) or philosophy
(thinking) as different points of view. But no way of these three is leading to real understanding, like no way
of touching the elephant will help the people with closed eyes to understand the elephant. What these people
should do, they should open their eyes and just see the elephant as it is. The same way we, if we want to see
the truth of the world, we should attain the Nibbāna and thus see the world as it is.
First and foremost I should thank to all the students who dedicated their precious time to type their
hand-writing and then distributed it among other students (and thanks to that I had the opportunity to compile
them in a book-form). I should be thankful to all those who contributed the notes so that I could copy-write
them here or who gave me the electronic notes which I have implemented here. Especially I am thankful to
ven. Khim Jimmy (Cambodia), ven. Asabha (Myanmar), ven. Bopitiye Samitha (Sri Lanka), ven. Samnang
Phy (Cambodia), ven. Nemeinda (Myanmar), ven. Premlim (Cambodia), ven. Maitri (Nepal) and many,
many others. I would like to express my great thanks to teachers at the Buddhist and Pāli University of Sri
Lanka, apart from those whose ideas are in the notes in these books especially to ven. Mavatagama
Pemananda (mainly teacher of Sanskrit) who went to my present residence just to settle all the
misunderstandings I had with the chief incumbent there. I should not forget to mention the English teachers
who never received sufficient amount of praise from the other teachers at the university – Mr. Svarnananda
Gamage, Mr. Ratnasiri and not less Mr. Pradeep Gunasena who encouraged and supported me enormously
during writing this work for example by allowing me to work on it in their office (as we still do not have any
study hall in our 'modern' university).

I wish all the beings to see the Truth,

I wish all the beings to attain Nibbāna.
Ven. Czech Sarana,
Vipassanā Bhāvanā Madhyasthānaya,
Galawilawatta, Homagama,
Sri Lanka

11
 B.P.F 101 – EMERGENCE OF BUDDHISM: HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
The Origins of Buddhism and their relationship to Indian thought are expected to study here.
Special attention is drawn to the following topics for this purpose.

Vedic thought on philosophical trends such as the path of Karma (Karmamārga) and the
path of Ñāna (Ñānamārga), Yogic meditation and the realization of truth, the concept of soul,
rebirth and liberation; a study of the independent concepts that sprang up in the Vedic tradition;
survey of the Brahmin and ascetic traditions; teachings and life stories of six religious teachers
contemporary to the Buddha; multiple theories of liberation; the pre-Buddhist awareness of Jhāna
and Samāpati; self-mortification and theory of soul; self-indulgence and materialism; view of
Pubbantākappikas and Aparantakappikas; the influence of pre-Buddhist thought and culture on the
emergence and nature of Buddhism; Buddhism criticism of views (Diṭṭhi); Buddhist interpretation
of traditional terms; the way in which the Buddha refuted the contemporary religious and
philosophical foundation; Buddhist criticism of traditional Indian religions and philosophies;
identity and uniqueness of Buddhist thought.

Recommended Reading:

1. Indian Buddhism S. Radhakrishnan, London, 1958

2. History of Indian Philosophy D. J. Kalupahana, Hawaii, 1965
3. History of Indian Thought E. J. Thomas, London, 1933
4. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 S. Das Gupta, Cambridge; 1962
5. Indian Buddhism A. K. Warder, Delhi, 1980
6. Studies in Origins of Buddhism G. C. Pande, Alahabad, 1957

12
 PRE-VEDIC RELIGION IN INDIA (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG
PHY) (2009)

Aryans came to the Sindhu Valley as shepherdess to feed their cattle but having seen the
well organized city belonged to the people of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa civilization. Āryans
decided to settle down there and continued the cultivation of the aborigines. Aborigines were farmer
who grew maize in their fields. Āryans who followed the path of aborigines without any knowledge
of the weather and climatic changes of the country, faced disasters, and their maize fields were
devoured by the forces of nature such as the rain floods and the drought fire. This happened due to
the lack of experience about the nature. Āryans were perplexed with the unexpected result they
experienced in their fields.

As a result of that Āryans understood that the forces of the nature could influence them and
they decided to understand the nature which they have experienced. They found that the forces of
the nature such as rain lightening and drought fire are active and they can speak; when rain falls
down it makes noise as the fire, water, and wind. So they understood that these forces are not only
actives but also can speak.

For example, when wind blows, it howls. Man also can speak and they also can work and
act. When they compared these qualities with themselves; they found some similarity between
themselves and the forces of nature. They inferred that these forces could think as human beings
think before they act and speak. So they considered that the forces of the nature are also like human
beings but more powerful than themselves. This stage is called anthropomorphism.

They decided to keep a close relationship with the nature to get their supports as a result of
that Aryans began to speak to them and pay their respect to them by offering a part of their
earnings. Aryans thought that by hearing their admiration and enjoyment those forces could help
them to have a better life. The close relationship that Āryans had with the forces of nature became
distant in the fullness of times.

As a result of that the forces of nature were promoted to the positions of Gods. They
considered every forces of nature as a God. So number of Gods increased rapidly. It is said that the
number increased up to 33, 0000 Gods (we normally called Viśva Devah). So this is called
polytheism. During this period the practices of rituals were increased as every person wanted to get
Blessing from gods. The increase of the number of Gods became a burden to the mind of the
Aryans. They confused when they pray to gods, it was so difficult to select a proper god as the
vocabularies of Aryans were very much limited. They wanted to speak, but some words were used
to invoke other gods. This factor led Aryans to select the most powerful god among the Vedic
pantheon.

The Indian of supreme god is called monotheism before monotheism there was transmittable
period during that period, Aryans were in search of a supreme god from the other gods. Max
Müller, German religious scholar, named this period as henotheism. During the henotheistic period
Aryans tried their best to select the most powerful god in the pantheon but failed because there was
no god who holds qualities or qualification to be the supreme god. The supreme god must be

13
 1). Omnipotent (having great or much power)
2). Omnipresent (to be everywhere)
3). Omniscient (knowing everything) and also must have the abilities to create, sustain and
destroy the universe.

Aryans venerated in the Vedic period and Varuṇa was famous one among those gods. He
was considered as a powerful god comparing to other gods; he was the famous as the controller of
the world order “Ṛtasya Gopa” Ṛta means “the world order” and Gopa means “controller.” The Sun
rises in the east everyday in the morning because Varuṇa controls it. This happened everyday in
the morning after the sun sets; the darkness comes. There is the work of Varuṇa, everything in
nature is controlled by the Varuṇa. The Varuṇa was promoted the controller of the truth. Truth is a
moral condition, keeping truth is good. As a result of that Varuṇa became the god of moral because
he was the person who keeps up the truth. Aryans believed that Varuṇa would punish people those
who misbehave and who do not care for truth. The liars and bad are punished by the Varuṇa while
he blesses on the good people. Later Varuṇa became the controller of justice. Āryans were afraid of
the violation of the laws of Varuna as they knew that Varuṇa would punish the bad. Varuṇa
became in the charge of moral actives in the Aryans society. When any kinds of unjust happened
people used to go to Varuna and complained about them to him. With the belief of Varuṇa, at that
time the concept of kamma was begun to evolve.

14
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE BEGINNING OF VEDIC RELIGION AND DESCRIBE THE DEVELOPMENT OF VEDIC RELIGION.
The earliest stage of the Vedic religion is polytheism, worship of many gods which are
deified natural phenomena. The second stage is Henotheism in which the people selected particular
god among these many gods and worshiped a particular time when they needed. From this
henotheism later the religion developed into Monotheism, believing in one Supreme Being
(Brahma) who created everything in this world. The one being has been called by many names such
as Puruṣa, Prajāpati and Viṣvakarma and so on.
They placed this God as the greatest and the highest, a supreme Lord of all beings
(Prajāpati). He had the epithet Prajāpati or ‘the lord of all beings’ which was originally an epithet
for other deities. He was a god as the repository of the highest moral and physical power, who
recognized the other deities and also was given different names.
Similarly some people ascribed him feature of a creator (viṣvakarma). He is said to be a
father of all beings and a creator or a maker of everything. The people considered him as the earliest
god who was responsible for all being and natural phenomena. In order to get blessing from him the
people praised him, offered him food, engaged in sacrifices and so on.
They further developed the belief in creator or one Supreme Being during the Vedic period
and Brahmaṇa period. The stage of belief in Creator God or monotheism comes into prominence till
the Āranyaka period. In this period some Brahmins and Kśatriyas bbegan to doubt and sought new
means of solving their problems. They gradually gave up the belief in Supreme Being or Creator
God and turned towards spiritual development.
Under this circumstance monotheism gave way to ‘monism’. The idea of the Creator God in
the earlier period rejected and accepted the belief that everything is manifestation of one absolute
being. This being is gradually referred to as the neuter Brahman and ātman. The Brahman is the
universal soul, the great soul (jagad ātman or viṣva ātman) and as its counterpart there is the bbelief
in individual soul (pudgala ātman).
It is believed that it is ignorance regarding the unity of Brahman and ātman that is the root
cause of the predicament of man in the Universe. Therefore, knowledge regarding this unity came
to be considered as the one and only mean of attaining salvation. The Upaniṣad as tat tvaṃ asi
(thou art that),1 and everyone could practice severe ascetic practices to realize the individual soul
and universal soul as they were the one thing. Therefore, the belief in Brahman or the universal
principle soul (monism) is different from the belif in Brahma or Creator God (monotheism) at the
earlier stage. The Brahma is considered with the physical form (metaphysical)(?).

1 = you are that

15
 VEDIC PERIOD

According to archeological traces, Āryan people entered India at about the time of decline of
the Indus civilization (about 1600 B.C.) they were probably barbarian invaders, who conquered the
Indus people and destroyed their cities. These Āryans were nomadic herdsmen, who spoke in an
early form of Sanskrit, called Vedic after the earliest extant Indian texts (the Veda) which can at
present be read. The earliest of these Vedic texts of the Āryans were perhaps composed two or three
centuries after the conquest. It is agreed that they migrated from Middle East, perhaps from Iran,
through one of the three passages namely Khyber, Macron or Bolan, to halt in India close to the
Shindu or Indus river. Thus the Indus civilization suffered a temporary eclipse at the hands of these
barbaric nomads. Very soon, however, the barbarians began to follow the ways of the people they
had conquered: they settled permanently in villages and eventually in cities. They kept their cattle in
fieleds and they harnessed the rivers for irrigation.

Anthropomorphism
After they had settled in their new Indian home, the Āryans became aware that in fact the
various elements existent in nature were important factors affecting their very lives, that these
natural elements were somehow powerful or out of their control and at the same time, they were
much fascinated by them. Thunders, wind, rain, storm etc. Held obviously, as they believed, some
kind of standing personalities behind these phenomena that, as they do, possessed manlike nature.
As they were aware that these natural forces or supernatural beings were mightier than they were
they resolved to create a sort of alliance with these beings by singing their praises and offering
worship or sacrifice to these latter in favor of a peaceful and prosper livelihood. This sort of nature
„worship“ denotes the earliest form of Vedic religion or the commencement of India's advancement
of knowledge. And this is called 'anthropomorphism'.

Polytheism
As the relationship or 'alliance' bbetween the Āryans and the mighty beings pursued, the
Āryans continued gradually to personify the forces of nature and to an extent converted them into
particular gods. As resulted from the transitional stage from natural forces to deities, a pantheon of
gods eventually emerged. And this is called polytheism, the faith in several gods.

Henotheism
Peculiar to stage of time, the Āryans were disposed to pay reverence to gods as supreme,
standing side by side, but at some circumstances only one is holding the highest position. It
happened that they choose the supreme gods like Indra, Varuṇa and Prajāpati. In this period they
seemed to have chosen Varuṇa as the most important or highest one among the three and all the
gods. This is called Henotheism, the faith in one supreme god.

16
 QUESTION: VEDIC LITERATURE IS A MIRROR TO THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS

There are two major religious traditions in India. These are the Brahman tradition and
Sramaṇa tradition. Vedic literature serves as the most authentic and primary source for this
Brahmaṇa tradition.
Vedic literature could be divided into different phases, these are Vedas, Brahmaṇas,
Aranyakas and the Upaniṣads. There is fact(?) mirror the various religious beliefs and contepts that
rose into prominence during these different phases.
The Vedas are four in number and these are Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharva
Veda. The last is not considered so sacred as the other three and it is more concerned with charm
and black-magic.
Ṛg Veda is the earlier of the Vedas and of this too the earliest hymns represent the early
beginning of Vedic religion. This is the stage in which natural objects where deifying and
worshiping by singing songs of prais, and sometimes with very minor offering of ghee, butter, milk,
soma etc.
This represents the stage of polytheism, the worship of many gods. In some of the texts there
is reference to a stage when one god from among the many gods was selected at one time and
worshiped as the higher god. This seems to have happened with the development of civilization
from nomadic life to settled life, a life of agriculture and farming. So, at this stage particular gods
were selected at particular time according to the needs of the time and worshipped. This phase is
known as Henotheism.
The Vedas show a further development in religious thought. It reflects the attempt made by
these thinkers to find out who is the first God, the creator of all other gods and the universe. So,
they think of one such God, whom they say is known by different names by the wise (ekaṃ sat
viprāh bahudhā vadanti). This is monotheism, the worhip of one supreme God.
While this worship of God developed, in Brahmaṇa literature it is shown the development of
sacrifice, which became the hallmark of Vedic religion and hence called Yajña-Mārga, the way of
sacrifice.
The Āranyakas depict a new trend. In this phase religious men became more interested in
contemplation and living in seclution in forests. Is it this trend that God developed and appeared in
the Upaniṣad which texts show how Monotheism that was very developed in the late Vedic period
gave way to Monism, the teaching which put forward Brahman as the unversal soul, and the soul of
everything in the universe. This also gave rise to the metaphysical religion concept of Ātman, the
individual soul. Upaniṣad holds that meditation and ascetic practices is the way to wisdom that
brings emancipation, hence this phase of religion is called Jñāna Mārga, the way of knowledge.
Thus Vedic literature is the mirror to all major religious concepts.

17
 THE YAMA AND ITS CONCEPTS (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG
PHY) (2009)

According to early Vedic teaching Yama was a god who lived above in the sky, he was
known as the first human being who died. All dead people go to Yama and live with him. This
belief was changed due to the rational reasoning. Āryans thought that it was unjust to permit all
human beings those who have done good and bad to live together with Yama without a time
limited. As a result of further questioning Āryans accepted that all dead people go to Yama and
Yama inquires about their previous characters and allows those who have done good to remain in
the heaven and sends others to the hell which is situated under the earth.

Āryans believed that dead could not live forever in the hell or in the heaven on what they
have done in the previous lives because merits and demerits were collected by every individual was
limited. With a limited merits or demerits, one cannot live in the heaven or in the hell forever. It is
not clear for what would happen to them at the end of merits and demerits earned by the individual.

It was unjust to live forever in that heaven or in the hell for limited quality merits or
demerits. So can a person live in the heaven or the hell forever on what he had done in the world?
Āryans found that it is not just for anyone of them to live in the heaven or hell forever. As a result
of this dialogue Āryans decided that no one could live even in the hell or heaven for unlimited time
but to continue one’s live in the heaven, he has to receive merits from his relations those who live
this world. Those kinfolks who live in this world can transfer merits to their dead ones. By gaining
merits from those relatives, dead one can extend the live in the heaven.
On the other hand, those who are in the hell can go to a better place. As a result of that, the
transference of that merits became popular among Āryans. This is the beginning of karma mārga. It
is accepted that human activities have some values that could bring the result to the doers and dead
ones. Good activities are named as puñña and the bad activities are named as pāpa. Every one in the
Āryans society wanted to transfer the merits to their loved ones who were died. At the beginning
this was done by the individual himself, later this practice became an essential in the householders’
lives. As a result of that there appeared a special group of people those who are well-versed in
religious rites and rituals. They are known as Brāhmaṇa. Karma Mārga thrived (develop) with
power of Brāhmaṇa in this period.

18
 QUESTION: DISCUSS THE EVOLUTION OF GOD CONCEPT

God, center and focus faith, a holy being or ultimate reality to whom worship and prayer are
addressed is considered by many people to be the creator or source of all the existence.

Conceptions of God
Many religious thinkers have believed that god is a mystery beyond the power of human conception.
Most philosophers and theologists assume that an ultimate attributes and path of knowledge, God may be
considered transcendent (beyond the world), emphasizing independence and power over the world order.

Monotheism
Monotheism is a belief in the unity of the God-head, or in one God. Christian belief in the doctrine of
the 'trinity' is incompatible with monotheism.2 Some Christian groups reject utilitarianism. Monotheism is
also a tenet of Islam and Judaism.

Polytheism
Polytheism is a belief in many gods. In Vedic period, Vedic people believed in many gods. This
period came to be known as the period of polytheism. At that time, the earliest strong stage of the Vedic
religion was polytheism, worship of many gods which were actually natural phenomena. The second stage is
henotheism, in which people selected particular god among many gods and worshiped him in particular
times.

Atheism
Atheist doctrine denies any existence of deity. It believes in non-existence of God or gods. Atheism
differs distinctly from agnosticism (the doctrine that the existence of deit can be neither proved nor
disproved).

Henotheism
Next to polytheism is monotheism. Monotheism is belief in one god. Turning to monotheism is not
sudden movement. Willing(?) Vedic literature we can found trends towards monotheism. So, Max Müller
has introduced intermediate stage in between polytheism and monotheism, named as henotheism
(kathenotheism). Henotheism is the view that one god is supreme but not denying the existence of other
gods. Even though each god had equal power, some gods have more power than the others. It happened that
Indra became more powerful than other gods, later Indra was on his place replaced by Varuna. Though we
can't find monotheistic gods in Veda, the Varuna is described in the way the creator God tends to be
described. Thus Prajāpatī Aṣvin come to power from time to time. But no-one of the gods could keep their
power for longer period. One of the common questions appeared in Veda is: „who is the god to who we are
to offer sacrifice?“

»Mahat devanaṃ asuratvaṃ ekaṃ.«

»Ekaṃ sat vipra bahudha vadanti, agnih yamah matariṣvana mahuh.«

Therefore the belief in Brāhmaṇ or the universal principle soul (monism) is different from the belief
in Brāhmaṇ or creator God (monotheism). From henotheism later the religion developed into monotheism,
believed in one supreme being (Brāhmaṇ) who is creator of everything in the world. The one being this wise
called by many names such as Purusha, Prajāpatī and Viasvakarma(?) and so on.

2 Here the lecturer is blind and ignorant toward the Christian belief. He does not understand, that the God's trinity (the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) are actually one and only god. Christianity is monotheism and the lecturer is
ignorant.

19
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF BELIEVING IN GOD IN VEDIC PERIOD (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA)
(ORIGINAL BY VEN. MEDĀNANDA)

The Vedic people tried to understand the nature of God in Vedic period. And then they tried
to understand it through their own experience, later on it was developed and believed the concept of
God.(?) Not only they had a concept of God, but, also due to the convention of that time, they
considered belief in God as important. The Vedic people considered the god Varuna as the
governor of the Rta. The nature and the morality has been covered by this Rta according to Vedic
peoples thought. When we compare this concept with the other philosophical concept we can see
the importance of the Rta concept. Some philosophical trends paid their attention to the origin and
the existence of the world without considering gods. It is result of that who wanted to see the reality
of the existence of the world.(?) So that was beginning of monism (advitavāda).

Thought common people believed in god, some people who had a philosophically elevated
mind rejected that concept. Indra, who was the leader of the gods was criticized by those people.
Sometimes they asked whether there would be such a god. Sometimes the concept of god those
challenged by these people and gradually this kind to keep the people as the followers of the god
introducing various kinds of praying.(?) But those people, who rejected existence of the god's
concept, developed their philosophical thinking. The reality of the world and the god would not be
different truth, but it would be one truth, as the Vedic society believed. The reality of the world was
explained by the reality of god. As a result of that, the concept of adithi developed. This world also
was not enough to name the truth of the world.(?) Therefore the reality of the god and the world god
was named by the world of sat(?) that world is a singular and natural gender it implies the ultimate
truth also one and it does not bear any goodness and it is beyond the goodness.(?) In Rigvedic
literature this ultimate truth has been identified by scholar/scholars(?) as Agni, Yama, Mthorishan
etc. The Puruṣa sutta in Rigveda has compared the universe to 'great person', to 'great puruṣa'.

In Rigveda all the universe is compared to that 'great person'. It is the event(?) that Vedic
people tried to understand the universe with the human beings and also they wanted to recognize the
relationship in between the external world, outside their own bodies. Therefore they said the Moon
was born from the 'great person's' head. The Sun was born from His eye. Indra and Agni were born
from His mouth. The air from his breast and the noble sky and space from his legs. The earth from
the ear direction were born from the being rig person.(?) The Vedic people believed in an
omniscient God, but later on, as we can see, they tried to understand the world through
philosophical thinking.

20
 BRAHMIN PERIOD (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

During the Brhāmaṇa period yāga became the most popular rituals among Āryans.
According to this stage, all human beings belong to four casts namely; Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya
and Śūdtra. The hierarchy of this caste system can be changed as if was created by the Brāhmaṇa.
Each caste is given a set of duties to fulfill,
1. Brāhmaṇa has appointed for religious purposes.
2. Kṣatriya has duties to protect the country.
3. Vaiśya has the task to farm and trade or commercialize.
4. Śūdra has duties to slave or service above three castes.

Kṣāatriya and Vaiśya were given permission to practice the caste duties of the next lover
operate in the time of adversities; Brahmans get the power over this caste system. Brahmans
perfected the freedom of other castes and the freedom of all women. This brought a grade
disadvantage to the majority of people in the Āryans society. These three castes were suffered while
Brāhmaṇas prospered; especially Śūdras and all women lost all rights that others enjoyed. They are:
1. Freedom of education,
2. Freedom of religious practices,
3. Freedom of economy, and
4. Freedom of justices and freedom of politics.

As a result of this majority of the Aryan society it was entangled with Brāhmaṇas and they were in
search of another method that they could get their comport-ability of life, spirituality, and
secularity.
Kṣātriyas to introduce their methods for the spiritual development of Aryans without any
discrimination.(?) At this time spiritual development became signification than the secular
development. So, we conclude during this period that it is the Spiritual development of the mind
without spending large of money.

21
 ORIGIN OF BUDDHISM (HOW BUDDHISM ORIGINATED)

When Buddhism arose there were two main religious traditions: Brāhmaṇa and Śramaṇa. The terms
samaṇa-brāhmaṇa in the suttas refer to these two traditions. The Brāhmaṇic tradition were of two levels:
(a) Vedic
(b) Upaniṣadic

Vedic-Brāhmaṇic tradition depended mainly on sacrifice Yajña also called karma. It was believed in
sacrifice as in the most effective mean of security of happiness here and here-after. Therefore it was called
Yajña-mārga or karma-mārga. In this tradition there was the belief in a creator God and a pantheon of other
gods. The worship of them, offerings to them were the main religious practice.
The Upaniṣadic tradition is more philosophical. It believed in a universal principal called Brāhmaṇ
(viṣva-ātman) which should have been the source of everything. Its counterpart was ātman (pudgda(?)-
ātman). Both those were metaphysical concepts. The way to salvation was the realization of the ultimate
oneness of the Brāhmaṇ – ātman. This had to be attained through knowledge (jñāna) produced by the
practice of mental concentration and observance of severe ascetic practices (aṭṭhakilamathānuyogo).
The Śramaṇa tradition opposed these beliefs. There were six famous Śramaṇa teachers:

1. Ajita (a materialist who did not believe in morality)

2. Makkhalī (inclined to materialism; completely denied personal effort and action (kiriyavāda and
viriyavāda) )
3. Pakudha (inclined to materialism)
4. Pūrana (inclined to materialism)
5. Sañjaya (a sceptic)
6. Mahāvīraan (an extremist who preached non-violence and kamma determinism)

Ajita was a materialist who did not believe in morality. Makkhalī, Pakudha and Pūrana were also
more inclined to materialism. But Makkhalī completely denied personal effort and action (kiriyavāda and
viriyavāda). Therefore it was denounced by Buddha. Sañjaya was a sceptic and Mahāvīra an extremist
who preached non-violence and kamma determinism.
All these schools accepted the same kind of an entity (soul) whether metaphysical or physical and
taught the release of the soul through extreme paths: Kāmasukhallikānuyogo and Attakilamatthānuyogo.
This was the religious background in which Buddhism arose. Most of these religious teachings went
to extremes. The materialists went to the xtreme of sensual enjoyment, abandoning all ethics and morals. Of
the eternalists most followed the extreme of self-mortification. All religious teachers accepted some kind of
power or agency that influenced human affairs.
As means of salvation they used sacrifice, invocations, prayer. Almost all of them advocated a(?)
outside oneself. They thought the man's problems lay outside man.
From the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta itself it is clear how the Buddha reacted to those religious
teachings. He began by advising listeners to reject the two extremes. Instead of focusing attention on an
outside agency, the Buddha admonished looking into oneself, to understand reality and see the inter-
dependent nature of both suffering and happiness. There, instead of a god-centered teaching he presented a
man-centered teaching. Instead of praying to god he advocated cleansing of the mind, for both happiness and
suffering originate in mind. All these he reached in response to religious teachings of his time.

22
 QUESTION: ELUCIDATE THE BUDDHIST TEACHING ON KAMMA AND SHOW HOW IT SETS ASIDE THE VIEW THAT
EVERYTHING HAPPENS DUE TO PAST KAMMA.

Like many other religions of the time, Buddhism also presents its teaching on kamma.
However, it is seen that the Buddhist teaching on kamma is quite different from the teaching of
other religions on this subject.
This difference is clearly seen from the definition given by the Buddha to kamma. In the
Nibbedhikapariyāya Sutta of the Aṅguttara Nikāya the Buddha defines kamma as volition, cetanā.
Thus an act or a deed falls into the category of a moral deed only if it is done with the necessary
volition or intention. All other deeds though they are not kamma in the sense of moral deeds for
which one has to bear responsibility. Such unintentional deeds are morally neutral.
According to Buddhism there are three modes through which we could act and these are:
1. Body (kāya)
2. Speech (vacī)
3. Mind (mano)

All moral deeds are done through these modes. If such deeds are done with intention
motivated by rāga, dosa, moha then they are evil deeds and good deeds if they are not so motivated.
It is also taught in Buddhism that one is morally responsible for one’s intentional deeds. One has to
bear consequences (vipāka) either in this life, in the next or in some other life. The consequence
may be good or bad depending on the moral quality of the deed which depends on intention or
volition.
The Dhammapdada stanzas 1 and 2 clearly show how the consequences follow the doer.
Yet, it does not mean that the Buddhist teaching on kamma is deterministic. It is the Jain who
presented such a teaching called Pubbekatahetuvāda, that everything one expešriences at present is
due to past deeds.
According to Bubdhism though kamma is of vital importance in deciding one’s destiny, it is
not considered the only factor. In later texts five universal laws (pañca-niyāma) are mentioned and
kamma-niya is one of them. In the Moliyasīvaka Sutta of the Saṅyutta Nikāya the Buddha directly
rejects the Pubbekatahetuvāda and gives different causes for what we experience at present. The
Buddha says that if kamma is a deterministic law then salvation is not possible. The Buddha
points out that man is capable of changing one’s kamma and defeating kamma by realizing
Arahantship.

23
 CONCEPT OF KAMMA

Kamma literally means 'action' or 'deed'. In the religious technical sense it means moral
action which brings about good or bad results.

All religions in India teach about kamma. Vedic Brahmanism teaches all action to please the
God on good kamma and those aagainst the wish of the God on bad kamma. Thus sacrifice is called
kamma, a good action to please the god. Upaniṣadic taechers give a more moral meaning. Some
șramaṇa teachers – especially the materialists – did not believe in kamma. The Jainas believed that
one's past kamma is the cause of one's happiness and suffering in this life (sabbekata hetuvāda).

So, kamma is pre-Buddhist origin. Yet the Buddhist teaching on kamma is different from the
rest. The Buddha gave an interpretation about kamma. According to him it is volition (cetanā), that
is kamma. Therefore he made kammapsychological force. The Buddha divided kamma into good
and bad and also said there are three modes of kamma:
1. Bodily
2. Verbal
3. Mental

However, the Buddha did not say that kamma is deterministic. According to him kamma is
one of the five principles (niyama) that affect man. He also said that kamma can be controleled and
changed by man. Therefore, man is not a slave of kamma.

24
 THE THEORY OF KAMMA

The teaching of kamma is found almost in all religious schools in India during the time of the
Buddha. Some schools believed that everything ahppens due to former kamma, everything happens due to
the will of God. And some believed as everything happens without cause, they are mere accidents and
coincidence s.
The Buddha rejected all these erroneous views and defines kamma as simply action or a deed. The
definition of kamma in Nibedhikapariyāya Sutta says that cetanā or volition is kamma (cetanāhaṃ
bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi), which is one of the mental properties. There is another word – chanda – which
stands for wishing, desiring a result.
All deeds done through evil root causes, namely greed, hatred and delusion are morally
unwholesome (akusala). The opposite root causes, namely alobha, adosa and amoha are to bring about good
deeds or wholesomeness (kusala). All deeds performed through intention are complete kamma. By our
thoughts, words and deeds we creat our world that we are to live in. We create our world with mind behind
the physical form. Therefore „the mind is master of the world.“
The last kammic thought moment at the point of death which forms the rebirth linking consciousness,
the kamma that produces.(?) Other kamma, good or bad, will come to operation at some later place, when
external conditions are favorable for its ripening. The force of weak kamma may be suspended for a long
time by the interposition of a stronger kamma. As a general principple all kinds of kamma bear some kind of
fruit sooner or later.
One has complete control over his actions, no matter what degree other may try to force him. Yet, an
unwholesome deed done under strong compulsion does not have quite the same force as one performed
voluntarily. Under the threat of torture or of death, a man may be compelled to torture or kill someone else.
In such a case the heaviest moral responsibility rests with those who have forced that one to the action. But
in the ultimate sense he still must bear some responsibility for he could in the most extreme case avoid
harming another by torturing himself or his own death.
Collective kamma also takes place when number of people are associated in a same kind of an action
and thought(?). Mass psychology produces mass kamma. Therefore, if all such people are likely to form the
same pattern of kamma, it may result the same way as they associated in the same kind of action and the
same kind of experience.
The results of kamma are called vipāka. This term, kamma and vipāka and the idea they stand for
must not be confused. Vipāka is pre-determined by ourselves by previous kamma, but kamma in the last
moment of one's death.(?) Throughout life one may had to suffer the consequences of vipāka of the death
whatever may had been the cause. But it does not prevent him from forming fresh kamma of a wholesome
type to restore the balance in his next life. Further more, by the aid of some good kamma from the past
together with strong effect and favorable circumstances in the present life the full effect of his bad kamma
may be eradicated even here and now.

25
 ĀRANYAKA PERIOD (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

Āranyaka period was new era of thinking that the Āryan society of understand the nature and life
through wisdom purity. In the Brahmin period Āryans expected a better future through yāgas based on faith
and devotion. Preference to the spiritual development is given in the Āranyaka period as a result of this; the
demand for yāga become loses. The spiritual development was open for all without any discrimination all
low castes including women are permitted to practice spiritual development.
This count is done without wasting money and other assets. Āranyaka period can be considered
as a new era in the Vedic thought because the significance of the spiritual development was established
during this period. Wisdom became very important than the faith and devotion. Yoga practices were
introduced during the Āranyaka period. Many people went to the forest to meditate when they need mental
(sati) function; scholars are not unanimous about the origin of the Āranyaka period.
According to Vedic period tradition Aranyaka period is an extent of Sañyāsi Āśrama (stage) four
Āśramas;
1) Brahma Cariya,
2) Ashastas,
3) Vanapratha, and
4) Sañyasi.
During the Sañyasi period, Brāhmaṇa who was come to the old age goes to the forest to meditate.
In the four stages of meditation started only in the Sañyasi period. Therefore some argue that the Āranyaka
period could be considered as a development of the Sañyasi stage. There is another argument about the
origin of the Āranyaka period.
Scholars point out that the Āranyaka period that the influence of Mohenjo Daro-Harappa
civilization would led Āryans to spiritual development which was the basis of Āranyaka period because there
were evidences in that period. Archeologists have found pictures of meditating sages belonged to the
Mohenjo Daro- Harappa society to think spiritual development which was popular among aborigines. In the
Mohenjo Daro - Harappa civilization there were facts to prove that Āryans knew about those mendicants, as
it appeared in the Kesisukta Munis, were unclean and ugly. This shown that Āryans did not appreciate Munis
and those ugly and unclean mendicants who lived even during the Ṛg-Vedic period.
Sometimes, this might influence the origin of the Āranyaka, the Brāhmaṇas practice and also
Kṣātriyas were the leader who initiated the Āranyaka period. Kṣatriyas had a rivalry against Brāhmaṇas as a
result of that they might have introduced this new practice to bring down the popularity and the power of
Brāhmaṇa.
Aryans, those who traveled to the Eastern part of India to sell goods, came to know about practice
of the Śramaṇa tradition which has given preference to meditation and other Yogic practice. They produced
this new practice to the Āryans society; it was much convenient to all Āryans to follow without hardship.
Meditation can be performed without any expense. It is the development of the mind that one should be
obtained through practice. It could be practiced without any discrimination of castes, genders and other
social status. As a result of that the wisdom school started with their beginning of Aranyaka period. With the
start of the Āranyaka period, Āryans tried hard to understand the reality through wisdom. The decreased
significance of Yoga during the Āranyaka period.

26
 QUESTION: SINCE UPANIṢAD'S PERIOD UP TO THE BUDDHA'S PERIOD HOW RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SOUGHT FOR JÑĀNA
(WISDOM) OR KNOWLEDGE?

Vedic Brāhmaṇism reaches its climax in the Upaniṣadic thought. The contemplative and
philosophical trends that came to prominence in the Aranyakas further developed in the Upaniṣads.
The Vedic Brāhmaṇism centered on the belief in a creator God with a large number of lesser gods.
These divine powers were supposed to control the destiny of man and everything in the universe.
As some did not find this Vedic approach to religion satisfactiory, they resorted to forest and began
contemplate and reflect on subtle problem affecting man and his world. This inclination towards
contemplation is the prominent feature in the Aranyakas. It is this that developed into a deeper
philosophical system in the Upaniṣads.
This development gave way to the early karma-mārga or the path of sacrifice. Instead of
dependency on the ritual of sacrifice for happiness, the Upaniṣad thinkers advocated the practice of
the path of knowledge, or „jñāna mārga.“ The god of this path was the intuitive understanding of
the unity of Brāhmaṇ and ātman.
Both Brāhmaṇ and ātman were metaphysical concepts of the Upaniṣadic thinkers.
Being metaphysical both these were beyond normal sensory experience. The Upaniṣadic
thinkers maintained that to know and see Brāhmaṇ and ātman a yogi has to develop mystic
knowledge and with it, it is said that one is able to mystically know and see these metaphysical
entities.
Thus the Upaniṣadic thinkers who advocated the existence of a soul (ātman) which was the
microcosmic soul (pudgala-ātma) and its macro-cosmic counterpart (Brāhmaṇ) the universal soul
(jagad-ātma or vis'sva-ātma) said that the path to attain this knowledge or ñāna is
atthakilamathānuyogo or self-mortification. They pointed out that by tormenting the body, by
completely depriving the sense organs of the opportunity to enjoy objects one could attain that
mystical knowledge and realize intuitively the undifferentiated unity of Brāhmaṇ and ātman.
Some of the Śramaṇa schools such as Jainism also believed in a similar path. These schools
abandoned Yajña (sacrifice) as useless. This school also advocated the way of knowledge attained
through self-mortification. However, all these schools, at least in an indirect way, expected the help
of an external agency. The Upaniṣadic traditional wish for the grace of God (daiva pras'ad) for this.
The Jains also did not totally reject such a belief.
Buddhism being a religion that gives superiority to man considers that it is through mind
culture (bhāvanā) attained with one's own effort that will lead to insight wisdom (paññā). This is
different from knowledge understood in the jñāna mārga, for Buddhist jñāna refers to personal
experience (sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā).

27
QUESTION: THE PATH OF GNĀNA (GNĀNA MĀRGA) IS THE DOOR WHICH OPENS TO BIRTH OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY.
JUSTIFY THE STATEMENT.

Gradually, Vedic rites and rituals became complex and common people could not follow due
to the the complexity and expensiveness of sacrifices. They criticized sacrificial system. Some
people renounced and meditated to understand the truth. They believed there could be hidden
philosophical meaning in sacrifices. Therefore some said it is more important to understand this
philosophical meaning than practice of sacrificing. Those who were trying to understand this
meaning were named as upasana.
By upasana they can achieve the knowledge which was known as vidyā. Gradually these
upasana and vidyā have been faced to evolution and some renovation. Therefore people's respect
over the sacrifices became weaker and reduced. There are two kinds of knowledge discussed in
Vedic literature. They are:
1. apra vidya (considered as lower knowledge)
2. pra vidya (considered as higher knowledge)

Pra vidya can be achieved through the various meditations and it is important and correct
knowledge.

When we study about the religious background of this period we can identify three
important characteristics:
1. The rational and empirical part of knowledge
2. The knowledge which assemblages the part of kamma and knowledge which is the state in
between the system of rites and rituals and the renunciation.
3. The karma mārga, which has been accepted as the sole part to the happiness.

An attempting to realize the reality was named as gnāna gaveṣana, finding the knowledge.
They believed it should be the finding concerning the ātman. One who understands the ātman
knows everything and also one who sees the ātman becomes an immortal one.

At the beginning of the Upaniṣadic period, it is said that one wanted to find the path of
nyāna had to learn from the former one (teacher), who was intellectual and realized knowledge.
One can understand ātman and the Brāhmaṇ through meditation. For this purpose one should lead a
moral life and should develop his spirituality. According to Aparāda Upaniṣad one who does not
develop this quality will not be able to understand ātman or Brāhmaṇ. One should see the ātman
and listen to ātman. Then he definitely realizes and understands everything in the world.

In this way Indian philosophy recognize the realization of the ātman as the way of realizing
the knowledge. In this way the Vedic philosophy has stepped over to the nyāna mārga to realize the
hidden absolute truth.

28
 QUESTION: DESCRIBE THE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF KARMA MĀRGA AND ÑĀNA MĀRGA
The path of karma mārga in Vedic literature means the way of performing sacrifices. The
Veda was considered as the God's utterance or God's words. Therefore, it was an absolute truth.
Brahmanic clergy or priests were the one who became the greatest class in the Vedic society which
was formed under the classification of caste system.
It was introduced this way of performing sacrifices.(?) Those Brahman priests claimed that
when the religious performances were performed in the correct way God would have been happy
and conferred the blessings to the people for the successful lufe. People also expected from the
sacrifices to achieve the happiest life in the world. They believed all were happening(?) due to the
yāga, sacrifice. If the yāga had not been performed, the Sun would not rise, the harvest would not
be successful.
Thus the Brahmanic priests introduced various kinds of sacrifices to be performed to
achieve better life here and hereafter. Brāhmanic priests believed that Vedic hymns were originally
uttered by Mahā Brahma and later on creatures listened to those utterances and continued by
lineage. Therefore they unseen power was included in that word and sound.(?) Brāhmanic priests
themselves had taken the prime places in religious performances.
They themselves said to the people they were sole authorities who knew the way of
performances, the selection of utterances, the respect utterances and the pronunciation of utterances.
Further they claimed that one who did the sacrifice in a correct and systematical way he would be
ethically developed person and after death he would be reborn in the Brahma world. On the strength
of sacrifices one would be reborn either in deva loka or in the hell. According to aitareya there was
the sava pūka, agni hotra yāga, rājasūya yāga etc.
In Majjhima Nikāya Saṅgarāva Sutta there is also explained about the yāga, which was
rejected by the Buddha. The commentary mentions about seven kinds of sacrifices. Kutadatta
Sutta and Yajña Sutta of Kusala Saṅyutta mention about Sabbasattaka Yaka.
Besides these there were some other yāgas also. Gradually sacrifices were an unbearable
burden to the individual life and social life. Due to the complexity and expensiveness of the
sacrifices people could not follow and be satisfied with that sacrificial system. Criticizing it they
went away from that path. Believing there could have been hidden philosophical meaning in
sacrifices some people renounced and meditated to understand the truth. They tried to realize the
reality.
It was named as 'ñāna gaveśana'. Finding the knowledge concerning with the ātman.
Consequently the people's respect over the sacrifices became weakened and reduced in the
challenge of finding the knowledge. In this way the Vedic philosophy has stepped over to ñāna
mārga through karma mārga to realize hidden absolute truth.

29
 UPANIṢAD PERIOD (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

Upaniṣad was known as the philosophy of Vedanta. There is large number of Upaniṣad
(sitting close to the teacher). Upaniṣads are known as secret teaching, Guhyam parama Guhyam
rahasyam. Upaniṣadic thinkers strove to understand the nature of the person, the nature of world /
universe, and the relationship between those too. There are the aims of Upaniṣad

“ Asato sada gamaya = take me to the reality from unreality.”

“ Tamaso m1ryothir gamaya = take me to light from darkness.”

“ Mrtyo ma amrtoyi gamaya = take me to immortality from mortality”.

During this period Upaniṣadic thinkers engaged in search for Truth not a belief. There
are about 108 Upaniṣads among them 13 Upaniṣads are considered as principal Upaniṣad.
Bṛhadāranyaka, Taithareya, Chāndogya are considered as early Upaniṣadic period (900-700 B.C.)

Katha Upaniṣad
2shā Upaniṣad are considered as contemporary to the Buddhist era 700-500
B.C.
Mundaka Upaniṣad

Praśna Upaniṣad
Svetasvatara are considered as later the Buddhist era 500-B.C.
Maitrī
Māndogya

The main aim of Upaniṣadic thought is to reveal truth of the universe and the individual end
the relationship between the two relationships the man and the universe. According to Upaniṣads
Universe in the Macrocosm Jagadātma Visvātma (great man) Mahāpurisa individual in the
Pudgalātma (microcosm) Kudāpurisa (the small man).

Upaniṣadic thinkers who attempted to investigate the reality of the universe explained the
universe as a creation of the Brahma. Brahma is known as the creation of everything that exist
»Sarvam khalu idaṃ brahma;« there are two types of creations appeared in Upaniṣad:

1. The direct creation

2. The indirect creation.

Besides this theory of evolution also appeared in the Upaniṣads according to the theory of
evolution the universe is not a result of a creation but a result of an evolution both the theory of
creation and the theory of the concept of Brahma.
Brahma means the power to generate, the word “Brahma” according to scholar original
(from Sanskrit word) means “Vach.”

30
 Ṛg-Vedic Āryans thought that the prayers to the gods could bring happiness to the people
because of the power of words and in the early period the word Brahma is used as a synonym to
“Word” the power to generate.
In Upaniṣads Brahma creates universe by himself as it appears in the Bṛhadārnyaka
Upaniṣad Brahma felt alone so he became a man after sometimes again he experienced the
previous loneliness and became a woman as a result of that human beings were originated
according to the direct creation Brahma should be identical with his creation all qualification of the
Brahma should appear in his creation for example, Brahma is eternal therefore his creation should
also be eternal. But it is not so the physical world is impermanent although it is considered as a
creation of Brahma. As a result of the Upaniṣads failed to prove the identity between the creator
and creation. This failure made an attempt to describe the theory of creation with amendments. If
said that the universe is created from Brahma but not by Brahma himself.

Likewise, the net comes out from the spider. Both explanations were not strong enough to
prove the supremacy of Brahma in the creation of the universe. We now can see two kinds of
creations viz.
1) Brahma (direct creation) he himself created the universe.
2) Brahma (indirect creation) is not identified with creation; the Brahma is identified with
his creation.
As a result of that Upaniṣadic sages introduced another theory to explain the relationship between
the Brahma, the Creator, and the Universe. That is the Maya. Maya means illusion; Upaniṣads
argued that the relationship between the Brahma, the Creator can be understood clearly because
everything is covered with the illusion (Maya). Maya misleads people from the truth. We would be
able to understand the universe as a creation of Brahma only when we eradication illusion. Illusion
should be eradicated through wisdom.

Brahma (Macrocosm=huge man) and ātman (Microcosm = tiny man)

According to Upaniṣads Microcosm (ātman) in a part of Macrocosm (Brahma). Ātman is

created from Brahma as a result of that all living beings are identical parts of Brahma. Therefore, all
qualifications of Brahma appeared in the ātman, Brahma is eternal – ātman is also eternal. Brahma
cannot be destroyed and ātman also cannot be destroyed, neither Brahma nor ātman change.

The search made to find the qualification of Brahma in the ātman failed, it was clearly
ātman (the small man), the man is not eternal as Brahma; man is subject to change and mortal. So
they found that the living body of man is not ātman they concluded the physical body of man is not
the ātman (Annmaya Sarīra= physical maintained by food) they penetrated (understand) deeper into
the human body in search of eternal soul ātman) that lives in the person. At this second state, they
thought the Prāṇa (energy) that makes man work as the ātman but later they understood that the
strength of the person is not eternal. It fluctuates (change) person becomes weak when he gets sick
or old. They reject the Prāṇamaya Sarīra (the strength makes man work) the energy as the ātman.
The followings are mentioned:

1) Annamya Sarīra (the body maintained by food)

2) Prāṇa Sarīra (the strength that makes man work)

31
 3) Manomaya Sarīra ( the mind that commands the person to act)
4) Viññāṇa Sarīra ( the entity that mind is based and makes mind work)

As the third, Upaniṣadic sages introduce the Mind as the ātman (Manomaya) they fell that
mind acts backwardly if the mind is perfect as Brahma it should not be backward they continued
their research for ātman, which holds the qualification of Brahma. They found the Viññāṇa as the
ātman. This stage also did not comply with basic qualification of ātman.

It was clear that Viññāṇamaya stage of the ātman did not reach the true nature of reality.
Viññāṇamaya sarīra was not able to show the eternal nature of the ātman. Finally, they decided that
ātman exists but cannot be explained. They penetrated deeper into the human body but were unable
to find the immortal ātman that exists inside the person. In some other Upaniṣad sages tried to
approached the ātman using another strategy; they also tried to reach the immortal soul through
their sense experiences.

They took the living man as the soul (Jagrate), they experienced that the body of the living
man is subject to change but ātman does not change; it is immortal and unchanging. They rejected
the idea that ātman is visible in the external body of the living man; they considered that the ātman
becomes visible during the dream stage (Svapna) during the sleeping-man experienced bad dream.
If ātman is perfect and immortal then bad dream comes to him. If man experienced bad dream
during the dream stage that cannot be ātman. Susapti ātman is visible in the person during the stage
of deep sleep. Even at this stage Upaniṣad sages found that the ātman is imperfect because ātman
could not behave freely.
Three statements; Jagrate, Svapna, Susapati, Turiya, fourth stages when all attempt made
became futile Upaniṣad sages decided that the ātman exists but cannot be grasped; Upaniṣad sages
attempt to clarify the nature of ātman though it cannot be experienced personally. The Katha
Upaniṣad says that the Atman lives in the heart; ātman is inside of a finger »Angushtha matro
parisartartma sadā jananaṃ hucaye saññivishataka« Brahadāranyaka sages say that the ātman
leaves the body at the death and goes to another body, like the leaf goes from one leaf of grass to
another.

32
 UPANIṢAD THEORY (ORIGINAL BY VEN. TEZANIYA)

The word 'Upaniṣad' consists of three words – 'Upa' which means 'near', 'ni' which means
'down' and 'shad' which means 'be seated'. So Upaniṣad means „be seated at the feet of the guru to
receive the teaching.“ During ancient times, pupils used to sit near the teacher in a circle to learn the
holy teachings and sacred scriptures. The Upaniṣad philosophy basically indicates learning from a
spiritual teacher. The exact number of classical Upaniṣads is not known. Scholars differ when it
comes to estimating the number of Upaniṣads that exist. It is estimated that there are around 350
Upaniṣads that exist today.
The Upaniṣads constitute the Vedanta (Veda-anta), the end of the Vedas, not only they
constitute the last part of them, but all their ultimate teachings, reaching to the highest metaphysical
state, beyond which is the realm of peace. In fact, the most ancient Upaniṣads are a part of the
Vedas, and a part of the Śruti. So they constitute the fundamentals, the essence of the Hindu
philosophy. They are connected to the whole of knowledge and contain within them the exposition
of the origin of the Universe, the nature of Brāhmaṇ and jīvātman, the relation between the mind
and matter, etc... therefore, the main topic of the Upaniṣads is the ultimate knowledge: the
individuality of the Brāhmaṇ and the jīvātman.

The Upaniṣads are the first scriptures where the law of kamma first appeared as taught by
Yajnavalkya (Brihadaranyaka Upaniṣad). The characteristics of the Upaniṣads are their
universality and the total absence of any dogmatism. They are the highest philosophy ever
conceived by the human mind. Upaniṣads are the work of different authors and, separately the
'great Upaniṣads' belonging to the ṣruti we cannot say that they constitute a strictly speaking system
of philosophy, some of them being connected to certain particular sects, such as the cult of Śiva,
Viśnu, Durga, Ganeśa, Surya etc.

Here is a list of traditional Upaniṣads:

- Iṣavasya (major)
- Kena (major)
- Katha (or Kathaka) (major)
- Praṣna (major)

The Upaniṣads provide us with spiritual knowledge and philosophical reasoning. Upaniṣads
aim at attaining a level of understanding beyond ordinary knowledge about living. They aim at
seeking a higher level of understanding about survival. They seek to create awareness about our
purpose in life. They dwell on the psychology of the human mind. They speak about consciousness,
sub-consciousness and dreams. They go beyond ordinary knowing and aim at a higher level of
realization.
According to Swami Rama the Upaniṣadic literature is not a religious scripture and is free
from dogma and doctrines. It is not a part of any religion but is a philosophy for all times and for
all. This philosophy does not oppose any school of thought, religion, or interpretation of the
scriptures, but its methods for explaining its concepts are unique.

33
ŚRAMAṆA TRADITION (LECTURED BY VEN. ANANDA VIJAYARATNA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

It is the predicament of social, political, and economic situation of the Eastern part of India
during the day of the Buddha. In the Eastern part of India there were different communities
belonging to different cultures as it appeared in the Buddhist suttas; there were 16 major states
belonged to 16 nations and cultures. They are Anga, Magadha, Kāsī, Kosala,Vajjī, Malla, Cetī,
Vaṅsa, Kuru, Pañcāla, Maccha, Sūrasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhā, Kamboja; those states can be
classified under three groups according to their states, i.e.,
1). Developed
2). Developing
3) Undeveloped.*

Among those 16 states the Magadha and Kosala were considered as developed and powerful
states than others; Aventi and Vajji are among developing states. There were tribes who ate human
flesh among those under developed states. Powerful state, Magadha and Kosala, were fighting with
poor and rich states to expend their territories with view to build an empire. While Magadha and
Kosala were fighting with other states they fought with each others.

The king of Magadha, Bimbisāra and Ajātasattu were rivals of Kosala. This war brought
all states to disharmonious state. There were no inhabitants in those states wanted to fight against
each others; but they have to be voluntary to stand in the battle field. Most of them were farmer who
works in the paddy fields. In the Brahmāvartha (Indus Valley) Vedic teachings dominated as a
religion. There were no other popular religious practices, except the religious beliefs of non-Aryan.
The religious background of the East was very much different than the Brahmāvartha there are
number of religious sects; Ajita Kesakambalī, Pūraṇa Kassapa, Pakuddha Kaccāyana and
Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta, etc. were popular among them. They are all renounced in the early stage of
life seeking of the truth. All of them lived as homeless and mendicant. They spent much time of
their lives in the forest getting food from the forest. They had different views of the life and of the
ultimate freedom. The common teachers, they all are out of the view that the reality could be
understood only through self-mortification.

Ājīvaka were very much popular and strong in the Śramaṇa tradition they were engaging in
practicing self-mortification during their lives. They thought that Pain can be eradicated through
pain. Ājivaka was known as Acela. Acela means those who do not wear clothes; they remain in
nude and Nigaṇṭha also remain in nude too. Ājīvaka followed rigorous practices in becoming an
ascetic. They remove their hair and eyebrow pulling out each of them. After becoming an Ājīvaka;
some of them stay in the village while other stay in the forest. According to the source, Ājīvakas
were much older than the other Śramaṇa traditions. Some of these Ājīvikas were expert in astrology
and other kinds of trades such as Āyurveda (medicine) and mystical practices. These Ājivakas were
considered as opponent of the order of Buddhist monks. According to the Buddhist Vinaya Piṭaka
mentions that Ājivaka helps Buddhist monks.

According to the sources given above, Ājivikas are rivals of Buddhist monks. But there are
facts in the Vinaya Piṭaka to prove that Ājīvikas are friendly attitude towards Buddhist monks. As it
appears in the Vinaya Piṭaka once an Ājīvika invited the Buddha for alms. In other evidences an

34
Ājīvika who has a blood-relation of the king Bimbisāra requested the king to prepare the alms for
the Buddha.

So addition to that, the Vinaya says when the demise of the Buddha was informed to
Venerable Mah1kassapa by a group of Ājivaka. According to these facts it is clear that Ājīvika
cannot be considered as the rivals of the Buddhist monks. The rivalry between Ājīvikas and
Buddhist monks might be based on the differences of their doctrinal teachings. As it appears in the
Sutta !jivkas were very popular in the day of the Buddha. They had a large group of disciples.

According to Suttanta Piṭaka in Saṃyutta Nikāya the six heretical teachers who lived during
the day of the Buddha were well-known and high respected by the people. Most of them were
under the royal patronage. Ājivaka existed in India as a popular Śramaṇa even after the falling of
Buddhism. The inscription written during the day of Dhammasoka says the king build houses for
Ājīvika at the top of hill Barabar.

Ājīvika continued to maintain their status even during reign of the king Dasatatha, the
grandson of the king Dhammasoka. The existence of Ājīvika even during the Brāhamaṇa period
was proved by their textual evidence the Viya Purāṇa says Ājīvika condemned the divine cast
system of Brāhmaṇa system. According to the sources Nandavacca and Kisasankacca were
known as the most senior of members of Ājīvika. Ājīvikas had their own method of teaching; they
do not obey others order they do not accept invitation for alms from others. They do not accept food
specially made from others.

Ājīvikas do not eat meal in front of animals; they do not accept food from pregnant women,
and they do not share food with others. The Sandaka Sutta of Majjhima Nikāya gives more detail
about the characteristic of Ājīvikas.

The behavior of Ājīvika has great impact with Jaina and Buddhist tradition Nanda Vacca
and Kisa Samkicca were known as founders of the Ājīvika tradition; Makkhalī Ghosāla was the
historic founder of Ājīvikas; Sāvatthi was the headquarters of Ājīvikas.

Learn for examination:

Brāhmaṇa period
Aranyaka period
Śramaṇa tradition
Upaniṣadic period
Compare Śramaṇa and Brāhmaṇa tradition

35
 ŚRAMAṆA TRADITION OR ASCETIC MOVEMENT IN INDIA (ORIGINAL BY VEN. HUNNY)

Śramaṇa tradition or ascetic movement in India can be recognized as a philosophical

movement, which stood against traditional Brāhmaṇic religion. In this regard many scholars are of
opinion that initiation of ascetic movement marks the beginning of new era in Indian religious and
philosophical movement. In the process of declining of religion and progress towards philosophy
many individual thinkers came into existence in addition to prominent Upaniṣad thinkers. Jaina
Mahāvīra and Śākyamuni Buddha can be recognized as the most prominent figures that gave
birth to the new era. There were many contradictory opinions relevant to the origin of ascetic
movement. As we are aware, traditional Brāhmaṇic religion or Brāhmaṇism dealt with mundane
matter. Brāhmaṇic rites and rituals were centered upon worldly gain. Up to Brāhmaṇic period
people turned to depend on outside courses that were considered as more powerful than oneself.
They were outward dominated and not inward dominated. In the contrary they did not attempt to
identify the internal course that could be directed to overcome or understand external courses. The
inferiority complex, with regard to relationship between oneself and the external world made them
more and more confident on powerful external courses. Sacrifice became compulsory medium of
getting thing done. Brāhmaṇic priests became the mediators between external course and man
coincidence with complex of rituals and with the development of thinking. Intellectual power of the
era attempted to search out truth within oneself and external world. This attempt resulted in
perceiving the reality of ātman and Brāhmaṇ. Scholars such as Dass Gupta tried to say that
Upaniṣadic approach to seeking knowledge is not a new movement, but a gradual progress
descendant from Vedic and Brāhmaṇic period. Anyhow it is more rational and evidential to assume
that Upaniṣadic philosophical result of new movement came into existence against complex
ritualism in Brāhmaṇism. In other words, it is not evolution of Vedic thought but new movement
came into existence against Brāhmaṇic teaching. Some scholars such as B. C. Bunte tried to make
another opinion in this regard. According to them Vedic tradition and ascetic tradition collaterally
developed in India from the inception of Aryan religion. Their thesis is that after the Aryan invasion
Vedic religious tradition developed but non-Aryan religious traditions did not disappear, they were
persistent. According to their opinion śramaṇa tradition was not a new movement, but its origin
goes back to Indu Valley Civilization. There are some rare evidences for accepting that existence of
asceticism during the Vedic period. Rgveda mentioned about a śramaṇa in a vague form. The detail
given in this śramaṇa is evidential to the existence of śramaṇa at the time of Vedic religion. Kesi
Sukga in Rigveda depicts the position of Muni during that period. According to this Vedic record
this śramaṇa had long hair and beard, wore yellow robes, wandered from place to place addicted to
intoxicants and had an awful appearance. This description of śramaṇa contained in Rgveda depicts
that śramaṇa was not a popular figure during that period, but that there was a class of people who
were named as śramaṇa.

36
 ŚRAMAṆA TRADITION OR ASCETIC MOVEMENT IN INDIA
Śramaṇa tradition or ascetic movement in India can be recognized as a philosophical
movement which stands against traditional Brahmanic religion. In this regard many scholars are of
opinion that initiation of ascetic movement marks the beginning of new era in Indian religious and
philosophical movements. In the process of declining of religion and progress towards philosophy
many individual thinkers came into existence in addition to prominent Upaniṣad thinkers. Jaina
Mahāvīra and Śākyamuni Buddha can be recognized as the most prominent figures that gave
birth to this era. There were many contradictory opinions in relevant to the origin of ascetic
movement. As we are aware, traditional Brahmanic religion or Brahmanism dealt with mundane
matter. Brahmanic rites and rituals were centered upon worldly gain. Up to Brahmanic period,
people turned to depend on outside courses that were considered as more powerful then themselves.
They were outward dominated and not inward dominated. In the contrary they were not attempting
or identifying the internal course that could be directed to overcome or understand external courses.
The inferiority complex, with regard to relationship between oneself and the external world made
them more and more confident on powerful external courses. Sacrifice became compulsory medium
of getting things done. Brahmanic priests became the mediatoers between external courses and
man. Coincidences with complex ritualism and with the development of thinking, intellectual
power of the era attempted to search out truth within oneself and external world. This attempt
resulted in perceiving the reality of ātman and Brahman. Scholars such as Das Gupta tried to say
that Upaniṣadic approach to seek knowledge was not a new movement but a gradual progress
descending from Vedic and Brahmanic period. Anyhow it is more rational and evidential to assume
that Upaniṣadic philosophical result of new movement came into existence against complex
ritualism in Brahmanism. In other words, it is not evolution of Vedic thought, but new movement
came into existence against Brahmanic teaching. Some scholars such as B. C. Bunte tied to make
another opinion in this regard. According to them Vedic tradition and ascetic tradition parallelly
developed in India from the inception of Āryan religion. Their thesis is that after the Āryan invasion
Vedic religious tradition developed but non-Āryan religious traditions did not disappear, but rather
were persistent. According to their opinion śramaṇa tradition was not a new movement but its
origin goes back to Indus Valley Civilization. There are some rare evidences for accepting that
existence of ascetics during the Vedic period. Ṛg Veda mentioned about a śramaṇa in a vague form.
The detail given in this śramaṇa is evidential to the existence of śramaṇa at the time of Vedic
religion. Brahman and Ātman
Someone knows the Brahman, truth, knowledge as infinite. He receives all aspiration. This
is how the Brahman concept has been explained in Vedic literature. In Aitareya Upaniṣad Brahman
and ātman have been explained as ānandaṃ or happiness. Furtehr it says human beings live with
happiness. After their death they will go to the happiness. Therefore, all the beings are generated
from happiness. This explains and implies they have considered the human beings to live with
happiness. The Brahman concept can be seen in the Atharvan Veda as well as in Brahmanic
literature. Once they said universal origination is from the Brahman concept. It was the imaginary
concept. Therefore, Vedic teaching has considered the Brahman as the praying.(?) They have seen
some powers included in the praying.(?)
In Brahmin period, they have attributed special power to the praying. Therefore, they could
consider there could be power of creation. They accepted this power of creation was the initiative
force for the whole creation. According to that truth of external world was considered as the
Brahman. They wanted to know absolute truth concerning the human beings. As a result of that

37
they accepted there is the truth of spirituality within the men as ātman. Brahman concept gradually
has been developed. This concept has been realized according to the understanding of the Brahmin
priest. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is explained as the water. Soucillir(?) it is explained as
ajuee(?) and sky(?). Someone identifies this concept as the Sun and Moon. In this way Upaniṣadic
thinkers have explained according to their own understanding. Aitareya Upaniṣad has mentioned
that Brahman as the fellow human being. From which human being gets birth, where he lives,
where he goes after his death is Brahman. Further they said all the material things are Brahman.
Bbut animate things can't bbe explained through inanimate things. Therefore they considered prāṇa
or life force as the Brahman. Without material body the being can't live but through the material
body the sacredness of life can't be explained. Therefore, life force was considered as the Brahman.
But they couldn't explain the reality of the life force. Mind or the knowledge of material thing is the
different entity. It is considered as a Brahman. But they accepted there would be important reality
than the mind.(?) They thought it as the knowledge. They tried to explain the absolute truth through
the consciousness. But they were not satisfied with such an explanation. Therefore, they believed in
ānanda or happiness as the absolute truth. Further Upaniṣadic teachers said that Brahman can't be
realized through the visual things. It is invisible entity. The Sun, the wind, which represent the
Brahman's existence, Brahman can't be explained. There are not enough words to explain his
existence. Whatever the words we use to explain the Brahman, everything is Brahman.
Further Kena Upaniṣad says that whatever exists beyond our thinking, seeing and listening,
it is Brahman. Brahman can't be seen. No one can enter it. One who purifies the knowledge and
purifies the mind, through that, Brahman can be seen. On ewho sees Brahman he wards off
happiness as well as sorrow. Kesi Sukga in Ṛg Veda depicts the position of Muni during that
period. According to this Vedic record this śramaṇa was having long hair and beard, wore yellow
robes, wandered from place to place addicted to intoxication and had an awful looking. This
description of śramaṇa that is contained in Ṛg Veda depicts that śramaṇa was not a popular figure
during that period, but there was a class of people who were named as śramaṇa.

38
 THE BASIC VIEW OF THE DIVISION INTO BRAHMAṆA AND ŚRAMAṆA (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA 1995)

In ancient Indian system of thought, during the time of the Buddha and early Bbuddhism,
there were two great traditions; Brahmaṇa tradition and Śramaṇa tradition.
These two traditions are not two distinct compartments. We can not say that there is no
connection whatever with other, because the influences are there. Some special features of
Brahmaṇa traditions are as follows:
1. Vedic hymns were regarded as authority. According to Brahmaṇa system, Vedas were
considered as authority, bbecause they are śruti. No one can question the Vedas. Vedas are
correct. It is given to us by God. Vedas are always for authority. Any question has to be
understood in relation to what Vedas teach. So, Vedas are important thing in Brahmaṇa
tradition.
2. Recognition of the institution of castes (vraṇa dharma). Vraṇa means belief in the four
castes: Brahmaṇa, Kśastriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra. According to Brahmaṇa, these four castes
were only recognized castes. If one does not belong to these four, he or she was not regarded
as human and could be treated like an animal. Brahmaṇas believed that caste system is the
heritage from God. God gave it to us, it is Dayāda - what men have is gift from God. So,
they thought, where there is human society, there must bbe the four castes. So, caste system
is the second important thing in Brahmaṇa tradition.
3. Recognition of Āśrama. There are four āśramas. They are:
1. Brahmacariya – the being of a student
2. Gruhastha – when one lives as a householder
3. Vraṇaprastha – when one went to the forest as a hermit
4. and Sannasi – ultimate realization of God.
Thus, Brahmaṇas divided the life of a person into four stages. These āśramadharmas are
also necessary for Brahmaṇa tradition.
4. Recognition of a creator God. This is a part of Brahmaṇa tradition. Brahmins believe that
Brahma is a creator God, and human beings and the world are creations. In the
Mahāpuruśa Sūtra it is mentioned that when Brahma created human beings, Brahmins
came out from his mouth, from his arms the Kśātriyas, from his thighs the Vaishyas and
from his feet the Śūdras. Besides, Brahmins thought that they are superior than others. The
others are to follow. In the list of priority, Brahmins come on top.
5. Women were not considered equal in society. In Brahmaṇa tradition, women were limited
to the house. They only had to look after the house and serve their husbands. They were
occupied in society, generally like a servants or the husband. Nothing more for them. These
are generally characteristics of Brahmaṇa tradition.

Some Śramaṇa traditions which are opposite to Brahmaṇa tradition, are as follows:
1. Not regard Vedic hymn as the authority. According to Śramaṇas, Vedas are not infallible,
these are not the last words and the only truth.

39
2. Non-recognition of the institution of castes. Śramaṇas did not recognize caste system as
Brahmaṇas recognized. In Śramaṇa tradition it is free from caste system. No emphasis to
castes.
3. Non=recognition of Āśrama. Āśrama is not recognized by Śramaṇa tradition as Brahmaṇa
tradition recognized. Only Brahmaṇa tradition recognized Vraṇa and Āśrama. In Śramaṇa
tradition, Āśramadharma order is not valid in the same way. They did not follow the order
in the same way.
4. Non-recognition of a creator God. In Śramaṇa tradition, there is no God who can create
human beings and the world. There eis no external authority (such as a God) on good and
babd action. Everything appeared not because of creation of God, but because of the nature
of peoples§ moral causation.
5. Women were given a better life under Śramaṇa tradition. In Śramaṇa tradition, women were
allowed to enter into ordination like in the Bhikkhunī-sāsana. They were able to renounce
the householder's life and were able to find the truth or the way of liberation.
1. These two traditions can not be regarded that they have no whatever connection with one
another. They can not be separated from one another, because they influence each other
in both ways.

40
 BRĀHMAṆA AND ŚRAMAṆA
The religion of ancient India was broadly and mainly divided into Śramaṇa tradition and
Brāhmaṇa tradition. Majority has the view that Vedic tradition is the older of the two. Those who
hold this view trace the beginning of Indian religion history to the Ṛg Vedic period.
As description given in Aitareya Upaniṣad, Brahmaṇa was defeating the form and figure of
Muni during that period.(?) Brahmaṇa questioned and advised Muni as follows: „What is the use of
dirty yellow robe? What is the use of wearing animal’s skin? What is the use of growing beard?
What is the use of celibacy? Wish and deliver son, increase progeny - that is praiseworthy in the
world.
Scholars who considered ascetic movement have a gradual evolution of Vedic religion and
some opinions were evolved from Saññāsī concept. In Brahmanist concept Sukumadat and Abeke
who opposed this opinion said that the Saññāsī stage of four āśramadharma postages of life was
later addition to Bbrahmanic teaching. It is responded that Brāhmanic teacher against śramaṇa
movement. This argument is contained in early Upaniṣad in which such as Bṛhadāraññaka and
Chāndogya mentioned only three āśramadharmas, no Saññāsī stage. In this regard he got the
standpoint that when ascetic movement came to popularity, Brahmanic teaching was appended
Saññāsī stage to their system. From the above evidences, we can assume that śramaṇa tradition is
parallel service with Vedic tradition. But it is more reasonable factual to accept it, as a movement
came into existence, not divided from Brahmanic tradition, but against Brahmanism.
It is evidential that some Āryans who practised sacrifices and perceived meaninglessness in
Brahmanic rituals and sacrifices. For instance, some ascetics who practised and evaluated
individual development belonged to Āryan society. The ascetics such as Aśvatikaikiya,
Ajātaśatra, Janaka belonged to Kśātriya clan, whereas Uddhālakaruni to gain the knowledge on
soul and ātman. This indicates that śramana movement is a new movement which came out against
Brahmanic tradition without having Āryan and non-Āryan history.
Ascetic movement can bbe recognized as a movement conducted by independent
individually. It is an effort of them to find new teachings against Brahmanism. Those ascetics who
profess difference between teachings were named differently: Ājīvaka Śramaṇa, Parippurājaka,
Ajelaka, Nigaṇṭha, tapasa, Bhikkhu, Yakki, Muni, Brahmacāri, some of names referring to the
ascetics who lived contemporary to Buddha. Though they professed different teachings and
belonged to separated schools they had some common characteristics. All of them unanimously
rejected Vedic theory. All led mendicant life and practised celibacy, their objective was to find out
absolute truth. Among those various ascetic schools, Buddhism and Jainism held unique position
that the others and these two schools continue to the present day subjected to various changes in the
history of their religions.

41
 WHAT ARE THE DISTINGUISHED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUDDHA AS AN ASCETIC?

There were two main religious traditions during the Buddha's time. These were Brāhmaṇa
and Śramaṇa. Buddha was also of the Śramaṇa tradition. Though Śramaṇa tradition constituted of
teachers upholding different religious teaching in practice most of them were more close to ascetic
practices. The exception was the materialist Ajita. His practice was kāmasukhallikānuyogo which
the Buddha denounced by describing as hīno, gammo, pothujjaniko. Though he did not totally
encourage ascetic practices, he rejected any kind of extremism.
Both in practice and teaching the Buddha differed from other ascetics. His hallmark
teaching was the middle path (majjhima patipadā). In that he did not only emphasized mental
culture and wisdom culture, but also virtue culsture. In that he differed from Śramaṇas such as
Ajita, Makkhalī, Pakudha and Pūrana. He was not sceptic, for he had positive attitudes towards
problems of man. Unlike a fatalist like Makkhalī the Buddha emphasized the importance of vīriya,
purisakāra, purisathāma etc. Thus stressing the efficacy of human striving and effort.
Unlike many other ascetics the Buddha gave importance to kiriyavāda, viriyavāda and also
to kammavāda. He emphasized the fact that man is a free agent who is responsible for his suffering
and happiness. This was a totally new approach, in a religious background where one's destiny was
attributed to either an outside power, fate or even chance-happening.
His philosophy of dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) was a completely new
perspective about man and his predicament. His rejecting attā (ātman) was a distinguishing feature
in his teaching. AnattL and paticcasamuppāda teachings presented a world view that was peculiar
to Buddhism.
While declaring that his teaching is well taught (svākkhāto), he did not, like other ascetics
insist that others should follow his teachings blindly. The Kālāma sutta, Vimaṁsaka sutta show his
liberality towards freedom of thought. Though like most other Śramaṇa teachers he also accepted
kamma (like for example Jainas), he never made man a slave of his kamma like the Jainas did (e.g.
pubbekatahetuvāda).
His social philosophy was also different from that of other Śramaṇa groups. In fact basing
his social philosophy on his central teaching of paṭiccasamuppāda he preceded an evolutionary
theory of society and social institution.
Even with regard to his own Saṁgha he attempted to maintain a separate identity. He
adopted certain rules and norms from the prevailing system but changed them to suit the
circumstances and the objective of his mission. This is seen from the onward appearance of his
disciples as well as from their inward spiritual culture.
Thus, one could see many distinctive characteristics in Buddha's Sāsana.

42
 THE CONCEPT OF TOTALITY (THE ALL) IN THE UPANIṢAD AND EARLY BUDDHISM (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA
1995)

Upaniṣadic thinking is one of the pre-Buddhist thoughts. The background where it arose is
Upaniṣadic thought. Vedas gave rise to Upaniṣadic thought.
Upaniṣads commenced at about 8th century B.C., before the arise of Buddhism and it
represented the Vedas. In the Vedic period, there are four stages:
1. The first stage is polytheism, which believed in number of gods such as Sun god, Moon god,
rain god, thunder god etc.
2. The second stage is Henotheism, which means out of a number of gods one was selected and
appreciated and worshiped.
3. The third stage is monotheism, which means a belief in one God, Prajāpati, the creative
God, Brahma
4. The fourth stage is monism, which believes in one ultimate reality which is called Brahma.
This monism is the last tage of development in the Vedic thought before the arising of
Buddhism. Upaniṣad is a monistic system because it believes in the ultimate reality,
Brahma. It said that Brahma is the cosmic soul, universal soul and the ultimate soul. Each
person has a soul which is individual soul. So, there are many thousands of individual souls
in the world, but there is no difference between the cosmic soul and individual soul.
Ultimately both are the same.

The word Upaniṣad means to approach and sit at the feet of a teacher to listen to what he
tells. Because Upaniṣadic thought contributes or represents a secret doctrine which can not be
publicly announced.
The principle(?) Upaniṣads are very old and its texts are 13 in volumes. They were known
as pre-Buddhist Upaniṣad s. But today there are more than 200 groups. Some of them are composed
in prose and some in verse. Out of those 13 pre-Buddhist Upaniṣad s, there are two very important
ones. They are Bṛhadaranyaka and Sāndogya Upaniṣads.
The fundamentals of central doctrines of Upaniṣads are described in three ways:
1) Ekameva advitiyaṃ – only one, without the second. The world has to be understood as one.
It can not be divided or separated. The world or universe represents a real unity.
2) Sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ Brahma – everything is Brahma. Therefore there can be no multiplicity
or diversity in Upaniṣad. For example, myself, my mother, my teacher, my friend etc. Are
different from one another, but in Upaniṣads this division is wrong. Myself and my friend
etc. Are equal because they are all Brahma. So, it is said that thinking – that it is different
from one another or diversity is Maya, unity is reality (Vidya).
3) Tat tvaṃ asi – you (individual soul) are that (the universal soul). It means individual soul
and Universal soul are one or identical. In other words, universal soul is nothing but
individual soul. Two are identical.

43
 Therefore, in Upaniṣad, it is said that to think in terms of multiplicity or diversity is to be
influenced by Maya (delusion). One must overcome delusion. So long as he multiplies two souls, he
is under the influence of Maya in the wrong path. To understand the identity (unity) with Brahma is
Vidya (reality). To know in this way is called Brahmavidya.
So, Brahmins believed that when a person knows Brahma, he is free from all bondage, his
sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. This is their liberation from all bondage and
suffering.
Upaniṣad ic teachings are sometimes represented in the Buddhist texts. For example:
(1) So lokko so attā – the world and the soul are one. It means the universal soul and the
individual soul are the same.
(2) So haṃ pecca bhavissāmi – I, the individual soul, will unite with Brahma.
(3) Nicco – I will be permanent
(4) Dhuvo – I will be steadfast.
(5) Sassato – I will be eternal.
(6) Aviparināmadhammo – I will be unchanging.
(7) Sasati samaṃ tattheva thassāmi – I will be so there forever.
(8) Rūpaṃ attato samānupassati (vedanā etc.) - all material things in the world are seen as attā
(soul) by Upaniṣad.

According to early Buddhism, these views are diṭṭhiṭhana – the cause of wrong view, or the
tenet of speculative philosophy, diṭṭhinissaya – the foundation of speculation, sakkāyadiṭṭhi –
personality belief and upādāna – clinging. Buddhism does not recognize any eternal, permanent
reality as understood in Upaniṣads such as Brahma, Ātma, Creator, God etc. Buddhism says:
„Sabbaṃ pahatabbaṃ – Everything, all things should be given up. Because it does not really exist,
it is not permanent, bbut soulless.
The Lord Buddha said in his first sermon that everything in the world is impermanent, what
is impermanent is suffering, what is suffering is soulless. So, one must overcome those wrong views
together with roots, because they are impermanent and soulless. If one clings to them, he is bond to
suffering. In other words, so long as he clings to them, he is not free from suffering and bondage.
In Paṭiccasamuppāda it is said that through clinging is conditioned the process of becoming.
If one does not give up the clinging, he has to continue from life to life. He will never be free from
all sufferings. So, if one wants to get free from all suffering, he must overcome those wrong views,
clinging and evil will together with their roots.
So, early Buddhism definitely opposed to the teachings of Upaniṣads. In Alagaddūpama
Sutta it is mentioned that the Lord Buddha criticized it (the Upaniṣads) that such belief is
completely foolish (kevalo hi bhante paripuro baladhammo).

44
 THEO-CENTRIC RELIGION AND MONOTHEISM

Theo-centric religions are those religions which are centred on the belief in an omnipotent,
omnipresent, omniscient God. These religions are comon to both East and West. Hinduism,
Christianity, Islam, Judaism are such religions.
According to these religions the God is the creator, the sustainer and destroyer of the world.
He is the Lord and the master of everything. Everything functions according to his wish and will.
Nothing happens without his knowledge. He is the designer of everything.
In these religions the man is represented just as a tool or puppet in the hand of this supreme
God. The man's destiny, his happiness and sorrow all depend on the God. It is the God that divides
what kind of life he gets.
So, in these religions the man is without freedom of thought, with no free-will and therefore
having no freedom of choice. Efverything is decided in heaven by the supreme Lord, whose
decisions are final and unchangeable.
All these religions believe in the concept of sin. For the sin is action against the command of
the God. For such one is punished by the God himself. Forgiveness could be obtained by confessing
and repentance, not to transgress again.
Similarly, those who do meritorious deeds are rewarded and reattributed for their good
deeds. Here is the destiny of those who break the God's law and heaven or companionship with the
God in his kingdom is the reward for merit.
So, in all these religions the God is looked upon not only as the Creator, sustainer and the
destroyer, but also as the punisher and rewareder. He is the savior of the good and the denouncer of
the bad.

Monotheism is the belief in a single Creator God. This God is omnipotent, omnipresent and
omniscient. In Vedic religion this is represented in the third stage of development. The first two
stages are: polytheism and henotheism. From henotheism developed monotheism, this is the result
of searching for one single force that is responsible for the creative sustenance and destruction of
the world.
The Vedic sage thought that there was such an all-powerful Creator God who was named
differently as Brahman, Vesvakarman, Varuṇa, Prajāpati etc. They say that the God is one through
the wise(?) call them by different names. This single God is the creator and the substance and the
overlord of the whole world.

45
 BRĀHMAṆA PERIOD

After the Vedic period there came the religious thought very popular. They came to wonder that
if there is life or existence after death. They thought positively. Death was not the en of life. Life was
like the seasons, month after month. It had its circle. After death men went to Yama, who looked after
or kept them in sky or heaven. After sometimes those who did good or bad had to go to Yama after
death and he would give a decision whether they go to heaven or hell. Someone left behind of the death
did merit for him at that time.(?)

Brahmins became powerful and rich in that period because of Yāga, but before there were poor
Brahminds during the Vedicperiod. Brahmins were (like lawyers to judge) mediators to the gods.
Without their mediation no one could speak to gods directly. Mediators were very respectable in
society.
Doing a sacrifice is said to be rich and prosperous. To get the blessings of the gods, Brahmins
became the mediators or the organizers of the sacrifices. They happened to charge money from people
who wanted to perform sacrifice little by little. Then they charged more and only rich people could
perform sacrifices through their mediation. To do any sacrifice, there where three kinds of Brahmins
who could read and write:
1. Hotru (person who prepares the Yāga (sacrifice))
2. Udgatru (person who calls the gods and deities to accept the Yāga)
3. Advaryu (the director of the sacrifice)

The Brahmins introduced themselves as the gods on the Earth (bhūdeva). Those who could read
and write became the advisors to the kings, matehematicians, astrologers, lawmakers and so on as others
were illiterate. Ime by time they wanted to become the high class in society and created the idea of four
classes or caste system. Brahma creates world and men!
It was supposed that Brahmins were created from the mouth, Kśātriyas from the shoulder (or
hand), Vaiśyas from the thigh and Śūdras from the feet of the Brahma. The first three are supposed to
be Aryans and the forth to be non-Aryans.
There are caste duties for every of the four castes:
1. Brahmins – preaching, teaching and so forth
2. Kśātriyas – protection of the country
3. Vaiśyas – production, exchange of goods etc.
4. Śūdras – servants to all other three castes.

There were much discrimination and no equalities in everything with regard to the law etc. All
women of any caste did not have freedom. Those mentioned above were the conditioned during the
Brahmaṇa period.

46
 BRĀHMAṆ

According to the Vedic literature the Brāhmaṇ is the truth and knowledge of infinity. In Taitriya
Upaniṣad, Brāhmaṇ and ātma have been explained as anandaṃ or happiness. It says that the human beings live
with happiness and they also will go to happiness at the end of death. They said that the original universe started
from the Brāhmaṇ. But it was an imaginary concept. So the teaching of Veda has considered the Brāhmaṇ as
someone to be prayed to.
In the Veda period they accept that the Brāhmaṇ is the initial person in the world, the truth of external
world and he who created the whole world. But they want to know absolute truth of the human beings. As a result
they accepted there is the spiritual truth inside the men as ātma and this concept has been gradually developed. In
Chandogya Upaniṣad there it is explained as water, space and sky. And then someone identifies this concept with
the Sun and Moon. Thus Upaniṣadic thinkers have explained it as their own understanding. After death of person
everything what he got – birth, place where he lived and went, came from Brāhmaṇ. If so, then everything is
being like Brāhmaṇ.
But they cannot say where Brāhmaṇ is. Therefore they considered Prāna or life force is Brāhmaṇ and
'mind' or 'knowledge' is Brāhmaṇ. They try to explain the absolute truth through the consciousness. But they did
not satisfy with that explanation. So they believed that ānandaṃ or happiness is the absolute truth. Upaniṣadic
teachers said Brāhmaṇ cannot be realized by the visual things and he is an unseen entity. Kena Upaniṣad also says
whatever exists beyond our thinking, seeing and listening is Brāhmaṇ. But they cannot guide who Brāhmaṇ.(?)
Therefore there are not enough words to explain his existence. Because of that everything is Brāhmaṇ.

»Tam durdaram gudamanu praviṣtaṃ,

Guhahitaṃ gahvareṣtaṃ purānaṃ.
Addhya mayo gadhigamena devaṃ,
Matva dhiro harṣasokau jahati.«

Once there was a dialogue between Najiketa and Yama. Najiketa asked for three bulls(?) from Yama:
1. To go to his father without dying.(?)
2. To have all kinds of wealth.
3 To know whether the ātma will die or not.

Then Yama told Najiketa: „You may ask to live in this world as long as you like. You may have all
kinds of wealth. but you should not ask the third one. But Najiketa asked about the third bull(?) again and again.
Then Yama gave brief explanation as follows:

»Na jayate mriyate va vipascit,

Nayam kutascitnababhuva kascit.
Ayo nityam sasvato yam purano,
Na hanyate hanyamane śarīre.«

The most famous concepts are Brahma world, Candra world, Aditya world, Gandharva world, space,
wind and water.

Anyway, Upaniṣadic thinkers have thought the Brāhmaṇ as the greatest religious stage. So during the
Candogya Upaniṣadic period, they said that everything what exists in this world is the Brāhmaṇ - »Sarvaṃ khalu
idaṃ brahma«. But the Brāhmaṇ cannot be seen by our eyes or knowledge and how he exists in the world cannot
be explained through our words. It can be experienced by one's individuality. He can be understood only through
meditation. In deed there is fulfilling the Brāhmaṇ in the world.

47
 ??? (UPANIṢADS AND BRĀHMAṆ)
??? world, the space world with the Ghandarva world, the Ghandarva world with the Aditya world.
Aditya world with the Chandra world, at the end whole thing has the relation with the Brahma
world. Accordin gto that whole world has the relation with the Brahman. Further Yajñavalka says
the state of the Brahman should not be questioned. It is difficult to explain. In this way the concept
of Brahman has developed and ultimately everything is Brahman, they said.
The word 'idam' has been used to denote any material which can be seen in the world.
Upaniṣadic thinkers thought it is the sole power of this world. Actual nature can't be explained
using the word, the language that is not developed much. It is beyond senses. We can't see, listen,
smell and touch. Therefore it is beyond our sense capacity. There is no suffix or prefix which can be
used. It goes faster than mind. It always goes beyond our [Link] do not have enough power to
empower it. It has bbeen considered as the originality of the entire thing. Therefore it is sole entity
in this world. Brahman is thoroughly existing (sat) and he doesn't exist (asat) have been used to
explain the Brahman. This explanation implied the Brahman inexplicable. According to Ceva
Upaniṣad it is said that Brahman doesn't come to eye. It doesn't come towards to the mind.
Therefore, the Upaniṣad says it is the entity which should be understood. By developing the mind
Brahman can be understood, says Atareya Upaniṣad. Upaniṣadic philosopher has made exertion to
explain the Brahman as eternal entity. It is among the people and unexplained.

48
 QUESTION: WHAT IS THE UNITY OF BRAHMAN AND ĀTMAN?

After accepting the truth of the person, they tried to understand the truth of universe by
comparing person with the great person of the universe. The universe has been compared to the
person, human being. They believed the respective limbs of the univers gave the birth of human
being. Upaniṣad thinkers tried to understand the things as it is which comes within the sense organ.
They did not divide the whole things into the pieces and tried to understand the things which
conceived all the things at once. When this idea was developed the Brahman concept came into
existence. Upaniṣadic thinkers first tried to understand the external world and through that they
entered to the human body and tried to understand the truth of human. After that they said that
thuman being meant the truth of the ātman and material world is the truth of the Brahman.
According to that truth of universe it is called jakata(?) ātman microcosm and the truth of the
human being is called brattiya(?) ātman macrocosm.
Aitareya Upaniṣad explains what the relationship in between Brahman and ātman is. It
further says the fire changes to speaking and enters to the person's mouth. The air changes to the
aspiration and enters human nose. The Sun changes to the eyesight and enters to the human being's
eyes. The direction changes to the power of listening and enters the ear of human being. Bushes and
glass come to the hair and enter the skin of human being. The Moon changes to the mind and enters
the heart of human being. When the person dies in the same way all the senses go to the respective
elements of the universe. For instance sound of the human being goes to the fire, aspiration to the
air, eyesight to the Sun, body to the Earth and so on. When they talk about the truth of individual
and world separately they could have seen it as a true thing, but when they talk about that formation
of ātman they could not know how it was formed from the universal ātman. Further they saw how
human body breaks up and the sense organs go to the universal ātman. Therefore they said the truth
of universe and human are not two truths but one. There is no second truth. All they spoke about the
wheel of the bull cart coming together to enter.(?) Likewise all the beings and all ātman come
together at the Brahman. Brahman as well as ātman is sole absolute truth of universe. Therefore,
none who realized it is the goal of the exertion. Upaniṣad teachers logically have said the truth of
the universe to be Brahman and truth of the bbeing to be ātman. Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad,
Mundaka Upaniṣad also had explained the quality of the Brahma. Svetaśavatra Upaniṣad informs
that Brahman is the first cause of the universe. Therefore, it should be considered as the sole aim
and goal. There is no other entity besides Brahman and ātman.

49
 BRAHMAN AND ĀTMAN
Someone knows the Brahman, truth, knowledge as infinite. He receives all aspiration. This
is how the Brahman concept has been explained in Vedic literature. In Aitareya Upaniṣad Brahman
and ātman have been explained as ānandaṃ or happiness. Furtehr it says human beings live with
happiness. After their death they will go to the happiness. Therefore, all the beings are generated
from happiness. This explains and implies they have considered the human beings to live with
happiness. The Brahman concept can be seen in the Atharvan Veda as well as in Brahmanic
literature. Once they said universal origination is from the Brahman concept. It was the imaginary
concept. Therefore, Vedic teaching has considered the Brahman as the praying.(?) They have seen
some powers included in the praying.(?)
In Brahmin period, they have attributed special power to the praying. Therefore, they could
consider there could be power of creation. They accepted this power of creation was the initiative
force for the whole creation. According to that truth of external world was considered as the
Brahman. They wanted to know absolute truth concerning the human beings. As a result of that
they accepted there is the truth of spirituality within the men as ātman. Brahman concept gradually
has been developed. This concept has been realized according to the understanding of the Brahmin
priest. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is explained as the water. Soucillir(?) it is explained as
ajuee(?) and sky(?). Someone identifies this concept as the Sun and Moon. In this way Upaniṣadic
thinkers have explained according to their own understanding. Aitareya Upaniṣad has mentioned
that Brahman as the fellow human being. From which human being gets birth, where he lives,
where he goes after his death is Brahman. Further they said all the material things are Brahman.
Bbut animate things can't bbe explained through inanimate things. Therefore they considered prāṇa
or life force as the Brahman. Without material body the being can't live but through the material
body the sacredness of life can't be explained. Therefore, life force was considered as the Brahman.
But they couldn't explain the reality of the life force. Mind or the knowledge of material thing is the
different entity. It is considered as a Brahman. But they accepted there would be important reality
than the mind.(?) They thought it as the knowledge. They tried to explain the absolute truth through
the consciousness. But they were not satisfied with such an explanation. Therefore, they believed in
ānanda or happiness as the absolute truth. Further Upaniṣadic teachers said that Brahman can't be
realized through the visual things. It is invisible entity. The Sun, the wind, which represent the
Brahman's existence, Brahman can't be explained. There are not enough words to explain his
existence. Whatever the words we use to explain the Brahman, everything is Brahman.
Further Kena Upaniṣad says that whatever exists beyond our thinking, seeing and listening,
it is Brahman. Brahman can't be seen. No one can enter it. One who purifies the knowledge and
purifies the mind, through that, Brahman can be seen. On ewho sees Brahman he wards off
happiness as well as sorrow.

»Tam durdaram gudamanu praviśṭam,

Guhahitam gahvareśṭam purāṇam.
Addhya mayogadhigamena devam,
Matva dhiro harśasokau jahati.«
(Kata Upaniṣad)

50
 Once there was a dialogue between Najiketa and Yama. There Najiketa asked about three
bulls from the Yama:
1. to go to his father without dying
2. to have all kinds of wealth
3. to know whether the ātman dies or not

Then Yama told Najiketa: „You may aks to live in this world as long as you like. You may
have all kinds of wealth. But you should not ask the third one. Then Najiketa again and again asked
about the third bull. Then Yama has given brief explanation as follows:
»Na jayate mriyate va vipascit,
Nayam kutascitnababhuva kascit,
Ajo nityam sasvato yam purāṇo,
Na hanyate hanyamane śarīre.«
Brahma world, Candra world, Aditya world, Gandharva world, Space, Wind, Water
Anyhow Upaniṣadic thinkers have thought that the Brahma was a stage which could be
aquired through some religious performances. This one has been considered as a great religious
stage. Therefore, at the Chāndogya Upaniṣadic period whatever the things exist in this world,
everything was considered as the Brahman: „Sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma.“ Therfore, they claimed
that the Brahman could not be explained either externally or internally. It was immovable which
runned faster than mind. Always it went beyond the senses. According to Iṣa Upaniṣad Brahman
stayed near as well as afar, inside as well as outside. It lived in a secret life. It was the first cause.
All the beings couldn't understand it by worldly knowledge. It was the greatest thing which should
be understood as sat or asat. Our eye or world does not go to the Brahman; therefore no one can see
the Brahman. No one can explain the Brahman. It should be experienced individually. Brahman can
be understood through the meditation. Brahman pervades over the world.

51
 QUESTION: GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF THEORY OF REALITY PRESENTED BY UPANIṢADIC THINKER (ORIGINAL BY VEN.
HUNNY)
In Upaniṣadic period the word Brahman had been used to denote the truth of the external
world. The word ātman had been used to denote the inner reality of a person. Upaniṣad
philosophers wanted to know what the ātman is. Some scholars say the word ātman is from the root
ann (meaning breathing).
In early period the word ātman had been used as the synonym of prāṇa. Which was
considered most important thing of being. Being was identified whether it was living or died
because of the prāṇa. Therefore, tman was considered as the prāṇa. Gradually various
interpretations had been given to the word ātman by Upaniṣadic thinkers, basically two
characteristics – permanency and sacredness.
According to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad at the very beginning the human body had been
considered as the ātman. When we go in front of the miror of water vessels we can see our
reflection there. Onece this reclection had been considered as the ātman.
But some Upaniṣadic thinkers did not like to understand this material body as the ātman and
rejected it. Material body is impermanent. At the end the body becomes ashes at the cemetery but
the ātman does not change or becomes ashes at death. By rejecting the concept of material body as
the ātman they believed it as the consciousness, which acted in the dream state. The person who
sees the dream is crippled, whereas in the dream he or she walks without having any deficiency.
Therefore, in this way the person is without deficiency. Acts in the dream state because of
the ātman. According to Bṛhadaranyaka Upaniṣad in the dream state there actually the things exist,
but all the things are imagination. The mind is the power of imagination. Therefore they understood
the power of imagination as the ātman. They believed the tman did not get impurity from the
defilements.
Therefore, the dream state was the state in which the ātman was activated. Further,
Upaniṣad mentioned that one sees the object and listens to the sound because of the ātman. Every
sensual contact can be made because of the ātman. Every sensual contact can be made because of
the ātman. Ātman is like a traveler.
And after death without being destroyed the ātman goes to another bobdy. With the ātman
this world and next world contacts together. It is like a bridge connecting this world and next world.
Finally Upaniṣadic thinkers say no one can touch and destroy this ātman. It is infinite. Only
one who practices meditation and purifies his mind can expreience the nature of ātman.

52
 ĀTMAN
The first Brahman has been used to denote the external word 'truth'. Ātman word then has
been used to denote the inner reality of person. What is ātman? Upaniṣadic philosopher wanted to
know. Scholars say that the word ātman is from the rood ann (meaning – breathing). In early beriod
the word ātman has been used as the synonym of prāṇa. prāṇa is considered most important thing
of being. Being is identified whether it is living or died become of the prāṇa. Therefore ātman was
considered as the prāṇa. Gradually various interpretations have been given to the word 'ātman'.
Basically two characteristics have been attributed to the ātman by Upaniṣadic thinkers:
1. Permanency of the ātman
2. Secretness of the ātman

Therefore the word 'sat' has been used by Upaniṣadic philosopher. According to the
Chāndogya Upaniṣad the very beginning the human body has been considered as the ātman. When
we go in front of the mirror or water vessels we can see our own reflection there. Once, this
reflection has been considered as the ātman. But some of the Upaniṣadic thinkers didn't like to say
this material body as the ātman. But some we see the dream on the basic of whatever we have seen
in awaken state. Some philosophers believe in the reality of the mind or original state of mind
would be seen in the dream state. Therefore, they believe that „human ātman is being explicit in the
dream state.“ According to Gṛhadaranyaka Upaniṣad those mentioned in the dream state, there is
no actually the thing exists but all the things are imagination. The mind is the power of imagination.
Therefore they said the power of imagination is the ātman. They believed the ātman does not get
impurity from the defilements. Therefore the dream state is the state which the ātman activated. If
the ātman is material body, then when we adorn the material body, ātman would be adorned. When
we ornament the material body the ātman would be also ornamented. When we purify the material
body ātman would be also purified. When the body is crippled, then ātman is also crippled. When
the body is dead the ātman would be also dead. When the body is destroyed the ātman would be
also destroyed. In that way the characteristics of body would be explicit in the tman if we believe
the body as the ātman. Therefore, Chāndogya Upaniṣadic thinkers rejected the body as the ātman.
Material body is impermanent. It gets ugly and decays when the time passes. At the end the body
becomes ashes at the cemetery but the ātman does not change or becomes ashes at the death.
Therefore formerly they rejected the concept of material body as the tman. By rejecting this they
believe as the ātman the consciousness which acts in the dream state. Chāndogya Upaniṣadic
thinkers say original state of the consciousness can be seen in the dream state. In that state though
the person who sees the dream is crippled in the dream state he walks without having any
deficiency. Therefore in this way the person without any deficiency acts in the dream state because
of the ātman. When Upaniṣadic thinkers tried to find out the truthness of human being they have
mentioned as follows:
???
Further Upaniṣads have mentioned because the ātman person keeps contact with external
world person.(?) He sees the object and he listens to the sound because of the ātman. Every sensual
contact can bbe made because of the ātman. According to Upaniṣad ātman is like ???
Aṭṭhakavagga of Suttanipāta emphasized that metaphysical speculations depend on the
consciousness. A person which has been formulated out of various capabilities of apprehension of

53
aperson.(?) The major ?ment(?) pertaining to metaphysical ground have been presented in a verse of
Suttanipāta in this way: „How can men abandon their own view which they cherish as they
organized them led by inclination and engrossed with theri likes. As they understand, so do they
speak.“ (Suttanipāta p. 781).
The soul theory which was defined as a psychic principle, different from body, is ephemeral
and subject to cahnge according to Buddha's teachings. Upaniṣadic thinkers regarded that soul is
supersensible. The identity of soul and body held by materialists who denied the survival of
personality after death would be verified through sensory and extra sensory experience according to
buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings reveal nature of the saints(?) after death very clearly as that
position apprehended through extra sensory perception. According to Buddhist definition an
Arahant is unable to exist in any transcendental state because he has demolished all the craving
which cause rebirth. Anyway, the materialists denied the survival of Arahant as well as the ordinary
person after their death.
Although there are specific discourses concerning with the metaphysical speculation, the
Buddha was reluctant to answer those questions as they were of no use to get rid of the circle of
birth.
Reasoning without any empirical basis and conclusions on the metaphysical ground without
having direct knowledge to acquire the subject matters which are beyond the sensory perception are
the criticism on metaphysics in buddhist philosophical points of view. Anyway the saints(?) who
have developed super-cognitive ability are capable of apprehending the metaphysical concept. The
statements pertaining to metaphysical groun were regarded unsatisfactory, although they inspire
emotional feelings but meaningless(?). This has been understood as logical criticism of metaphysics
found in Buddhist texts. These statements were introduced as abbatihirakataṃ or nirattahakaṃ
(meaningless). These statements are regarded as meaningless because they are not verified in
experience. Sabba Sutta of the Saṅyutta Nikāya described this attitude in this way:
„Monks, I will teach you everything. Listen to it. What monks, is everything? Eye and material
form, ear and sound, nose and odour, tongue and taste, body and tangible objects, mind and mental
objects. These are called everything. O monks, he who would say – I will reject this everything – he
may certainly have a theory of his own, but when questioned he would not be ablbe to answer and
would moreover be subjected to vexation. Why? Because it would not be within the range of
experience.“ (Saṅyutta Nikāya, vol. VI, p. 15). Six spheres of experience corresponding to objects
are twelve gate-ways which are conducive to understand the visible ground of the world, but going
beyond these twelve gate-ways leads to conflicts and worry if one has not apprehended specific
visions which are helpful to perceive all the ground, physical or non-physical.
Superficial understanding of ordinary linguistic usage is also conducive to misinterpretation
of some concept. According to Cūlamaluṅkyaputta Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya), it has given solution
to undeclared (unanswered) questions leading to well being and does not contribute to the higher
religious life to renunciation, dispassion, cessation, pacification, insight, enlightenment or Nibbāna.
In the conclusion the origina nd extent of the universe, the nature of the soul or self and the
state of the saints(?) after birth have been categorized in the grounds of metaphysics. Mahāyāna
speculation regarding the Buddha and absolute are also included in this field.

54
 CONCEPT OF ĀTMAN

This is a concept devleoped by the Upaniṣadic teachers who taught monism. Being dissatisfied
with the Vedic theism and belief in sacrifice, they began to search for the true source of everything.
Striving through the Aranyaka period these Brahmin teachers in the period of Upaniṣad finally arrived
on the belief that the final source of everything is a „universal principle.“ This they called the
'Brahman'.
This is a metaphysical concept. Brahman is permanent and indestructible. It is the womb, the
matrix of everything. They conceived that everything that came of it was this Brahman.(?) There is a
little essence of it. So, in the undivided they believed that there is this essence of Brahma – the universal
soul. This essence in the individual, they called ātman – the individual soul.
According to them, this ātman is just the Brahman, in a miniature form: just metaphysical,
permanent and indestructible like the Brahman. According to them the understanding of the identify(?)
of ātman-Brahman is the supreme knowledge that gives freedom. So, they strove to attain this
knowledge through atthakilamatthānuyoga.

SOUL THEORY (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. MEDANANDA)

In many religions and philosophies the immaterial elements that, together with the material
body, constitutes the human individual. In general, the soul is conceived as an inner, vital and spiritual
principle, the source of all bodily functions and particularly of mental activities. Belief, that some kind
of soul can exist apart from the body is found in all known cultures.
Buddhism is a unique religion in that it teaches that the individual soul an illusion produced by
physical and psychological influences. Early Judaism made no sharp distinction between body and soul,
but by the middle ages (from 5th to 15th century) Jews considered the soul capable of surviving bodily
decay. Most Christians believe that each individual has an immortal soul and that the human soul and
resurrected body be granted with presence near the God in the afterlife. In Islam, according to the
Koran, God breathed the soul in the first human being and at death the soul of faithfuls are brought near
to God.
The philosophical Hindu writings, the Upaniṣads, identify the individual soul as divine. The
word ātman is found in the earliest Vedic hymns (verses). The derivation (coming from) of the word is
uncertain. It is something's held to have meant 'breath' at Hal(?) already acquired a more special
meaning.(?) It is the breath in the sense of life. And then the Sun is called the ātman of all that moves
and stands. The coming meaning is that of self a used with which is still found in the modern Indian
language. These meanings were properly, not distinctly separated. This life or self was something which
could have the body. Such as it is spoken of in the Rigveda, is as (manas).(?) Such conceptions coming
sown from what are called primitive times and continue in the Upaniṣadic.(?) It may have leaved the
body in sleep. Therefore let not wake him suddenly for heart is the healing of one to whom he doesn't
return Barhadharanik Upaniṣadic.(?)
So the sould theory is mentioned with various meanings by some scholars in the concepts of
religion.

55
 QUESTION: HOW THE CONCEPT OF ĀTMAN (SELF) VARIED IN HINDU RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION?
In India, Hinduism is the oldest religion. One of the great affirmations that all Hindu make is
that the transformation of human consciousness into divine consciousness, cannot be done a single
life-span.(?) It is not possible in one life time to make manš soul called ātman by Hindus. One with
reality which was the Hindu called Brāhman.(?) The repeated passing or transmigration of souls
through this world is meant by Saṅsāra.
Here I would like to present the concept of ātman. In India speculations regarding ātman are
from Vedic period – they took a final shape in Upaniṣads, which ever since remained fundamental
in Indian thought. Therefore, the word ‘ātman’ originally means ‘life-breath’ and gradually
acquired the meaning of feeling, mind and soul. In an old verse, the ātman means ‘that which
pervades all’, which is the subject and which knows, experience and illuminates the object and
which remains immortal without changing and always the same.
Hinduism considers two philosophies as mentioned above – ātman and Brāhman. According
to Hinduism the realization of the reality is the Mokṣa through this doctrine. Hindu philosophers
were interpreting both human being and universe. Ātman, the self, is the absolute reality of an
individual. Western philosopher called it as ‘microcosmos’. According to Bhagavadgīta it is said
that ātman is eternal, divine, changeless and everlasting.
But Mundaka refers that the fire is its head, the moon and the sun are its eyes, the four
quarters of the sky its ears, the Vedas are its speech, the wind is its breath and the universe is its
heart. The ātman is the eminent self of all beings and the transcendental background of both self
and non-self. None can doubt its reality. We have seen the ātman as the subjective side.
At the beginning of Vedic period there were some views regarding ātman as a human body,
some believed that ātman is the shadow of the man and the life, the mind the consciousness and the
self.(?) This evolution of concept of ātman concluded with realization that the ātman is the subtle
body in the human being. In the Saṅyutta Nikāya it is stated that the world is empty of a self or of
anything of the nature of a self.
The Buddha explained to Ānanda what is emptiness of self: „What is empty, Ānanda, of a
self or of anything of nature of a self? And what is related to mind? All these are void of a self or of
anything that is self-like.“
In the same way Buddha clearly explained that to believe in an eternal self is like a man
who fell in love with the most beautiful maiden in a country though he has never seen her. It means
the theory of eternal self or ātman is a misconception.
According to Hinduism, everything originated from the ‘universal self’ (viśva ātman) which
resides in every individual, so it is called ‘individual self’ (puggala ātman). Sometimes the
universal self is called Brāhman. The viśva ātman and puggala ātman are permanent. They arise
from life to life. To attain emancipation, one should practice self-mortification and realize viśva
ātman and puggala ātman. They are known as ‘eternalistic’.
According to Śramaṇa group, the ātman is not permanent and gets destroyed at the death of
body. There is no next life in their teaching. Therefore, one should enjoy this life as much as
possible. They are known as ‘materialists’.

56
 BEING & THE WORLD

In Vedic period people used to solve all the problems with the help of Brahman and ātman.
They thought that world was created by Brahman. It was goverend by Īśvara and destroyed by
Īśvara. Besides that there were some other thinkers who believed that the world existed
permanently. It didn't face to any change, they were thinking as eternalists. There were
annihilationsists who believed that the world was impermanent and it would change. Meanwhile
there were determinists who claimed the destiny of being and the existence of the world to be
unchanged by anyone but to flow forward due to the accepted systematic way. Buddhism rejected
the conceptions of annihilationsists, eternalists and determinists. We can see two words which have
been used as synonyms for world in early Buddhist literature – that of suburb(?) and the Dhamma.
What is world, why we call it as world, what are the reasons according to Buddhism_ We call it
world because it is subjected to change and break. According to Buddhism what(?) things have been
considered as the breakable and breakable things in Saṅyutta Nikāya it is explained as the breakable
things the eyes, form and the other senses and sense objects: »O Bhikkhus, the eyes are destroyed.
The form is also destroyed. Eyes consciousness is also destroyed. Eyes contact is also destroyed.
The feeling which is generated from contact is also destroyed. This is the world according to
Buddhism.“

57
 SIX RELIGIOUS TEACHERS IN THE SIXTH CENTURY BC

There were two religious traditions at the time of rise of Buddhism. These were Śramaṇa
and Brāhmaṇa. Both seemed to be of equal antiquity. Brāhmaṇa tradition goes back to Vedas and
the Śramaṇa can be traced to Indian culture. These were two opposing traditions. The Śramaṇa
tradition was represented by six teachers:
1) Ajita Kesakambala - He was the woe(?) known materialist in the Indian tradition and Cāruaka
system, perhaps represents his tradition. He was an amoralist.
2) Sañjaya Bellatthaputta - Though the Buddhist texts refer to him as a 'fool', he was a well-
known sceptic, who was not ready to give absolute answers, because he held that human knowledge
was limited.
3) Makkhalī Gosāla - He was an extreme fatalist who denied human effort and action and resigned
to fate and allowed fate to bring about salvation.
4) Pakudha Kaccāyana - He was an amoralist who came up with a theory of the being constituted
by seven elements: earth, water, fire, air, happiness, suffering and life (jīva). These constituents had
to be permanent and hence not destructible. Therefore there could not be neither killing nor a killer
etc.; hence he denied māras.
5) Pūrana Kassapa was also an amoralist who preached non-causation, and hence he was akiriya-
vādin.
6) Mahāvīra or Nigantha Nātaputta was the leader of Jainism. A teacher of extreme non-violence.
Believed in soul (jīva), and maintained that soul was in bondage due to being tainted by karma. To
release the soul one had to stop all karma for this it was necessary to undergo consequences for past
karma, and stopping collecting new karma. The practice he suggested was sever ascetic practice to
expiate all previous karma. He was a moralist and also an extremist.

The above account makes it very clear that the Śramaṇa tradition was a very complex one
ranging from utter materialism to total skepticism. This wide range of religious beliefs made people
become perplexed and confused. The Kālāma sutta shows this plight of the people. Some advocated
complete indulgence in sensual enjoyment and others total abstinence from it. The attempt by the
Jains to mix these two extremes, further completed the situation. Materialists rejected all ethical
norms and moral standards, Jains went to the extreme in emphasizing them and making normal
living difficult.
The fatalists made people to give up all hopes while skeptics prompted people to go away
from religion. It was in such a confused background that Śramaṇa Gotama came up with his novel
approach to man's predicament – dukkha. He said that dukkha and sukha were both within man, and
that by changing man's thinking, attitudes, approach to life one could live a contented life. That was
totally a new approach to the problem of dukkha, and the people accepted it as more pragmatic and
beneficial.

58
 SĀMAÑÑAPHALA SUTTA + SIX THINKERS OR TEACHERS3

Nigaṇṭhanātaputta was the founder of Jainism, who thought the extremist doctrine which lenth(?) some
regerslee(?) religious practices; example:
1. Not to kill living beings.
2. Not to take article of use unless they are given.
3. Not to tell a lie.
These were common to the schools of Jainism. In addition to these, they lead(?) life(?) self(?) but some Jains
live with their family. According to Janism they believed the result of all actions can be good or bad according to
previous conditions. In Sāmaññaphala sutta, Nigaṇṭhanāthaputta is mentioned as having held the doctrine of four-fold
restraint:
1. Absolute(?) by all water
2. Conjoined with all water
3. Cleaned by all water
4. Suffused with all waters
In the Udapādhi Sīhānanda sutta these practices are appeal(?) Jainism is(?) the philosophy but its based on
soul theory.(?) They thought that all the actions, good or bad, should be finalised by having results - »phussa phussa
byati karoti«.
The next important contemporary of the Buddha was Makkhalighosala. He belonged to the set of Acelakas
or Nekhepa. First part of his name indicates that he carried a staff of bamboo. It is said that he was a certain time a
disciple of Mahāvīra, but later broke away from him. Afterwads he probably founded a school. The doctrine adopted
by him was saṃsāravisuddhivāda, the doctrine of altering purity only while passing through all kinds of existence.

Ghosala didn't believe that there was any special course or either misery of human being or one's deliverance.
He didn't believe in human effort and held that all creators were helpless against destiny. He mentioned that all creators
whether wise or foolish would destroy their misery and accomplish the existence in the circle of saṃsāra. No human
effort would reduce or lengthen this period, like a ball, the saṃsāra has a fixed form.
The remaining four teachers who are mentioned were living during the Buddha's time and also taught some
heretical religious teachings.

Pūranakassapa was a religious teacher, who held the doctrine of akiriyavāda, or non-action. he mentioned
that a man didn't incur sin through actions which were popularly known as killing, committing adultery or telling a lie.
Similarly, according to him, one can't earn a merit through a good action or by staying on the another, South bank of
Ganges, similarly self-control, gif and truth-fullness thus didn't earn merits.(?) his teachings were similar to malerism(?)
which were religious(?) to ethical teachings.

Ajita Kesakambala was another religious teacher at that time, who also didn't believe in the utility of giving,
sacrifice, good or bad actions, existence of heavenly world or person possessing supernatural powers.4 He thought that
the body consisted of four elements into which it dissolved after death, not having any rebirth. He also thought both the
wise and ignorant die and have no further life after death. his ideas were similarly to the character of ideas classified as
ucchedavada (nihilistic).

Pakuddha Kaccāyana was probably a teacher, who taught asalakavāda. According to his idea, there were 7
elements, which were innutibable/indescribable(?) and didn't in any way contribute to pleasure or pain. The body would
be finally dissolved into these 7 elements.

The last one among these teachers was Sañjāya Bellatthaputta. His doctrine was known as vikkhepavāda, or
„a skeptical doctrine“ (saṃsayavāda). Whatever question one would ask, he would not answer as he thought that the
answer might reveal his ignorance.

3 The four-fold restraint of Jains is taken from the following lecture - „Philosophies of six teachers, the
contemporaries of the Buddha“ lectured by ven. Sīlavaṁsa and written by ven. Medananda. The original four-fold
restraint of this particular lecture was incomplete and totally wrong.
4 I do not know about this. According to my knowledge, he just didn't believe in existence of a recluse or a Brahmin,
who would have reached the highest point (Nibbāna) - »natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā
sammāpaṭipannā«.

59
 PHILOSOPHIES OF SIX TEACHERS, THE CONTEMPORARIES OF THE BUDDHA (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA)

At the time of the Buddha, there were six teachers who were contemporary of the Buddha. Their views were mentioned
in Sāmaññaphala sutta (Dīgha nikāya).
The first one was Pūranakassapa, who taught the doctrine of akiriyavāda (non-action). Pūranakassapa taught that „in
acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting other to torture, in inflicting sorrow or
getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking
life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, abusing high ways(?), committing
adultery, speaking falsehood – one does no evil.
If with an orzo(?)-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil.
Even if one were to go along the right bank of Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to
mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Through generosity, self-
control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming merit.

The second one was Makkhalī Ghosala, who taught the doctrine of purification through wandering on. He taught that
there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are delighted without cause, without requisite condition.
There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, and nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no
human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoied of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the
change of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great closes(?) of birth.

The third one was Ajita Kesakambala, who taught the doctrine of annihilation. he taught that there is nothing given,
nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad action. There is nor this world, neither next world, no
mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings, no priests or contemplatives (who, firing(?) rightly and practicing rightly,
proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
elements.) At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with (the external) earth-substance.

The fourth one was Pakudha Kaccāyana, who taught the doctrine of relatedness. he taught that there are these seven
substances, unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barre, stable, that do not after/alter(?), do not change, do not change,
do not interfere with another pleasure, pain or both pleasure and pain. Which seven?
1. Earth substance 5. Pleasure
2. Liquid substance 6. Pain
3. Fire substance 7. Soul
4. Wind substance

The fifth teacher was Nigaṇṭhanāthaputta, one of the founders of Jainism, who taught the extreme doctrine of the four-
fold restraint. he taught that there was the case where the nigaṇṭha – the knotless one – was restrained by that four-fold restraint. And
how is the nigaṇṭha restrained with the four-fold restraint?
1. There is the case, where the nigaṇṭha is absolute(?) by all water
2. Conjoined with all water
3. Cleaned by all water
4. Suffused with all waters

This is how the nigaṇṭha is restrained with the four-fold restraint. When a nigaṇṭha, a knotless one, is restrained with such
a four-fold restraint, he is said to be a knotless one (nigaṇṭha), a son of Nat (Nātaputta), with that his self is perfect, controlled and
established.
The last one was Sañjaya Bellaṭṭhiputta, who taught the doctrine of evasion (vikkhepavāda). He taught in this way:

„If you ask me whether there exists another world (after death), if I taught that there exists another world, would I declare it
to you? I don't think so. I don't think that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.
„If you ask me whether there is, whether there isn't another world, bot is and isn't, neither is nor isn't; whether there are
beings who transmigrate, whether there aren't, both are and aren't, neither are nor aren't, whether the Tathāgata exists after death,
whether he doesn't, both neither exists nor not exists after death,5 would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think that way. I
don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.
All above are mentioned in Sāmaññaphala sutta in Dīgha nikāya.

5 Actually, the Budda also didn't answer that question. The difference between the Buddha's answer and Bellaṭṭhiputta's answer is, that the
Buddha claimed the answer could not be understood by not-enlightened people, whereas Bellaṭṭhiputta did not point out anything like that.

60
 THE SIX IMPORTANT INDIAN HERETICAL TEACHERS (NOT COMPLETED)
In India, during the period of the 6th century B.C. There was a large number of teachers who
presented different religions and philosophies. Some of them are known to us through Buddhist and Jain
literature and some are not known. There were six famous śramaṇa or heretic teachers well known to
us:
1. Ajita Kesakambalī
2. Makkhalī Ghosāla
3. Purāṇa Kassapa
4. Pakuddha Kaccāyana
5. Nigaṇṭha Nataputta
6. Sañjaya Bellaṭhiputta
According to Ajita Kesakambalī, the idnividual is made of four great elements. He rejected the
belief in the other world. Thus he maintained ucchedavāda. He is known to have advocated ten views
which according to Bbuddhism are called micchā diṭṭhi (wrong view), namely:
1. no alms (natthi dinnaṃ)
2. no sacrifice (natthi yiṭṭhaṃ)
3. no prayer (natthi hutaṃ)
4. no efficacy of action (natthi sukata dukkatānaṃ phalaṃ vipāka)
5. no this world (natthi loko)
6. no other world (natthi paraloko)
7. no mother (natthi mātā)
8. no father (natthi pitāro)
9. no beings who have spontaneous birth (natthi opapātikā)
10. no samaṇa and Brāhmaṇa who understood through their direct knowledge and explained this world
and the other world (natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭippannā ye imañ ca lokaṃ
parañ ca lokaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti)
He rejected the authority of samaṇa and Brāhmaṇa. According to Buddhists these are the ten
micchā-diṭṭhi attributed to Ajita Kesakambalī. Salvation comes with death. Any person whether he or
she is wise or foolish will die. After death he or she is no more in the world, so, he or she will be free
from all difficulties, with death he or she attains salvatiíon. The attitude of Ajita Kesakambalī towards
society will be in terms of materialism. He will accept only social value, not religious value. For the
simple reason he does not take religion to guide his life.
According to Makkhalī Ghosāla people need not to attempt to attain salvation. It comes
automatically if one leads the number of life destined to one. People are believed to lead a certain
number of lives, they need not to try to change it. They cannot change it too. If you follow the number
of lives destined by destiny (niyanti) you will attain salvation. That is called saṅsāra suddhiṃ, which
means purification is attained by going through saṅsāra. This religious philosophy is called saṅsāra
suddhivāda (salvation by transmigration). This philosophy implied that there is no use of human effort.
He says »natthi attakāra natthi purisakāra.« Philosophically this means Makkhalī Ghosāla has denied
free-will. This means man has no place.(?) He is just a tool. Makkhalī Ghosāla’s attitude towards

61
society is that man is a product of destiny, he can neither change himself nor change the outside society.
He is just an instrument of fate.
Pūraṇa Kassapa taught that there is no effect of any deed, therefore his teaching is known as
akiriyavāda. He describbed this pointing out that any action good and evil does not produce any result
done in the upper part of the Ganges or the lower part of Ganges as those deeds don’t have any effect.
he rejected dāna (charity), self-restraint (sanyama) and speaking truth towards society. The reason is not
given. The religious value like dāna, sanyama and sacca vajja, which have social significance were
rejected by him. He did not want his disciples to follow kiriyavāda, moral action. The soul is not
involved in what people do.
Pakudha Kaccāyana advocated a theory of kāya (group, which included seven groups, namely:
paṭhavī (earth), āpo (water), tejo (fire), vāyo (wind), sukha (happiness), dukkha (pain) and jīva (soul).
According to him everything is made out of these seven groups depending on their nature. Using this
philosoophy he said when a person kills a man, no one is killing aperson or taking life out of that
person, but what happens is that the weapon (sattha), which is made out of seven elements passed
through that human being who is also made out of those seven elements. This shows that his attitude
towards society is quite different from that of other religious teachers. He interpreted man and his action
in terms of elements. Therefore, his thinking is a kind of mechanism. Man does not need to pay
attention to religious and social values.
Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is known in the Jaina tradition as Mahāvīra. He taught that life is
sorrowful and one must put an end to this life by following the path of austerity. Bbuddhism does not
accept that position. In the very first discourse the Buddha criticized that and treated it as an extreme
and called it atthakilamathānuyoga as a way of self-mortification. Mahāvīra believed in the existence
of soul not only in living beings but also in plants’ life and dead matter (animate and inanimate).
Therefore, his disciples have been asked to follow certain rules not to disturb the soul lying inside of
those things. They had developed a subtle philosophy. Their logic is called a theory of relativity because
they believed in relativity. Their daily activities, they made it a point not to disturbb them.(?) They were
against killing and also against any type of war. For this reason laity also has to follow a very strict code
of discipline. The discipline of Mahāvīra approved the observance of five precepts. When someone
follows these precepts he would be opposed to the attitude of Pūraṇa Kassapa, Pakudha Kaccāyana
and Ajita Kesakambalī.
Sañjaya Bellaṭṭhiputta like Pyrrho raised skepticism to a scientific doctrine and thus prepared
the way for a critical method of investigation in philosophy. First Buddha says: „there is a school of
thinkers, who are eel-wrigglers (amarā-vikkhepikas). When they are asked a question on this or that,
they equivocate and wriggle like an eel (or slip through like quick-silver).“ Sañjaya Bellaṭṭhiputta
believed in moral conduct, which might be good and bad. For everything he gave skeptical answers. He
declared his philosophy to be that we neither know the good (kusala) nor the evil (akusala), as it really
is. In such case, if we make a positive declaration either with regard to good or to evil, we may be led
away by conceit or pride or be influenced by ill-will and resentment. Under these conditions we may be
proved wrong (musā) and that may cause us the pain of remorse and ultimately a hindrance to the ???

62
 AJITA KESAKAMBALĪ

Among the six well-known teachers during the sixth century B.C., except the Buddha, Ajita was
one of the best known as materialistic teacher. Ajita was his personal name as he used to wear his cloth
which he used to prepare his hair style. Thus he was named Ajita Kesakambalī.
Ajita Kesakambalī was the elder contemporary of the Buddha. He was the theacher who
completely rejected all the important teachings of Brahmaṇas known such as severe ascetic practices
(attakilamathānuyoga), sacrifice, offering food to the dead, as future life and so on. He did not believe in the
Brahmaṇic view that the body and the would would be different (aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ). He argued
against the belief in individual soul and univesal soul, the bbelief in Supreme God.
Ajita Kesakambalī was the historical founder of the Indian materialism. He held the view that one
should have enjoyed excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures (kāmasukhallikānuyoga). He said that the
soul also get destroyed at the destruction of the body at death. Why should one give pain to the body and
suffer? So, he argued that the best thing is to enjoy these sensual pleasures during the life time, otherwise one
would regret at the time of death. In the Sāmaññaphala Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya it is recorded that the
human bbeing is composed of four great elements, and when one dies the earth part reverts to earth, the
water part to water, the fire part to fire,, the air part to air, and all faculties part away into space. Therefore
Ajita can be considered as materialist, Ucchedavādin.
He was known to have advocated ten views which according to Buddhism are called micchā diṭṭhi
(wrong views), namely:
1. Natthi dinnaṃ (no alms)
2. Natthi yiṭṭhaṃ (no sacrifice)
3. Natthi hutaṃ (no prayer)
4. Natthi sukata dukkatānaṃ phalaṃ vipāka (no efficacy of action)
5. Natthi loko (no this world)
6. Natthi paraloko (no other world)
7. Natthi mātā (no mother)
8. Natthi pitāro (no father)
9. Natthi opapātikā (no beings who have spontaneous birth)
10. Natthi loke samaṇabrahmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭippanna ye imañ ca lokaṃ parañ ca lokaṃ
sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti. (no samaṇa and brahmaṇa who understood through their
direct knowledge and explained this world and the other world)

According to his philosophy ethical behavior has become fruitless one, the world and the beings are
beings controlled by the accpeting natural systematical way, therefore he can be identified as the determinist.
Kamma and its result have been rejected by Ajita, therefore we can say he was non-activist (kāyasabveda
uchijanti vinassanti nahanti paraṃ parā). There is no any being after one's death. Everything will finish with
the death or on the dissolution of the body are cut off, therefore Ajita can be considered as a nihilist.

63
 AJITA KESAKAMBALĪ (SEPTEMBER 2006)

There were several teachers who presented different religions and philosophies during the
period of the sixth century BC in India. Some of them are known to us through Buddhist and Jainist.
Literatures and some are not known. There are six famous śramaṇa or heretic teachers who were
contamporary to the Buddha. Of these, in the Sāmaññaphala sutta of Dīghanikāya, the teachings
of Ajita Kesakambala is described as follows:

„There is no such thing, as alms or sacrifice or offering - »natthi dinnaṃ, natthi

vitthaṃ, natthi hutaṃ). There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds - »natthi
sukatadukkatānaṃ kammānaṃ phalam vipāko«. There is no such thing as this world or the
next - »natthi ayaṃ loko, natthi paro loko«. There is neither father nor mother - »natthi pitā,
natthi mātā«, nor beings springing into life without them - »natthi sattā opapātikā«. There
are in the world no recluses or Brāhmaṇs who have reached the highest point - »natthi loke
samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipanā«, who walk perfectly, and who having
understood and realised, by themselves alone, both this world and the next, make their
wisdom known to others.

A human being is built up of the four elements (satumahābhūtiko). When he dies the
earthy in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the
windy to the air and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier(?) as a fifth,
take his dead body away; till they reach the burning – ground men utter forth eulogies, but
there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes.

It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men
say there is profit therein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off,
annihilated, and after death they are not - »na honti paraṃ maranaṃ«.

Ajita Kesakambala's view is called natthikadiṭṭhi, which means the view that regards that
there is nothing at all; there are no such things as we call them. This view can also be called
uccheda-diṭṭhi, or nihilistic view, since it holds that everything absolutely ends at one's death.

64
 SELF-INDULGENCE AND MATERIALISM

Self-indulgence is one of the paths, which have been followed in the sixth century BC in
India.

»Manussa sukhakama dukkhapatikula.«

Human beings are naturally eager to experience the sense plasure and they reject to
experience the suffering.
In the Dhammacakka sutta has been explained as »hīno, gammo, pothujjaniko, anariyo,
anattasaṁhito«. The discipline, which can be seen in religious path, can not be seen in the self-
indulgence.
According to Dhammasammadhāna sutta some Brāhmaṇas believed there is nothing wrong
in sense-enjoyment and accepting that view they experienced it. As a result of that they themseves
got birth in a lower world.
The Buddha has explained the danger of self-indulgence in Nivana sutta. There were some
religious teachers who believed: »Natthi kamesu toso.« Contemporary to the Buddha was a
materialistic teacher, Ajitakesakambala, who believed that everything would finish with death.
Therefore whatever can be experienced sensually it should be experienced as much as possible in
this world itself.
The Carvaka philosohy which is belonging to the Lokayathavāda is the most important
philosophy discussing the self-indulgence. They said as long as one lives one should lead a happy
life and experience self-indulgence as much as possible. After the death the body is burnt down.
The body becomes ash, then how is it possible to get birth again. Therefore one should lead as long
as one lives a life in happiness in the world.
They had rejected the ascetic practices and they had accepted body and the ātman as one
unit. They didn't follow asceticism for they believed that as there was no next world, it would be
useless to follow asceticism resulting only in weakening the body. Consciousness was also result.(?)
Further they explain betel leafs, nuts, tobacco and lime – when they are chewed together they
become red. The red color is the new color which did not exist previously. In the same way pathavī,
āpo, tejo, vayo become together an extra power which did not exist previously.
The Carvaka further said: „when we live in this world we are to undergo some difficulties;
we have to face various kinds of unexpected difficulties and suffering, which discard the happiness
that can be experienced in this life.“ It is a foolish idea. Therefore one should not think about the
suffering and try to find the way to experience the self-indulgence.
The Carvaka philosophy has been discussed in Lokayata philosophy. According to Carvaka
philosophy the death is the ultimate freedom. The sole aim of the life is the experience of Self-
indulgence.

65
QUESTION: TEACHING OF THE LOKĀYATAVĀDA DETERIORATES ETHICAL AND SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL
AND THE SOCIETY. DISCUSS.

The word ‘lokāyatavāda’ means in English well known term ‘materialism’, which was discovered by the
Cārvaka philosophy during the 6th century B.C. in India by arisen(?) their(?) parts(?).
Self-indulgence is one of the Lokāyatavāda’s paths. According to self-indulgence’s point of view human
beings are naturally eager to experience the sense pleasure and they reject to experience suffering.
According to philosophy it can be discussed under epistemology, cosmology(?) and ethics.
Lokāyatavāda’s achieved the knowledge is sense experience. There is nothing existing which cannot be
experienced taking the account of materialism. The mind is not a sense organ. It is a by-rpoduct of composite
body of great elements and doubt the knowledge even the influence, which can be get through the inference.(?)
materialists considered that within alive position human being could develop their individual spirituality.
After the death there would be nothing, which does not need to be achieved by any effort. That is why they
rejected importance of being recluse or Brahmin who would have reached the highest point, who would walk
perfectly and who would have understood and realized themselves alone.
A human being benefits out of four great elements. When one dies his earth aspect returns to the earth,
fluid to the water, heat to the fire and wind to the air and its faculties pass into space. The four bearers(?) on the
bier(?) as a fifth take his dead body away.(?) The view of self-indulgence explained by Lokāyatavāda is worldly
pleasure. They claimed that as long as one lives he or she should live a happy life as much as possible.
Abbove the discussion is the main reason it has developed and accepted the best among the practices.(?)
Therefore, one should not think about the suffering and try to find the way to experience the Lokāyatavāda. The
philosophy of Cārvaka point of view is that the death is ultimate freedom. The sole aim of this is the experience of
Lokāyatavāda.

QUESTION: EXPLAIN UCCHEDAVĀDA (NIHILISM) IN RELATION TO KĀMASUKHALLIKĀNUYOGA (SELF-INDULGENCE) AND

SASSATAVĀDA (ETERNALISM) IN RELATION TO ATTAKILAMATHĀNUYOGA (SELF-MORTIFICATION).

During the Buddha's time two of the most prevalent religious teachings were nihilism and eternalism.
Nihilism was preached by the materialist teachers of the Śramaṇa tradition. According to them the body and the
soul are same (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ) and when the body gets destroyed at death the soul, too, gets destroyed and
everything, the whole existence comes to an end with that.
Based on this philosophy they rejected the belief in rebirth, moral action and its consequences. They said
that the best practice to follow is to enjoy sensual pleasure to the maximum possibility. They said that if one fails
to do this he would have to repent when death comes, lamenting that he did not enjoy life to the full. To them
there was only this life, and this life should be used to enjoy five sensual desires till one dies and gets destroyed at
death.
Opposed to this the Sassatavādins or the eternalists believed in next life, kamma and vipāka etc. They
held that there is a permanent soul going from life to life and that soul is different from the body (aññaṃ jīvaṃ
aññaṃ sarīraṃ). This soul is imprisoned in the body. Their view was that to release their individual soul (ātman)
in order to make it united with the Universal Soul (Brahman), one should give pain to the body by practice of self-
mortification (attakilamathānuyoga). This is the practice followed by Upaniṣadic teachers and the Jains. By
practicing severe ascetic practices and developing meditation, they said that one could obtain the knowledge
regarding the identity of ātman and Brāhman. This according to them is freedom.
Buddhism considers these two philosophies and practices based on them as extremes (anta). It rejects
them and puts forward dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) as its philosophy and the Noble Eightfold Path
(ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga) also called Middle Path (majjhima paṭipadā) as its practice.

66
QUESTION: ELUCIDATE THE DETERMINISTIC THEORY EXISTING DURING THE TIME OF THE BUDDHA AND EXPLAIN HOW
BUDDHISM CRITICIZED THIS THEORY.
In India, during the period of the 6th century B.C. there was a large number of teachers who
presented different religions and philosophies. Apart from the teachers of the Vedas, the
Brahmaṇas and the Upaniṣads, there were in India also other thinkers who had their own views on
the theory of ātman. Some of them were contemporaries of the Buddha and some of them were his
predecessors. Here an attempt will be made to give some ideas about their basic conceptions.
Among the six well known teachers during the 6th century B.C. except the Buddha,
Makkhalī Ghosāla is best known as the third or last tīrthankara or the Ājīvika school. He was a
predecessor of Mahāvīra by sixteen years and spent his whole life in biological(?) researches. The
tender regard which he showed for every form of life was a natural outcome of his philosophical
doctrine.
It appears from the edicts of Asoka and the Mahābhāṣya, Patañjalī’s commentary on
Pāninī, that Ghosāla’s school survived after him and his followers were knwon as the Maskarins or
Makkhalīs. According to Makkhalī Ghosāla people need not attempt to attain salvation. It comes
automatically if one leads the number of life destined to one.
People believed to lead a certain number of lives – they need not to try to change it. They
cannot change it as well. If one follows the number of lives destined by destiny (niyanti) one will
attain salvation. That is called Saṅsāra Suddhiṃ, which means that purification is attained by going
through Saṅsāra. This religious philosophy is called Saṅsāra Suddhivāda (salvation by
transmigration).
This philosophy implied that there is no use of human effort. He says: natthi attakara natthi
purisakara. Philosophically this means that Makkhalī Ghosāla has denied free-will. This means
that man has no place(?). he is just a tool. Makkhalī Ghosāla’s attitude towards society was that
the man was a product of destiny – he can neither change himself nor change the outside society.
He is just an instrument of fate.
But Buddhism criticized these philosophies and practices based on them as the wrong view.
It rejected them and put forward dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) as its philosophy and
the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariya aṭṭhaṅgikamagga) also called as the Middle Path (majjhima
paṭipadā) as its practice.

67
 DEFINITION OF AKIRIYAVĀDA ACCORDING TO BUDDHISM (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA 1995)

Akiriyavāda means a doctrine of inaction. Inaction means no action. According to this

doctrine, what we do has no result or it is unproducting. In Akiriyavāda system free-will is denied,
moral causation is denied and kamma and kamma-vipāka are also denied.
According to Buddhism, any system that denies free-will and moral causation falls into
akiriyavāda. Buddhism is not an akiriyavāda because Buddhism believes in free-will and moral
causation. There are various kinds of akiriyavāda. They are as follows:
1. Issaranimmānavāda – belief in a creator God, or theistic determinism. God is a creator, he is
in outside, he is the primary cause, the first cause. As God has created all beings, we have
nothing to do. We have to play our part or role according to the will of God. According to
the will of God we die. For it is the will of God, free-will is denied. There is how individual
reveal, no free-will.(?) So, it is a type of akiriyavāda.6
2. Pubbekatahetuvāda – the cause is in the past, or karmic determinism. It means all what we
experience now, is due to our past karmas. According to this karmavāda, in this life we have
nothing to do, we have only to experience the results of what we have done in the past.
Here, free-will is denied too. So, it is a type of akiriyavāda.7
3. Ahetuappaccayavāda – no cause and effect or naturalistic determinism. It means no cause,
no condition. So, morality also has no cause and condition. As it believes in no cause and
effect, it is also a kind of akiriyavāda. This is Makkhalī Ghosāla's philosophy, as he says
that there is an objective, universal law. One becomes defiled or purified without hetu and
paccaya. In causality there is no hetu, no paccaya. He denies free will and moral causation.
So, his doctrine comes under akiriyavāda.
4. Adhiccasamuppannavāda – spontaneous origin or indeterminism. It denies the universal
nature of causality – and in its extreme form it denies causality itself. This is the opposite of
Niyativāda. No causality is recognized and chance has place here. Therefore, this
indeterminism falls into the category of akiriyavāda.
5. The doctrine of Pūrana Kassapa. He says whether our action is good or bad, the soul does
not join with us in performing those actions. The soul is not an active participant, it is only a
spectator. As the soul does not get involved in our action, actions willfully performed have
no merit or demerit. That is why he says „you can walk along one bank of Gange killing
people, doing all harms under the Sun, it is no pāpa. And along the other bank you will
perform all kind of yāga, dāna and sīla, it is no punna.“ He also professed an eternalist
doctrine of the soul. He denies free will; that there is no moral causation. He says willful
action must be barren. So, his doctrine falls into akiriyavāda.
6. The doctrine of Pakuṭa Kaccāyana. He talks of seven everlasting substances. They are the

6 The God, at least according to Semitic religions (that is Judaism, Christianity and Islam) gave to the man possibility
to decide. God is so powerful, that he himself can grant the free will. The theory mentioned above is thus wrong.
Issaranimmānavāda is not akiriyavāda, only in case that God would not give the man free-will, but that is not in any
of the Semitic religions.
7 I again disagree, because thus we would say that Buddhism is akiriyavāda. The belief in the past kamma is correct if
we accept that we can decide how to make new kamma. Our decision is the free will. Thus this is also not the
akiriyavāda.

68
 body of earth, water, fire, air, pleasure, pain and the soul as the seventh. Among these there
is no killer nor one who causes killing. He says if someone were to cut off another person's
head iwth a sharp sword, he would not be taking the other's life. The sword merely passes
through the space between the seven bodies. He says that the soul does not joint in whatever
you do whether it is good or bad, you can do anything, no result. He denies free will, moral
causation and moral contribution. So, his doctrine also falls into akiriyavāda.
7. The doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalī. He believes in materialism and he denies that
everything survives after death. He has no spirtitual value at all. He does not believe in
karma, mokṣa and life after death. He does not talk about soul. He says a person is
composed of the four primary elements. When he dies the earth in him returns to and
emerges with the external earth, likewise other elements go to the outside world and his
sense-faculties pass over into space. There is no next world. Nothing continues after death.
Everything gets rooted up after death. Death is the end of everything. So, all what one has
considered as good ends in ashes, something is reduced to ash. It is of no useful value at all.
Therefore – his philosophy is ucchedavāda (nihilism). It is another form of akiriyavāda ofr
it has no moral causation and moral retribution, no karma, no vipāka.

As akiriyavāda denies free will, moral causation and moral retribution, Bubddhism does not
agree with it. Buddhism always claims that all phenomena have cause and condition. So, Buddhism
is kiriyavāda.
In Buddhism free will means we are free, we have freedom to choose, to decide the best we
should do.
Therefore, Bubddhism always talks of moral causation and moral retribution and forces
people to do good and avoid bad.

69
 SELF-MORTIFICATION

Dhammacakkapavattana sutta has mentioned some religious practices. Self-indulgence and Self-
mortification belong to the view of externalism. The externalists believe in the existence of ātman. This
ātman is to be continuing in the next life.
According to Rigveda it is said that after the death the ātman becomes immortal in man. Therefore,
people prayed to the departed ones to accept the offering with Yama.(?) The Pāli word 'attā' means 'oneself',
'I am', 'I was', 'I will be'. This is the base of ātmavāda. The view of ātmavāda has been discussed and
developed in various ways in Indian philosophy.
The word 'attā' means 'one's self'. Kilamatha means 'weaken'. Ānuyoga means 'applying', therefore
attakilamathānuyoga means „one's self being weakened by various practices.“ According to Khandaraka
sutta in Majjhima nikāya the Buddha has mentioned this kind of practice as the attantapa. The ways of
attantapa practices have been discussed under these five groups:
1. Observing the practices concerning taking food.
2. Using the robes or clothes.
3. Concerning the various movements or postures.
4. Concerning various actions.
5. Following various animal actions.

The Self-torturing practices were rejected by Buddhism. According to the sutta there are many
upādānas, karma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata etc. Self-mortification or self-torturing is not the way to achieving the last
freedom. According to Buddhism, reckoned as sīlabbataparamāsa is one of the cankers. Sīlabbataparamāsa
is one of the five mentioned practices mentioned above, considered as sīla and being observed. It is the only
way to the freedom and cling to it.(?)
The part of self-mortification and observance has been rejected, viz. Aṭṭhaka Vagga and Pārāyana
Vagga (Sutta Nipāta).
The way of self-torturing has been followed by certain śramaṇas as the part of the salvation. Some
of them identified themselves as 'Muni'. Some of are accepted can be purify and attain to samma bomnan(?)
life, but Buddha preached by following these observances and kinds of practice no-one can achieve the
salvation.(?)
Buddha has rejected that view also in Kukkuravatika sutta in Majjhima nikāya. There it is explained
how Puṇṇa and Seniya followed Kukkura and Gona.8 They came to ask the Buddha what would happen
after their death. The Buddha replied them that after death Puṇṇa and Senya would reborn among dogs and
cows. Because they lived for a long time like the animals and had the concept of the animals in their minds
and behavior.

»Ayaṃ gāmini tapassi lukhā,

Jīvi tini manehi garaho attānaṃ anapeti,
Parināmetīti kusalaṃ ca dhammaṃ,
Nadi gaccanti uttauimanussa(?) dhamma,
Alamari ñāna dassanaṃ visesaṃ na sacchi karoti.«

According to Saṁyutta nikāya, due to these reasons Self-torturing should be rejected. (In conclusion,
self-mortification is not leading to the understanding the truth. So, this kind of practice should be rejected.)

8 Here kukkura means 'dog' and gona means 'bull'. The two ascetics intentionally behaved like these animals and
doing things pertinent to these animals. They believed that this way they can achieve a good result, but Buddha
explained them that it was micchā diṭṭhi and that it was rather leading to the animal realm or to the hell. Finally they
under the Buddha's guidance attained Nibbāna.

70
 THE CONCEPTS OF KARMA AND INDRIYA SAṄVARA IN JAINISM AND EARLY BUDDHISM RESPECTIVELY

Jainism is historically much older than Buddhism. There were 24 tīrthankaras (founders) in
Jainism. Parśvanātha was the 23rd founder and he lived 250 years before Mahāvīra. Mahāvīra is
24th founder. He was a contemporary of Buddha Gotama. He lived between 6th and 5th century B.C.
Essentially Jainism was a Śramaṇa movement which Kśastriyas were in front line and
against the authority of Vedas and Brahmins. Jainism recognised the institution of caste-system. But
they did not recognize the institution of caste system which Brahmaṇa caste was given to the
superior place.
In their fundamental doctrine, they believe in nature of reality, sat. There are two fold
realities: jīva and ajīva. Both are eternal substances, unoriginated, independent and co-existing. And
both are nitya (permanent) and anitya (impermanent).
Jīva possesses the capacity of liberation. It has the ability to free itself from bondage. When
it is free, it becomes jīvamutta (living and liberated soul).
Ajīva manifests itself through substances such as pudgala, dharma, adharma, ākāśa and
kāla. Here pudgala does not mean a person or an individual, it means matter that is gross or subtle.
Dharma means the motion of movement, adharma means the motion of rest, and ākāśa and kāla
mean space and time.
Another fundamental doctrines are asrava, bandha, saṅvara, nirjana and mokṣa.
Asrava means fine karmic matter that flows into the soul from outside through the sense
door. That is called karmaśarīra too.
Bandha means the bondage of the soul. Bondage takes place when jīva unites with pudgala
– subtle matter. When subtle matter from outside world flows into our system through sense, there
is bondage.
Saṅvara means restraining of the senses. According to Jainism, one must remove the kośa or
karmic body which is forming the sheath or rounding the soul, by means of torturing the senses.
This is indriyasaṅvara (the restraint of the senses, what is understood in Jainism.
Nirjana means freeing the soul or removing the karmic body by tapa (self-mortification).
Here pañca-tapa (five fires) are taught to clear the soul, which means lighting the four fires at four
corners, one then sits in the center and looks at the sun which is the fifth fire. The soul is covered by
the seath of karma. It must be according to Jainism, removed by self-mortification. Another
meaning of Nirjana is burning up defilements of karmic body.
There are two karmas to be burned up:
1. purāṇa-karma (karma what one has acquired in previous lives)
2. nava-karma (karma what one has accumulated through his body, speech and mind in the
present life)

Owing to nava-karma, there is further karma (additional karma). One must burn them
through tapa. There is karmakkhaya, when these karmas were burnt. Then, dukkhaya and
vedanākkhaya follow accordingly. The soul is free from kośa in this way and becomes jīvamutta –

71
leaving the body and living alone forever. This is called mokṣa (liberation) in Jainism. These are the
fundamental doctrines with regard to āsrava, karma and mokṣa in Jainism.
But, early Buddhism does not say that karmic matter comes from outside world and then
forms covering round the soul, because there is no soul in Buddhism. Buddhism talks about karma
without reference to a soul. According to Buddhism, karma is cetanā (volition, willful action).
Volition in Buddhism is not subtle matter and it does not form a covering round the soul, because
there is no soul recognized in Buddhism.
Jainism recognizes the path of self-mortification as a means of to end suffering. The path of
self-mortification means giving pain to the soul or self. But, Buddhism rejects this method as
ignoble, painful and leading to nothing good, profitless, or no-usefulness.
There are various kinds of karmas in Jainism. One of them is gotra-karma. Buddhism also
talks about many kinds of karma. Some of them are as follows:
1. Diṭṭhadhammavedaniyakamma – kamma that results in this very life or kamma that has to be
experienced in this life.
2. Upapajjavedaniyakamma – in the next life
3. Aparapariyakamma – in one of the future lives.

In early Bbuddhism there were only three types of karma, that is with regard to the result.
And there is kāya-kamma, vācī-kamma and mano-kamma again three. Kāya-kamma means
kamma that one performs with one's body (bodily kamma). For example, if one kills, injures etc.
Vācī-kamma means verbal kamma done generally through the door of speech, e.g. If one
scolds and abuses people with harsh language.
Mano-kamma means mental kamma, done generally through the mind, e.g., if one has bad or
ill-will thoughts against people.
These are kinds of kamma which are mentioned in the early Buddhist texts.

72
 THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS (AGGAÑÑA SUTTA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA 1995)

According to Brahmanism, society was divided into four groups: Brahmaṇa, Kśātriya,
Vayśya and Śūdra.
Brahmins said that they are superior to other castes and the others are inferior, the
Brahmaṇic caste alone is white and the others are black, only the Brāhmaas can be purified and the
others cannot; only the Brāhmaas are the children of Brahma, created by Brahma, and the heir of
Brahma. The other castes were from upper limb, lower limb and feet of Brahma respectively.
Brahmins believe that where there are human beings, there must be four castes, because the
human beings and the world were created by Brahma.
According to the Buddha's teaching, there is no Brahma – or God who can create beings
including the world. In Aggañña Sutta, in one of Nikāyas it is mentioned that the human beings and
the world appeared without creation by anyone. It further continues that the world would be passed
away and reappear naturally. When it passed away, beings were born in the sphere of radiance9 and
when it begins to be evolved, beings come from there. When they come to the new world, they have
their own light on each body10 and they could go in the sky like birds. They are contented with their
bliss or rapture. At that time, they do not have any food except their bliss.
Later, one person who was greedy and curious took the soil of the earth and tasted it again
and again. The others also imitated him. As beings consumed the soil of earth, they lost their own
light and appeared in different complextions. At that time, beings became to despise or admire to
each other because they had different complexions. The Sun and the Moon also appeared in the new
world. From that time, day and night, month and year, emerged in the world various foods for
beings to consume, such as padalata, bhūmippataka, akatthapakasali etc. They appeared one by
one, their tastes and qualities also are like the soil of earth.
For beings who consumed those foods their complextions and sex-organs differed among
them. When sex-organs or man and woman emerged, they looked at each other with attachment. By
doing so, they were burnt of lust, they then had sexual intercourse. Later, due to sexual intercourse,
families emerged and then shelters, villages, towns, cities and so on emerged in society. When
population became many, people’s ethics also degenerated gradually untill the common properties
had to be shared as the private properties.
Then, evil will or action such as stealing, lying, censure, killing, punishment and so on were
manifesting in society. So, many people gathered together and selected a person who had qualitis to
be worthful, who could censure what was to be censured, to punish who deserved punishment etc.
Later, they established the kingship. Thus, the institution emerged in society. His families also were
called Kśātriyas because they were those who administered and shared the fields. People gave them
in return a proportion of the rise. At that time, people called a king in many ways – Mahāsamata,
because he was elected by the majority of people; Kśātriya, because he was the one who had
authority in paddy fields and Rāja, because he delighted the people.
At that time, some people who refrained from evil action and tried to control their desire
9 This is thoroughly wrong translation of one of the Brahma worlds of people, who in their previous life attained a
stage of rūpa jhāna.
10 This is very bad misinterpretation. These beings from the Brahma world are shining by light as they are very
developed beings, and the light shines from their body by a natural way, there are no bulbs, no torches, please.

73
were called Brahmaṇas, because they have eradicated their ill-will. Some people were called
„Jhayaka“ because they renounced the society and went to the forest and stayed there, concentrated
on their meditation. Thus, they were called Jhayaka – concentrators. People who were doing
trading, farming animals, planting, were called Vaiśyas, because they worked on their occupation
and their conduct of sexual intercourse.(?) The manual workers were called Śūdras. They were
described as the lowest in the society because of their actions, not because of their birth. People
who condemned lay-manhood as inferior, renounced society and went to holy life, they were called
Samaṇa. Thus, society was divided into many divisions called by their appropriate names, because
of peoples activities or morality. Therefore, according to the Buddha’s teaching the institutions of
society emerged in the world without creation by any creator, indeed, due to peoples acitivies or
morality. There is no Creator who would create the world and human beings or society in
Buddhism.
These are the basic assumtpions of the Buddhist eachings on the evolution of social
institutions.
So, according to Buddhism, society was divided according to action and professions, not by
creation. It is very scientific argument and very convenient for society to have a convenient division
of labor, because it has no shortage of labor.

74
 POLITICAL THINKING (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA 1995)

In those days, the person who goverened a country, were called as a king. Nowdays we call them as
government.
There were many theories with regard to the state and kingship. Many scholars proposed about kingship
in different ways. Some proposed that the state and kingship are God-given. They said that God created the
universe and gave us the idea of the state and kingship.
In the Buddhist theory we can also get to know about kingship. But Buddhism does not propose that the
state and kingship would be God-given. In Aggaññasutta it is said that after man and woman appeared in the
world, people became many and many. Their moralities also degenerated gradually untill the common properties
had to be shared as the private properties. Later, crimes also emerged among society. As soon as the crime
emerged, people got together and discussed to appoint a ruler because they found that without a leader it is not
possible to have a proper social order. Finally, they established the kingship. Thus, kingship emerged in a society.
It was not God-given, but established by people.
In the Buddhist literature, there were three kinds of political systems (institutions) or kingship:
1. Monarchy
2. Oligarchy
3. Universal monarchy

But, during the time of the Buddha, we have heard that there were only two types of government or
kingship – monarchical government and another is oligarchical government.
Monarchy is the type which has a single king and he rules the country with some ministers. There are
then royal morals. Monarchy is appropriate or suitable, if they provided that the king stands by ten Royal Morals.
They are giving, observing precepts, gifts, honesty, magnanimity (generosity), control of senses, non-hate, non-
violence, tolerance and peacefulness.
Oligarchy is the type of government which has many kings, that means the feudal lord. They bbecame the
kings or leaders of people by generation. They did not stand for election and people did not vote for them. There
are seven non-declining virtues for oligarchy. Oligarchy is suitable if they keep seven non-declining virtues. They
are:
1. Assemble frequently
2. Assemble and discuss things and disperse in unity(?)
3. Respect old laws and do not hurry to make new laws
4. Respect women and do not force them to be with themselves
5. Respect and listen to senior citizensj
6. Worship properly the ancient shrines
7. Offer protection and respect the religious men who visit the country

In Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, the Lord Buddha said that as long as people are following these seven
factors, only the increase of their progress shoul be expected, not declined.(?)
Universal Monarchy means the king of kings or Universal Emperor. This was an ideal, not a historical
reality. Universal Monarchy is good if four national policies are followed and five-fold international policies are
respected. The four national policies are as follows:

75
 1. The first one is to offer a righteous protection to everybody including bees and birds
2. Second one is controlling crime
3. The third one is to work for economic development of the country. To make economic success,
government must make the jobs available and people in capacity. And planting tree, constructing roads
are also important for development.
4. The fourth one is to consult with religious leaders and the leaders of the country. Consultation is very
important. When the king follows national policy the country will prosper, nation will be safe and well
established.

Five-fold international policies are five-fold precepts. Universal monarchy is not controlling in the
harmful manner, its intervention does not destroy the sovereignity of these countries to observe five-fold precepts,
living according to pañca-sīla. Five-fold precepts are as follows:
1. Refraining from killing living creatures
2. Refraining from taking what is not given
3. Refraining from sexual misconduct
4. Refraining from false speech
5. Refraining from taking intoxicating drugs and liquor.

These five-fold precepts are very important, as they are the purest way of human's life. To establish
country is to make people observe the pañca-sīla. If a Universal Monarch rules the country with Dhamma, which
is both the national and international policy, it is good, if he goes against the Dhamma, his authority to rule the
country vanishes. This is the important message given by the Cakkavatti Sutta. This is the Cakkavatti ideal, the
Buddha's political philosophy.
The government rules the country according to Dasa-rāja dhamma, Aparihāniya-dhamma and Cakkavatti
Sutta is the Buddhist democratic government.
Monarchy and Oligarchy systems were in practice, but Universal monarchy was an ideal. All three forms
are suitable if democracy is safely guarded.

Dasa-Rāja Dhamma:
1. Dāna (liberality, generosity, charity)
2. Sīla (a high moral character)
3. Pariccāga (sacrificing everything for the goodness of people)
4. Ajjavaṃ (honesty and integrity)
5. Maddavaṃ (kindness and gentleness)
6. Tapaṃ (austerity in habits)
7. Akkodhaṃ (freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity)
8. Avihiṅsaṃ (non-violence)
9. Khanti (patience, forbearance, tolerance)
10. Avirodhanaṃ (non-opposition, non-obstruction)

76
 ECONOMICS (ORIGINAL BY VEN. KELANANDA 1995)

There are many discourses dealing with economics in Pāli canon. Sometimes, the Buddha even
went into details about saving money and spending it.
In Sīgalovāda Sutta the Buddha told the young man Sīgala that he should spend one fourth of
his income on his daily expenses, invest half in his business and put aside one fourth for any emergency.
In the Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta it is also said that property is the cause of immorality and
crimes, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty etc. Therefore, good economic condition or
wealth is necessary for everyone or every country. A poor economic condition can make the country
collapsed. There are two kinds of Economics; Micro-Economics and Macro-Economics.
For the sake of understanding, society should be divided into three groups: political, economic
and religious. All are essential in the country. Political group is responsible in running the state,
protecting life and property of people. Economic group makes money and is developing the country.
Religious group makes the first two to know value because without value the above two groups would
collapse.
As man is economic being, if there is no religious person, there would be conflict between
economic men. People should do business because of need, not because of greed. Greed also should be
controlled by morality, not by regulation or limitation. As economic is science, some said that there
should not be spoken about value (morality) in it. In fact, if one wants to make the world happy, he must
introduce the value system, and should not destroy life, should not do any anti-social activities.
According to Buddhism all economists must be governed by moral consideration. So, Buddhism
adds value in economics. Once the Buddha told Anāthapinḍika, the great banker, that a lay man, who
leads an ordinary family life had four kinds of happiness. The first one was to enjoy economic security
of sufficient wealth acquired by just and righteous means (atthisukha). It depends on labor and justice.
Anything gained righteously by one's own labor is accepted in buddhism. As nobody will be suffering
because of the other, it is regarded as 'clean' or 'white' money in Buddhism.
The second one is happiness of consumption (bhogasukha). Money itself is not our goal.
We make it in order to make use of it. According to Buddhism, one should spend that wealth liberally
on himself, his family, his friends, and relations and on meritotious deeds. The third one is to be free
from debts (anana-sukha) and the fourth happiness is to live a faultless and pure life without committing
evil in thought, word or deed (anavajja-sukha).
From the few examples given above, one can see that the Buddha considered economic welfare
as requisite for human happiness. The Buddha did not approve of each and every way of earning one's
livelihood. Because, there are certain trades – which are against his fundamental teachings like trading
in arms and lethal weapons, intoxicating drinks, poisons, killing animals, cheating etc. These trades
were condemned as an evil and unjust means of livelihood, in his teachings.
In the Jātaka also, it is mentioned that the Buddha himself in his previous life was a merchant.
He started to sell jaggary and water which were but few. He increased the goods little by little, later
became an important business man who could buy even goods as much as a ship would carry. Besides,
the Bubddha said that if one worked hard to earn money, even the severe India caste system could be
cracked down and thus all would become equal.(?)
In the case of macro-economics also, there are many examples in Pāli canon. According to
Buddhism, successful government means a government that has a successful economic policy – which

77
may contain providing:
1. Employment opportunity
2. Encouragement for trading and industry

If the government fails to fulfil this duty in this aspect, the country will be in a disaster.
In the Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta there are four internal policies, for a cakkavatti king. Of these
four internal policies, one is to provide the people security and the ability to look after themselves
economically. Protection and economic opportunity must be provided by the state. If state fails to
achieve it, people will be unhappy and revolt.
In Kutadanta Sutta it is said that the king in ancient time tried to suppress crime through
punishment providing no economics and agriculture.(?)
As a result, poverty became prevailing and working people stopped their work. And they started
to make riot, stealing and robbery etc. When it was in running scale, the king asked his ministers for an
advice as to what and how to do. Most of ministers advised the king to use violence. But aminister who
was supposed to be wise and future Buddha, suggested a different solution. He said that such method
might never be successful. Instead he suggested that in order to eradicate crime, the economic condition
of the people should be improved, grain and other facilities for agriculture should be provided for
farmers and cultivators, capital should be provided for treaders and those engaged in business, adequate
wages should be paid to those who were employed. When people were thus provided for with
opportunities of earning a sufficient income, they would be contented, will have no fear or anxiety and
consequently the country would be peaceful and free from crime. Only the government could carry out
such economic plan and in fact, the government must have done it.
In the Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta, it is mentioned that king Dahlanāmi who forgot his social and
economic plan, as a result of neglect poverty became prevailing. It continued:
1. Poverty spread when the king stopped giving capital or charity money to poor
2. Poor people resorted
3. The use of arms increased
4. As a result of it people were killed
5. As a result people started to engage in falsehood
6. Useless talk, slandering etc.

This is macro-economic way how the government can help people. When these are done by the
state, then people can follow the middle path (samajīvita). That is a balanced life. This is good for both
macro- and micro-economics.

78
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION THAT HELPED THE RISE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
BUDDHISM
There were two major conditions that offered the strength to Buddhis to spring up in Indian
society during the 6th century B.C. They were political and social conditions.
By this time there were four monarchic kingdoms, Magadha ruled by king Bimbisāra,
Kosala ruled by Pasenadi, Vatsa ruled by Udena and Avanti dominated by Caṇḍa Pajjota and
number of republican states such as Licchavīs ruled by Vajjian, Sākyas ruled by Suddhodana,
Pāvā ruled by Mallas and so on flourishing in India. The powerful states were greedy to conquer
and to expand their territories over the smaller states. Therefore they engaged in wards. Among the
powerful 16 states(Mahājanapādas) they were emerging as great kingdoms, capturing the smaller
ones. Because of constant wars men had to join army and women had to supply food for them. They
left their agriculture and other works. Therefore, these countries’ economy was undergoing
transition. This period was a great catastrophe characterized by wars, famine and pestilence. So that
people suffered agony and there was no peace and harmony in the society.
Constant wars gave opportunity to produce weapons. For this they needed a lot of
employees for mining to get metal industries. Other great merchants were known as seṭṭhīs who
possessed fleets of caravans numbering to 500. They also needed a number of workers to drive carts
and to export and import goods. But they paid them salary not equal to their labors.
The rich men who had enough wealth and time they spent lavishly on personal comforts and
luxury. This gave rise to gambling houses, pubs, brothels, nightclubbs, carnivals etc. The most of
the poeple fell into pitfalls of these sensual pleasures. Abject(?) poverty among the majority
exploited by the rich and these brought the society to unstable state.
The people were unable to grasp the transition that was taking place in all spheres of life.
The Brahmin religion either with the theory of divine creation proclaimed the Varṇadharma,
Svadharma, Āśramadharma to maintain their caste supremacy and with more philosophical
explanation to monism did not help to understand these transitional conditions and face them
bravely. Other six great śramaṇa teachers too, with the philosophies ahetuvāda, sattakāyavāda,
aṭṭhikavāda, saṅsārasuddhivāda, pubbekatahetuvāda and saṃsāyavāda also did not provide the
answer to these new problems.
In such a background Buddhism denounced wars, gave value to human life, showed
compassion to everybody and preached that if one conquered oneself better than conquered
thousand of people in the world. For monarchic kings Buddhism advised to practice
dasarājadhamma, for republican rulers sattaparihāniyadhamma and specifically pañcasīla being
for all. Buddhism considers poverty as a misery, therefore encourages the people to work hard and
earn wealth righteously. Buddhism discourages five kinds of professions and encourages five kinds
of righteous means, by which people may earn money. Bbuddhism showed six avenues of downfall
of wealth and four avenues of bringing of the prosperity, rights and duties to reciprocate among the
society. Buddhism also did not forget to point out to give up all evil and to do the wholesome.
Buddhism dethroned God and enthroned man and said that one is one’s own master. There is
no caste division in Buddhism, all human beings are equal and women too, not different from men.
In social stage Buddhism judges people by action, not by birth. Buddhism interprets political and
social conditions in the society how they should be. Finally Buddhism showed the way to cessation
of dukkha. In this manner Buddhism arose and firmly established in the society.

79
 BONUS: BOOK: PRE-BUDDHISTIC INDIAN PHILOSOPHY: VEDIC PHILOSOPHY

Introductory

(Is there a system of Vedic philosophy?)

Rightly or wrongly, it has long been doubted if we can speak of a system of Vedic philosophy. In order to avoid
modern associations of the words „system“ and „philosophy,“ the Vedic scholars have resorted to such expressions as
„Vedic mythology,“ „Vedic cosmogony,“ and so forth. However, Dr. Lucian Scherman published in 1887 a German
translation of a number of hymns belonging to the two collections called the Ṛig-Veda and Atharva-Veda, under the title
„Philosophische Hymnen aus der Ṛig und Atharva-Veda Sanhita.“ Some seven years later was published the
„Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie“ by Dr. Paul Deussen. In this latter work, Dr. Deussen freely employs the
expression „Erste Periode der indischen Philosophie,“ by which he means, of course, Vedic philosophy. Here the reader
might be referred to an excellent treatise, „The cosmology of the Ṛig-Veda“ by Mr. Wallis. The works of such writers
as Kaegi, Frazer and others deserve special notice.
(The aim of the work.)
The aim of the writer of these pages differs from that of Scherman and Deussen. The principal object with
which both the scholars seem to have started is to estimate the standard of philosophical speculations, embodied in a
few hymns of the Vedas, belonging mostly to the tenth or last book of the Ṛik. Our aim is, on the other hand, not only to
estimate such a standard, but also to bring out the individual element in each of these hymns. That is to say, we
principally seek to show that each mode or system of speculation is a creation of individuality.
(The authors of the Vedic hymns, specially of the philosophical ones, are not all known.)
No one knows yet, and there is little chance of knowing ever, who the real authors of all these hymns were.
Tradition attributes them to a number of names, such as Aghamarṣana, Prajāpati Parameṣṭhin, Brahmaṇaspati, etc.,
most of which are in fact names of the deities to whom the hymns were addressed. t does not, however, make much
difference whether th names, as given in these pages, be taken as fictitious or real, so long as we know that there is
behind the expressions of each of these hymns an individual.
If we go by the dictum, that to doubt is to philosophise, it will not be easy to say exactly when the Indo-Aryan
sages were not philosophers, for their inspired utterances, which still survive in the form of hymns and psalms, contain
many and various inquisitive questions, as to whence, whither, when, and how.
(Philosophy as a doubting process of the human mind is eternal. As a structure of thought it has its beginning.)
Philosophy, viewed as a mere doubting process of the human mind, knows indeed no beginning of its own. If by
philosophy is understood a structure of thought, which we consider permanently established where we find
consciousness of the ultimate categories and also terms to express these, then we may suppose philosophy to have had
its beginnings somewhere with individual thinkers, and with those individual thinkers in whose words we trace this
consciousness.
Philosophy is the fruitful result of reflections on the riddle of existence. These reflections become possible, as
Prof. Erdmann holds, only when „the heroic struggle to acquire the conditions of existence has been followed by its
enjoyment.“
(A peaceful time following upon the struggle for existence is favourable to philosophical reflections, which start at first
from a mythical basis.)
The reflective movement as a whole starts from the mythical stage, and it is only after many serious efforts on the part
of the earlier thinkers that it succeds afterwards in gaining an independent position. This holds true of Greek thinking,
and no less of early Indian philosophy. It is generally agreed among the historians of Greek philosophy that the lines of
development which proceed from such a mythical basis may be distinguished as the cosmological and the
psychological.
As to the difference between mythology and philosophy, the following observations of Prof. Adamson are
here worth quoting.
(Difference between mythology and philosophy.)
„The problem of cosmological speculation differs from the aim of mythology in this : that while the latter represented
the connextions between its assumed ground and existing realities after the crude fashion of temporal sequence, the
more philosophical view raised the question, - what is the permanent element in real existence and of what are actual
things composed? The change of question implied a restriction upon the free play of imagination, which constitutes the
difference between philosophy and mythology.“
The attitude of later thinkers towards the Vedas was far from being one of warm appreciation.

80
(The attitude of later thinkers towards the Vedas)
In a well-known passage of the Bhagavad Gītā (II. 42) the Vedic hymns are compared to lovely flowers, loely only in
appearance. In the Tevijja sutta (Dīgha Nikāya, I. No. 13) Buddha distinguishes between the later Brāhmaṇa teachers
and the earlier Vedic sages. Among these sages, again, he regards just ten as the ancient, and as the real authors and
reciters of the mantras. But they are all spoken of as those whose duty it was only to invoke several deities, such as
Indra, Soma, Varuṇa, Iśāna, Prajāpati, Brahmā, 'Mahiddhi' (=Tvaṣṭar ?) and Yama.
(The Brāhmaṇa schoos mentioned in the Tevijja sutta)
Regarding the Brāhmaṇa teachers, such as the Aitareyas, the Taittirīyas, the Chāndogyas, the 'Chandavas' and
the Bahvṛicas, Buddha holds in agreement with the Brahmin youth Vasiṣṭha, a disciple of Puṣkarasīdi, that they
taught various paths leading to a state of union with Brahman (God). An interesting account of this transition of thought
from the earlier Vedic sages to the later Brāhmaṇa teachers is also given in the Dīgha Nikāya, Mahāgovinda Suttanta.
(Buddha's estimate of cosmological speculation)
In the Pātika sutta, however, Buddha said to Bhaggava, „There are, O descendant of Bhṛigu, some śramaṇas
and Brāhmaṇas to whom the teachers who ascribe creation to the hand of Īśvara, - to Brahmā (God) appear as the
foremost of thinkers (agraṇya).“ „But I, too, know, Bhārgava, this mode of cosmological speculation. I know this, and
also know other things far beyond; and having known this, I do not tarnish my knowledge.“
It is very remarkable that the speculations which Buddha alluded to and described in this connexion,
correspond to those set forth in some of the later hymns of the Ṛig-Veda and restated, explained and elaborated in the
Atharva-Veda, the Brāhmaṇas, and in other such texts.
(The problems for cosmological speculation.)
Further more, Buddha thought that these earlier speculations were concerned chiefly with the pre-ens of first
beginnings (Pubbanta) and the post-ens or the other end (aparanta), that is to say, with the problems as to the beginning
and the end of the world as a whole. In other words, the main problems of the Vedic speculations were: How does the
world originate? In what manner are individual things created? By what have these their unity and existence? Who
creates, and who ordains? From what does the world spring up and to what again does it return? These earlier
speculations are to be called, in this sense, Purāṇa, Lokāyata, or the like.
The immediate background of Indian Philosophy is to be found in the cosmogonic hymns of the ancient and
early Vedic sages.
(The cosmogonic hymns of the Ṛig-Veda constitute the immediate background for Indian Philosophy.)
The first philosophic reflections received impetus from the daily experience of things, changing into one another, and
appearing and reappearing at their apointed seasons. Such constant mutations of things of experience must have very
early roused wonder in a people, so lively and such keen observers and so much at home with nature as the Indo-
Aryans.
(Philosophy and the Philosophers.)
Not confined to any particular orders of Brāhmans or warriors, - of householders, ascetics, or hermits, there
arose a body of men who came to be known in the later literature as Brahmarṣis. To Vedic Indians they were known by
the name of Poets (Kavis), and Poets were the divine philosophers of ancient India. According as the Poets were the
philosophers, philosophy itself was called Hymn (Uktha), and hymn-chanting (udgītha) denoted the act of
philosophising. Indeed, there was no other name for philosophy in India than Hymn (Uktha or Udgītha) up to a certain
late date, that is to say, until it was replaced by other epithets more suitable.
(Definition of „Hymn“ or philosophy.)
„Prajāpati Parameṣṭhin“ seems to speak of philosophy as search carried on by the Poets within their heart for
discovering in the light of their thought the relation of existing things to the non-existent, i.e., primordial matter.
Dīrghatamas suggested altogether a different conception. For him philosophy was just 'ignorance for the sake of
knowledge,' and knowledge consisted but in ascertaining the nature of the one, single, original cause to which the
plurality of all known causes might be reduced. Philosophy with „Viśvakarman“ is „sampraśnaṁ,“ „information,“
„doubt,“ „true doubt,“ that is to say, doubt, as distinguished from that of a sceptic, - enlightenment, as distinguished
from the ignorance of an agnostic.
(When could philosophical question arise?)
And if philosophy consists in rightly doubting, and if the immediate background for it was formed by the
cosmogonic poetry which is interspersed throughout the Vedic hymns, conceivably it was only when, as Prof.
Windelband would maintain, in course of time individual views were freely developed that the question at last arose as
to „the unity and abiding original ground of changing things.“ The question, as formulated by a Vedic philosopher, was:
what is the tree of wood (vṛikṣah vanaṁ) out of which the visible universe was fashioned?
(How was the question answered?)

81
 Partly because of the legend of the flood in the time of Manu, which lived so deep in the mind of the Indo-
Arynas, and partly because of the ordinary experiences concerning the existence, changeability, circulation, distribution,
and mighty force of water in the world, the answer that naturally suggested itself was – Water. Water is the elementary
matter or abiding original ground of things.
(A further question, and answers.)
From this the further question emerged as to what came into being immediately after water, and before all
created things. As to the answer to this particular question, the Vedic thinkers differed from one another.
Aghamarṣaṇa's reply was – the Year (Saṁvatsara, the time-principle, the natural seasons); „Prajāpati Parameṣṭhin“
said, Cosmic Desire (Kāma, Eros); „Hiraṇyagarbha“ said, the Golden Germ; and „Nārāyaṇa's“ word was the
Individualised Sun (Puruṣa).
(A still further question.)
A still further question had to be faced, and that was, from what did water itself spring? To this
Aghamarṣaṇa's answer was, from Night or Chaos (Tamas); „Prajāpati Parameṣṭin“ said, „I known it or perhaps I
know it not;“ „Brahmaṇaspati's“ answer was – from Nothing; „Anila's“ - from Air; and so forth.
The cosmological speculations of the Vedas are of the greatest historical importance as exhibiting Indian
philosophy in the making.
(The historical significance and value of Vedic speculations.)
Infinitely great was their influence upon later thinking, whether Brahmaṇic, Jaina or Buddhistic; Vedic philosophy
supplied abundantly rich food for later thought, so much so, indeed, that subsequent Indian philosophy might be viewed
as a mere systematic carrying out of the general plan of a structure, tacitly implied or imperfectly conceived.

82
 BONUS: BOOK: PRE-BUDDHISTIC INDIAN PHILOSOPHY: POST-VEDIC PHILOSOPHY

(The name Post-Vedic period may require a word of explanation. It is possible tat its upper limit can be fixed as
far back as the last seer of the Ṛig-Veda or even a little earlier. In any case, here we shall restrict the use of the name to
the period covered by the history of the Aitareya, the Taittirīya, and a few other important Brāhmaṇa schools, who were
counted by Buddha as being among the oldest. The period thus chosen might be brought, for our present purposes,
within smaller compass from Mahidāsa Aitareya to Yājñavalkya.
The Post-Vedic period as a whole may be best distinguished from the Vedic by the fact that the intellectual
center is no longer the Brahmarṣideśa, but what is generally known as Madhya-deśa, the Mid-land.
(The historical features of the period.)
It is situated between the Himālayas on the North, and the Vindhya mountains on the South. It lies to the East of
Prayāga (Allahabad) and to the West of Vinaśana („Manu-smṛiti,“ II. 21), Kuru, Pañchāla, Matsya, Śūrasena, are four
among the well-known republics, and Kāśi, Videha, and Kośala are three among the most powerful monarchies of the
time. During this period – Benares, the oldest of the three monarchies – is said to have changed its name many times
(Jāṭaka No. 460).
(The contrast beween the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇa.)
The transition from the Vedic to the Brāhmaṇic period must have taken place gradually. Yet if leaving the one
for the other, the historian turns his back upon the freshness of poetry only to face the dullness of prose. In the language
of Dr. Hopkins, „With the Brāhmaṇas not only is the tone changed from that of the Ṛig-Veda, the whole moral
atmosphere iqs nowsurcharged with hocuspocus, mysticism, religiosity, instead of the cheerful, real religion which,
however formal, is the sould of the Ṛik. In the Brhmaṇas there is no freshness, no poetry. There is in some regards a
more scrupulous outward morality, but for the rest there is only cynicism, bigotry, and dullness. It is true that each of
these traits may be found in certain parts of the Ṛig-Veda; but it is not true that they represent there the spirit of the age,
as they do in the Brāhmaṇic period.“
(The judgment of Brāhmaṇic religion by Hopkins.)
But this careful observer adds: „Such is not altogether the case. It is the truth, yet it is not the whole truth, that
in these Brāhmaṇas religion is an apearance, not a reality.“
Dr. Hopkins seeks to establish the link between the animistic worship of the Ṛig-Veda and the stringent ritual
of the Brāhmaṇas in the person of the priest, as his position is set forth in the liturgical hymns of the Yajur-Veda.
(The Sāma and the Yajurveda are of the least importance from the point of view of philosophy.)
This seems plausible, yet not very important to us. To us, in fact, the Sāman and the Yajur, however voluminous they
may be in size, are but two large collections of excerpts from the older Ṛik. The important text for us is the divine Ṛik,
and also to some extent, the Atharva.
It is conceivable that there is a long interval separating the last sage of the Ṛig-Veda from the thinker whome
we may rightly take as the first philosopher of the Post-Vedic period.
(The transition period defined.)
Probably, as may be easily deduced from the long string of names appended to some of the Brāhmaṇas, at this
intermediate period a great many persons were born who kept alive the philosophic traditions of the past, and
represented the highest wisdom of the time. From our point of view, this intermediate period is the one into which we
can peep through the portals of the Brāhmaṇa sections of the Brāhmaṇa texts, as distinguished from the Āraṇyakas and
Upaniṣads. It seems that the thinkers of the time kept things going, just in the same way that musicians play on various
tunes to indicate that the performance is not over yet, only the scene is changing.
(Its intrinsic value in the history of philosophy.)
The historical value of this intermediate period consists chiefly in its being the period of transition from the
Vedic to the Post-Vedic. At this period, philosophy, no less than Prajāpati, was thinking herself „emptied“ or exhausted
in the activity of production. But the creative impulse led her to ponder over the minds of men, just as Prajāpati was
brooding over the cosmic matter. Whilst thus Prajāpati and philosophy were toiling hard, and fainting in the struggle
for existence, theology was not in any way less active on her own side.
(The peculiarities of the transition period.)
While Prajāpati was fusing the races of men, theology was spinning out the rituals in detail, while philosophy
was busy, we saw, with intermingling Vedic thoughts; consequently the intermixture of blood among men, the painfully
minute elaboration of rituals, and the intermingling of the doctrines of the earlier thinkers – these are among the most
noticeable features of the transition period in question.
(The Sophistic maxim : how did it originate?)

83
 So far as philosophy is concerned, it is just in this process of intermingling of the earlier thoughts that we can
trace in India the origin of a something equivalent to that Sophistic maxim, that man is the measure of all things.
Prajāpati generrated man from his soul, therefore 'Man is all the animasl,' i.e., man is the prototype fo living beings –
such is, however, the precise Indian maxim and its argument. And we must note here that as soon as this maxim came to
clear recognition, the course of philosophy was changed.
(The transition from cosmological to psychological speculations is natural and inevitable.)
Beyond a doubt, this transition from the geocentrism of Vedic speculations to the anthropocentrism of the Post-
Vedic took place gradually, as well as harmoniously. The chief interest of the earlier thinkers was centred upon the
physical world as a whole, and the later thinkers were chiefly concerned with the organic world and man. The order Is
perfectly natural.
(The Post-Vedic thought is implied or anticipated in the Vedic. How?)
Further, in spite of the fact that there are in the scheme of the earlier thought but 'very feeble indications of a
zeal for knowledge applied to the organic world and man,' we have seen that in the speculation of Dīrghatamas was
foreshadowed the whole character of Post-Vedic philosophy; his doctrine disclosed to us in an eminent degree as to
what would be the exact lines on which the development of Vedic philosophy must proceed in future.
It was Dīrghatamas, who considered the sacrificial altar as the navel or centre of our world, and set himself to
inquire, What am Ii? and so it was Dīrghatamas whose somewhat paradoxical doctrine of Indra and Soma (sun and
moon, or heat and light) as the active principle and the passive spectator of the visible universe contained the later
conceptions of the relation between life and soul. Besides Dīrghatamas, there is another Vedic sage whose name must
be mentioned in this connection. She is „Sūryā“. „Sūryā“ conceived the son as the reproduction of the father, since a
man is born in the wom of his wife in the form of a seed. Inspite of the fact that this came to be regarded later as a
popular view, it will be remembered that „Sūryā's“ was the first attempt to formulate a scientific theory about the
origin and continuity of human life. We have further to admit here that „Sūryā's“ speculations gave rise to the theory of
heredity as expounded in the Post-Vedic literature.
(The conditions under which the question „Who am I“? permanently arose.)
All this is true, and yet the fact remains that the primary concern of the Vedic thinkers was the world, not man.
Therefore the question „Who am I?“ could permanently arise only in the wake of the consciousness, that 'man is all the
animals.'
(Post-Vedic thought is just the repetition of the Vedic, in so far as the types of problems are concerned.)
Once more, this one question „Who am I?“ brought in its train many other questions, and here it is interesting
to remark that almost all the fundamental questions raised by the Vedic thinkers with regard to the world were repeated
in the Post-Vedic thought with regard to man. In this respect Post-Vedic philosophy may be looked upon as simply the
repetition of the Vedic, although this repetition does not mean imitation, but continuation and development, in the truest
sense of the terms.
(The fundamental problem of the period, according to Buddha.)
In the opinion of Buddha the period which closely followed upon that of Vedic worship was religious-philosophical n
character, the main problem of this period being „How can I hold communion or unite with Brahmaṇ?“
(Justification Buddha's opinion.)
The judgement thus summarized by Buddha may not be wholly true in the letter, yet it must be said to the true
in the spirit, considering that the highest religious aspiration of man to approach and unite with what he looks up to as
the supreme, the mighty, the divine, merciful, the beautiful, the one, the all, was never absent, from the Vedic or Indo-
Aryan minds. This truly religious aspiration of man to unite with what is divine iin nature found its earliest expression
in one of the hymns of Śunahśepa. He aspired to know who among the immortal gods had the power to restore him to
Aditi – the visible Infinite, that he might realise the nature of his father and mother (heaven and earth), and the reply that
came to him was – Fire (Agni alone is powerful to do so). In the case of „Brahmaṇaspati's“ hymn, too, we could not
but see the eagerness of the finite (i.e., the bounded space beyond the heaven and the bounded horizon on the earth) to
approach Aditi – the real Infinite. And yet again it was only in the views of Dīrghatamas that we had the fist definite
indication of the unity of man in essence with the rest of the universe, - with the whole. We know, however, that in the
conception of Dīrghatamas this world-essence is no other than what he called the solar essence, that is to say, identical
with the fire-essence. Thus all these are inter-connected, and their connection came about in natural, historical order.
(Further demonstration of the main problem of Post-Vedic Philosophy.)
Now in conformity with our theory, that in India as in Greece, the first philosophic reflections arose out of
religion, we may hold with Buddha that the main question with the early Post-Vedic thinkers appertained to Yoga – the
inner culture of faith and intellect. It seems probable even then, that from the question „How can I unite with him?“
emerged these two apparently distinct problems for philosophy -

84
(1) Who is he with whom I shall unite?
(2) Who am I who shall unite with him?
Of these the former has already been answered by the Vedic thinkers, and now the latter must be answered by
their successors. In reality, however, both of these problems are there for the Post-Vedic thinkers, and they are to them
not exactly two distinct problems, but two aspects of one and the same problem. To them he is logically distinguishable
from me as the object from the subject. But from the Yoga point of view, if I know him, I know myself, and if I know
myself I know him. Thus the two questions - „Who is he?“ and „Who am I?“ are capable of being answered briefly by
„I am he (so' haṁ).“ In other words, according to the Yoga postulate, the two questions are reducible to this one: „Who
is he?“ or, „Who am I?“
(The interest of the problem)
To the question - „Who am I?“ the answers are given in an ascending series. The interest of these answers lies
partly in the roughly outlined stages of transition:
1. from the physical world to the organic;
2. from the organic world to the embryonic man;
3. from embryonic to physiological man;
4. from physiological to psychological man;
5. from psychological to metaphysical man;
6. from metaphysical to religious-ethical man.

(The solution of the problem)

Accordingly, the reply to the question - „Who am I?“ may be stated in the following order:-

(a) I am an individual being, as all the animals of the earth and all the creatures of the air are. All organic
beings and all inorganic things, said „Nārāyaṇa,“ are formed from Puruṣa – the sun or solar substance.
(b) I am annamaya – embryonic man, a man in the process of formation, that is to say, a seed or sperm,
composed of food or five elements, produced from the essence of food digested by the father, communicated to the
mother and established in the womb.
(c) I am prāṇamaya – physiological man, a man born of the parents, brought forth by the mother, a living
body, that is to say, a body imbued with life, composed of food or elements, nourished by food, reduced at death to an
anatomical man, a corpse dissolved hereafter into the elements or returned to the physical world.
(d) I am manomaya – psychological man, a conscious individual, who can perceive through the senses, who
dreams, imagines, thinks, feels, will, and who perceives duality and plurality among things, perceptual and conceptual.
(e) I am vijñānamaya – metaphysical man, a thought-free, but conscious man who is beginning to sleep and
sleeping a sound sleep, a man who is endowed with nothing but the inherent conscious sentient principle or soul – a
thinker who realises the unity of cause in the variety of appearance.
(f) Lastly, I am ānandamaya – spiritual or religious-ethical man, who is enjoying the bliss of sound sleep,
uncrossed by dreams, untouched by eares, - a blessed soul, united with the divine.

According to the earliest, demoniac, or materialistic mode, „I am the body“; according to the later, corporeal or
realistic mode, „I am the mind“; and aicording tot he last, incorporeal or idealistic mode, „I am the soul.“
(The dialectical aspect of Post-Vedic philosophy.)
So far regarding the contemplative side of the Post-Vedic literature. But in dealing effectively with the subject
of Indian philosophy, we must also take into consideration another side of it, which is of as much intellectual
importance as the contemplative. Logic and dialectic (tarka, mīmāṁsā), formed the two wings of discussion, carried on
by the Wanderers generally, and discussion involved, as a rule, a sort of „wrangling“ in the learned circle. As Buddha
described it humorously, the learned recluses and Brāhmaṇs meet together, discuss problems, and wrangle in this
manner:-
„You don't understand this doctrine and discipline, I do. How should you know about this doctrine and
discipline?
You have fallen into wrong views. It is I who am in the right.
I am speaking to the point, you are not.
You are putting last what ought to come first, and first what ought to come last.
What you've excogitated so long, that's all quite upset.
Your challenge has been taken up. You are probed to be wrong.
Set to work to clear your views. Disentangle yourself if you can.“

85
(The four laws of thought.)
The problem in theological circles was concerned with the divine revelation of Word, or the Vedas, and duties
enjoined therein. In other circles the subject was either philosophical or scientific. Whatever that might be, the happy
result of this mode of discussion or „wrangling“ among the learned Wanderers was that in the time of Buddha the four
laws of thought were recognised as a matter of course. These are in their application to propositions:
(If A is B), A is B
A cannot be both B and not-B
A is either B or not-B
A is neither B nor not-B.

These are implied in such interrogative propositions as are met with throughout the Buddhist canonical texts.
Is there another world? Is A B? (The reply being, No).
Is it, then, that there is not another world? Is A not-B? (The reply being still, No.)
Is it, then, that there both is and is not another world? Is A both B an not-B? (The reply being as before.)
Is it, then, that there neither is nor is not another world? Is A neither B nor not-B?

In reality this reference ought to have been discussed in the introduction to Part III. For all ancient documents
at our disposal bear evidence to the fact that the recognition of four laws or principles was rather the outcome of a
further penetrating analysis on the part of thinkers other and somewhat later than Post-Vedic. It was not possible until
Sophistic activities in the country were in full swing. So far as Post-Vedic philosophers are concerned, they seem only
to have vaguely and occasionally referred to these three laws, viz., laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Double
Negation. Yājñavalkya's „No-No Doctrine“ affords no doubt the best example of Double Negation. Those who think
merely of the forms of questions may not accept our interpretation in its principle or in its detail. Rather they might go
so far as to assert that Indian minds were so illogical from the beginning that they could, and as a matter of fact did,
with impunity set all the fundamental laws of thought at nought. But the critic, in order to avoid being one sided, must
carefully examine the foms of interrogation, the modes of rejoinder, and above all, their motives. The example given, is
of a controversy in the form in which it was carried on in the sixth century B.C., if not earlier. It is evident that the
motive of the interrogator is to seek a dialectical advantage over the interlocutor who, as a professed sceptic, seeks to
evade the position where he might commit himself to a flagrant logical absurdity.

[Let us produce here at random the specimen of a controversy which dates as late as the third century B.C., for
examination:
Th. - Does the past exist?
A. - It exists on this wise, it does not exist on that wise.
Th. - Does the past as you describe it, both exist and not exist? You deny, then affirm – for you must affirm.
And if this same past both exists and does not exist, then is also exitence non-existence and conversely, then is the state
of being a state of non-being and conversely, then are „is“ and „is not“ convertible terms, identical, one in meaning, the
same, same in content and in origine? And this of course you do not admit.
(Points of Controversy, P. T. S., pp. 108-9).
The Syādvāda or Antinomian doctrine of the Jainas and of the Sarvāstivādins and their followers might be
calculated to be a defience of the established laws of thought. But this is not really the case, the doctrine being of a
hypothetical character only. To affirm that A may be B in one sense, from one standpoint, and not B in another sense,
from another standpoint, is not to deny the Law of contradiction, which teaches that A cannot be both B and not-B at
the same time, and in the same sense. We might here refer the reader to a significant pronouncement of Buddha on the
subject of the Law of Identity in its application to categorical propositions: „that which has passed away, ceased to be,
completely change, is to be designated, termed, judged as „something that was,“ and neither as „something that is“ nor
as „something that will be“; and so on (Saṁyutta, III, pp. 71-3).]

later texts can furnish numerous passages giving us an insight into the exact use to which the fourth law was
put, that of Double Negation. It is implied that this is applicable to two extreme cases:
(1) to the conception of something which is really nothing, that is, non-existent as a fact in the world of experience, but
possible as a product of fancy, viz., „a barren woman's son,“ „the horns of a hare,“ „flowers in the sky;“
(2) to the conception of that which is the real of all that is relatively real, viz., Brahman, Ātman, Nirvāṇa, that is, the
Absolute. The significance of the Nêti, Nêti doctrine of Yājñavalkya is that Brahman is definable only by negation of

86
all the predicates assignable to the finite things of experience.
(The theological side of the older Brāhmaṇic activity. Its effect on the course of philosophy.)
Now we sum up the result of the older Brāhmaṇic activity on the theological side. The overwhelming energy
applied to the systematization of Vedic rituals was not without its salutary effect upon the course of philosophy itself.
The oldest Vedic wisdom knew no division at all, nor the older Brāhmaṇic. But the arrangements and re-arrangement of
current hymns and customary rites under various artificial heads, revealed in course of the Post-Vedic period the way in
which the concrete sciences and practical philosophy might be separated from theology proper, and from theoretic
philosophy.

87
 QUESTIONS
• Explain the humanistic nature of beliefs in gods in Vedic period
• Discuss identification of religious characteristics in Brāhmaṇa tradition in Vedic period.
• Describe how „Karma Mārga“ in Vedic period was meaningful through sacrifices.
• Explain how ascetic tradition prevalent during the advent of the Buddha was distinguished from
Buddhist ascetic tradition.
• Evaluate the enthusiasm of Indian thinkers in the investigation of knowledge.
• „The concept of soul was one of the leading propositions in Indian philosophy.“ Give examples to
confirm this idea.
• Explain how the materialistic teachings of Ajita Kesakambalī were a challenge to ethical society.
• „It was the posture in Indian society not to put forward conclusions to some propositions.“ Reply
with reference to scepticism.
• „Self-mortification is a futile policy, leading to high objectives.“ Give reasons if you agree to this
statement.11
• „Emergence of Buddhism is the culmination of awakening of religion and philosophy.“ Explain.
• The Vedic belief in gods is a manifestation of the nature of mind, which prevailed in that society.
Examine this idea.
• Explain the qualitative differences between the ‘Path of Karma’ and the ‘Path of Ñāna’.
• „The concept of soul according to the Indian philosophy is obviously the general opinion.“ Are you
agreeable to this idea?12
• Make an assessment of the enthusiasm evinced by the Indian thinker about the search of the truth.
• Describe the harmful effects, influences on society of the non-functionalism (Akiriyavāda)
expounded by Ajita Kesakambalī.
or
Comment at length the teachings of Makkhalī Ghosāla.
• „Though the self-mortification is a futile effort, the outcome expected of it is supreme.“ Explain the
above statement with reference to the sutta, discourses.
• Explain whether the Śramaṇa tradition established against the Brahmin tradition had a tremendous
influence on the new awakening of the philosophical mind in Indian social set up.
• Describe the ideals of the teachings in pre-Buddhist India.
• Write notes on any two of the following.

11 This question is indeed a mystery. „Futile“ means „useless,“ „purposeless,“ „of no value.“ Thus, how can we say:
„Self-mortification is a useless policy, leading to high objectives.“ How can a „useless policy“ lead to „high
objectives“? If it is useless, it will not lead to high objectives, or it is not useless, and thus it leads to „high
objectives.“ I wonder what kind of answer the teacher expected. I require and demand careful control of questions in
question papers by teachers before handing them over to students. Therefore please, students, be careful – some
questions are futile (useless/of no value). Try to discover the intention of the teacher, but do not critisize him. It is
more than enough that already I critisize them publicly.
12 Here we can see how the author of this question didn’t understand the meaning of word ‘agreeable’. „Are you
agreeable to this idea“ means „Is this idea satisfied with you?“ which is an evident nonsense. Correct form is: „Do
you agree with this idea?“ Or „Are you satisfied with this idea?“

88
 i. Jaina Mahāvīra
ii. Self-indulgence
iii. Yoga philosophy
iv. Scepticism
v. The Middle Path
• Describe the nature of Vedic rituals which existed among early Aryans.
• Explain how the Vedic karma mārga (the course of acts) could be a meaningless system of spiritual
development according to relevant Buddhist teachings.
• Illustrate the effort of the Vedic thinkers to solve the problem of ātman.
• Point out with reference to relevant sources how Indian religious thinkers and philosophers
endeavored to maintain their views while refuting others.
• Describe the differences between the Śramaṇa and the Brāhmaṇa traditions in the pre-Buddhist
period.
• Discuss whether it is reasonable to consider Samjaya Bellattiputa as a skeptic compared to
contemporary thinkers.
• Describe the distinctiveness of the Buddhist śramaṇa tradition comparing it with other contemporary
śramaṇa traditions.
• Explain the fundamentals of determinism in the Buddhist era and give reasons for its refutation by
the Buddha.
• Evaluate the keenness of the Indian thinkers in search of the truth.
• Explain the early Indian teachings on aims and objectives of life.
• See whether nature worship in Rgveda period led to the beginning of Polytheism.
• Show how Buddhism rejected the karma mārga (path of karma) as the method of liberation.
• „The concept of Ṛta resulted from the attempt made by the Vedic people to understand the activities
of nature.“ Discuss.
• Examine how far the materialist teachings lead to the deterioration of personal and social ethics.
• Discuss the mutual relation between the world soul and individual soul.
• Show how pre-Buddhistic Indian views contributed to the emergence of Buddhist thought.
• „The practice of self-mortification neither leads to spiritual purification through moral activities nor
to the ethical development personality.“ Discuss in the light of Buddhist discourses.
• „When compared with other systems of thought, Buddhism shows a uniqueness as thought.“
Explain.
• How far is it justifiable to maintain that Sanjaya Bellaṭṭhiputta was the most agnostic among the
six teachers.
• Write notes on any two of the following.
I. Makkhaligosāla III. Monotheism
II. Practice of self-indulgence IV. Practice of rite and rituals (sīlabbata parāmāsa)
(kāmasukhallikānuyoga) V. Four human ideals (caturvidha sāra dharma)

89
 B.P.F 102 – EARLY BUDDHISM : FUNDAMENTAL STUDIES
In this study the candidates are expected to have a sufficient knowledge of the area of studies as
indicated by the term „Early Buddhism.“ Special attention is drawn to the following topics.
I. The fundamental teachings of early Buddhism such as the three characteristics of Existence
(Tilakkhana), Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, the three fold analysis of Khandha,
Āyatana and Dhātu; the mutual relationship between these fundamental teachings and the Buddhist
theory pertainning to the nature of sentient being and contingent existence as revealed by them.
II. Truth and reality – the true nature of empirical existence, sense-perception and higher
knowledges (Abhiññā), subject and object relationship, mind and matter, the nature and function of
mind, the import and the implications of the terms Citta, Mano and Viññāṇa.
III. The nature, base and aim of Buddhist ethical teachings; the distinction between wholesome
and unwholesome vlitional acts and the criteria adopted in this distinction; the theory of Karma, the
fruition of Karma and its different categories; free will, individual well being and the well being of
others; knowledge and conduct, attainment of perfection, the Buddhist doctrine of deliverance and
its final goal.
IV. The Buddhist attitude to purely rationalistic and metaphysical propositions; the position
adopted by Buddhism in relation to other religions and philosophies; empirical tendencies in early
Buddhist teachings; the four fold analysis of propositions and te category of unanswered questions;
the presence of realistic, idealistic, monistic, radically pluralistic tendencies in the early Buddhist
texts; the problems arising thereby as to the interpretation of the earliest form of Buddhism and the
textual data and the methods that could be adopted in solving these problems of interpretation; the
unique characteristics of Buddhism as a religion and philosophy.

Recommended Reading:

1. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism T. R. V. Murti, London, 1955

2. Buddhist Philosophy D. J. Kalupahana, Honolulu, 1976
3. Buddhist Psychology of Perception E. R. Saratchandra, Colombo, 1955
4. Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon A. B. Keith, London, 1923
5. Buddhist Thought in India Edward Conze, London, 1962
6. The Message of the Buddha K. N. Jayatilake, Ed. Ninian Smart, London,
1975
7. Concept and Reality Bhikkhu Ñānānanda, Kandy, 1969
8. Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism D. J. Kalupahana, Honolulu, 1975
9. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge K. N. Jayatilake, Delhi, 1980

90
 FIVE AGGREGATES (LECTURED BY MR. UDITA GARUSINGHA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)
Rūpa, vedanā,saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa of five aggregates represent all the mental or
psychological factors operating in an individual. This analysis of five aggregates can be considered
of a fundamental system of analysis in early Buddhism.
Besides this analysis of five aggregates there can be seen the analysis of twelve āyatana and
eighteen Dhātus in early Buddhist discourses.
Those twelve āyatanas are:
1) Cakkhu - eyes
2) Sota - ear
3) Ghāna - nose
4) Jivahā - tongue
5) Kāya - body
6) Mano - mind
7) Rūpa - visual object
8) Sadda - sound
9) Gandha - smell
10) Rasa - flavor
11) Phoṭṭhabba - contact
12) Dhammā - mental objects.

First ten factors of above are connected with material or physical objects while the last two
with mental or psychological phenomena.
When the above twelve factors are added to the six fold sense consciousnesses, the category
of eighteen dhātus.(?) These Eighteen dhātus are;
Cakkhu + rūpa = Cakkhu viññāṇa
Sota + Sadda = Sota Viññāṇa
Ghāna + Gandha = Ghāna viññāṇa
Jivhā + Rasa = Jivhā viññāṇa
Kāya + Phoṭṭhabba = Kāya viññāṇa
Mano + Dhamma = Mano viññāṇa

It is only through this process of analysis, one can realistically comprehend the aniccā
(impermanent nature) of Buddhism. According to this description aniccā is the ever changing state
of things. The mental conflicts that happen due to change is dukkha, what ever change is dukkha
»Yada aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ.« dukkha here refers not to happiness and suffering of the practical
world but the insatiability in anything that arises due to aniccā are impermanence. It is the changing
state that is suffering what we consider as pleasurable in this modern world, is also dukkha
because it is aniccā too.

91
 DUKKHA (LECTURED BY MR. UDITA GARUSINGHA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

dukkha is the result that we see the reason for that result (phala) is explained by the truth of
Samudaya or taṇhā. The nirodha or Nibbāna is a result relative to the truth of the path (magga).
The cause for that is the truth of the path. According to some excites the four noble truths have been
organized on the basic of Ayurvedic principles of
1) The disease,
2) The cause of disease,
3) The occurring and
4) The remedy of disease, which existed in India at that time. It is divided into two extreme
paths in Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta namely;
(1) Kamesukhallikānayoga (self-indulgence) is meant nihilistic and materialistic thought.
According to them everything ends with death; this view regards to Punabbhava kamma,
kammapata and virtues, etc. this kind of philosophy is a string attach on the preservation of social
ethics and morals. Therefore, the Buddha described this path as hīno (low), gammo (undeveloped),
pothujjaniko (fitted for the worldly being), anariyo (ignoble), and anattasaṅhito (unbeneficial as
noble goal like Nibbāna).
(2). Attakilamathānuyoga (self-mortification) is the path of the view of Sassatavāda
(eternalism) which was communicated at that time, the follower of this teaching believed that to
make their soul eternal or to make it more happy they must follow principles of torturing their mind
and body due to this belief. They believed in punaruppati (rebirth), kamma, kammaphala and
virtues etc. an account of this, their principles were helpful for the preservation of the social ethics
and morals.

Therefore, the Buddha did not introduce them in exotic language as used for the
Ucchedavāda but somewhat sympathetic language such as dukkha (pain, sorrowful, suffering.)
anariyo (Ignoble goal like Nibbāna.)
According to above description the Attakilamathānuyoga path can be considered as better
than Kāmasukkhalliyoga but Middle Paths also exclude both these two extremes.
Collection of technical terms,
1. Dukkha
2. Samudaya
3. Nirodha
4. Magga
5. Ariya
6. Anicca
7. Kamma
8. Nibbāna
9. Majjhimapaṭipadā

The Dukkha

1. The dukkha of Four Noble Truth is not only the dukkha that is relative to the ordinary sukha
which we experienced. According to the teaching of the Buddha states that »yada niccaṃ
taṃ dukkhaṃ.« = what is impermanent, is suffering”. The dukkha is related to the principle

92
 of aniccā. Buddhism teaches that the impermanence is a universal nature. In the suttas
(discourses) has been taught as example of dukkha; jāti (birth), jarā (decay), vyādhi (illness)
and maraṇa (death). Union with that one dislike separation from the one likes not getting
what one likes in short grasping (upādāna) of five aggregates (pañcakhandha) as ones is
suffering. The truth of the cause of suffering in the Samaria sutta teaches that craving
(taṇhā) is the chief cause of all these suffering. The truth is the cessation of suffering as
birth, decay and death, etc. by completely dispelling of the craving. The truth of path leading
to cessation of suffering (magga) teaches the way to be followed and achieved this. Here
there is a point that it should understand clearly that is now birth, decay, and death, etc.
became extinct by realization of the Four Noble Truths.

According to the history of the Buddhism, the Buddha and Arahants who had realized the
Four Noble Truth all were: sickness, aging, decay, and death even in their life time. The Buddha
lived about ṭ0 years during his life time especially, in the evening of his life he had ailment (illness)
as the pain like backache and final is sickness with the passing away.
The Thera and Therī gāthā revealed that now monks and nuns who were Arahants faced
dead. All of them had realized the Four Noble Truths themselves. Now it is prevalent to understand
how the suffering like decay and death become an extinct by realization of the Four Noble Truths as
found in the Dhammacakka Sutta that there can be seen one interpretation that Arahants are not
scare of suffering because they do not have the existence after death.
The connecting result of realization of Four Noble Truths to the next world does not agree
with the Buddhist teachings especially, for one who dose not have rebirth. The Dhamma was
introduced as “Ehi pasiko” because the Dhamma has the characteristic of inviting man to “come
and see” that means the result can be seen in one’s present existence itself. If the result of following
Buddhism eligible in the next existence the one cannot call it “Ehipasiko.”

By the term Sandiṭṭhiko is meant that the result of practicing Dhamma can be seen in this
world itself. Akāliko means the time is irrelevant as concerning Buddhism. Therefore, to end the
suffering by realizing the Four Noble Truths cannot be justified through connecting wish after
death.

The attention of scholars who interpreted this point has been directed to explain the
cessation of suffering from a mental stands point. Paṭiccasamuppāda (the doctrine of Dependent of
Origination) explains the arising of dukkha such as decay and death as following;
Dependent on taṇhā (craving) arises upādāna (grasping)
Dependent on upādāna arises the bhava (existence of the ego)
Dependent on bhava arises jāti (birth or arising of the concept of “I” related to the ego
concept)
Dependent on jāti arises jarā maraṇaṃ etc. (the arises of the concept “I will come to decay
and death related to the concept of “I will was born).
According to this analysis the concepts like decay and death arise in our mind because there
is the concept of “I” in us. But in real sense there is no permanent existence of “I.” The craving is
dispelled by realizing the Four Noble Truths, thereby, the concept of “I” and “mine” are also
disappeared. When there is nothing as concept of “I” then the concept like ‘I am born, I come to
decay, I will die’ disappeared. That mental illumination is the reason why the Buddha who realized
the Four Noble Truths as the age of ūṭ years, expressed that ‘I have vanquished (devour) all the

93
suffering like headache, backache and diseases and I will not born again after death. This is the last
birth for me, Tathāgata,’

The first Noble Truth of dukkha declares that everything in the world is unsatisfactory. The
reason for that is impermanent nature of everything. The Buddha expressed the principle of dukkha
related to the impermanence or aniccā. The truth of the origination of suffering (samudaya)
underlines the main reason for unsatisfactoriness as craving because of craving man constructs
ideas of permanence and in the search of that he comes to dissatisfactions repeatedly. Therefore, it
was the Buddha’s teaching not to build permanent concepts in the changing world.
In our mind there are three kinds of cravings namely:
1) Kāmataṇhā (the desire for sense gratification)
2) Bhavataṇhā (the desire for self preservation)
3) Vibhavataṇhā (the desire for destruction)

Kāmtaṇhā can be described as the desire of sense. Enjoyment or pleasure, our desire for
permanence as Bhavataṇhā whiles(?) the desire for non-existence as a bhavataṇhā. According to
traditional interpretation, bhavataṇhā and vibhavataṇhā connected with eternalism (sasata vāda)
and nihilism (uccheda vāda) respectably by the construction of the three folds of taṇhā is meant by
the Nirodhasacca (the truth of cessation of suffering). The cessation of those sufferings is Nibbāna.
The truth of magga reveals the path that should be taken to realize the Nibbāna. It is well-known as
the 'Ariya aṭṭhaṅgikamagga' this is called Eightfold Noble Path.

Two of these eightfold noble paths as sammā diṭṭhi (right View or Understanding) and
Sammā saṅkappa (right thought) are connected with paññā (wisdom) and sammā vācā (right
speech), sammā kammanta (right action) and sammā ājīva (right livelihood) are connected with sīla
(morality) and others are sammā vāyāmo (right effort), sammā sati (right mindfulness) and sammā
samādhi (right concentration) are connected with concentration (samādhi). Although, these factors
are shown separately for ease of analysis; it should be considered as very complex process.
The discipline and balance of the individual behavior is meant by sīla. Equipoise and
concentration of mind is meant by samādhi. Because of the changeful nature of the world the mind
of man like his body is always changing. These changes are two kinds namely; rāga and dosa.
Rāga means 'movement of change of lust' and dosa means 'hatred'. The mind that changes thus sees
only one side of the world. Paññā means “wisdom” in Buddhism not viewing of world from one
side but the purpose; we must name a mind that is tranquil. To achieve that tranquil mind and body,
one must cultivate in the long farm principle of restraint and discipline. The two paths of discipline
that bring about a tranquil mind and body called sīla and samādhi; that individual sees the world
characterized by aniccā, dukkha and anattā and his vision is called paññā. As the Buddha says
»Ñānañca para me dassanaṃ udapādi,« what happens is not the looking of the world through
paññā but really a vision of the world”. “Looking at” is intentionally looking with the defilement of
lust and hatred. The person who endowed sīla and samādhi views the world effortlessly as if really
is. This is called »Yathabhūta ñanadassana.«

94
QUESTION: MORALITY (SĪLA) AND CONCENTRATION (SAMĀDHI) CANNOT BE MEANINGFUL WITHOUT THE RIGHT
13
VIEW. DISCUSS. (BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF DELIVERANCE AND ITS FINAL GOAL)

Answer: (this answer is bad and is not tally with the Question. This topic is rather about Nibbāna!!!)

Deliverance or final goal is regarded as the finality of cycle of birth or Saṃsāra in Buddhism. Its
nature as taught by the Buddha has been the subject of conroversy from ancient time. It has been variously
interpreted in the ancient age and by modern scholars. Anyway, understanding the basic characteristic of
final goal is leading to satisfactory moral life. According to Dhammapada words:

»Mattā sukha pariccāgā, passe ce vipulaṃ sukhaṃ,

caje mattā sukham dhiro, sampassaṃ vipulaṃ sukhaṃ.«

That means, that one who aspires or wishes to reach the final goal should understand the genuine
characteristic of it, because it leads to modulate one's moral life and he gives sub-unsatisfactory leaving
condition.
Etymologically, Nibbāna may mean three things:
1. „Cooling“ (Sītibhuto) which metaphorically indicates the cooling of the craving and passion.
2. „Stillness produced by the absence of wind of craving and passion“
3. „The extinction of the psycho-physical-complex“ (nāma-rūpakkhandha), which is regarded as responsible
for pain and sorrow.
There are several possible interpretations of the concept of Nibbāna and for each one of them some
supposed can be obtained from the early Buddhist texts. At the primary level, Nibbāna means the extinction
of pain and sorrow. However, then it cannot mean negation of all feelings, because Buddha's heart is said to
have been full of deep compassion and love. At the more philosophical level, Nibbāna means the extinction
of the empirical phenomena (the fields of experiences as kamma, rūpa and arūpa). The third implication of
Nibbāna mentioned in some parts of the Buddhist literature and later developed Mahāyāna interpretation
giving some different interpretations. Anyway, when examined the original texts included Tipiṭaka texts
possibly referred to correct interpretations because the Buddha after having completion of worldly
conditions reached the Nibbāna and explained Nibbāna as an empirical knowledge.
According to Udāna Pāḷi, the final goal is interpreted as an institution without having all the worldly
condition, material and non-material:

»Atthi bhikkhave tadāyatanaṃ yattha neva pathavī na āpo na tejo na vāyo na ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ
na viññānañcāyatanaṃ na ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ na nevasaññāsaññāyatanaṃ nāyaṃ loko na paroloko
na ubho candimasuriyā.«

Lobhakkhayo nibbānaṃ, dosakkhayo nibbānaṃ and mohakkhayo nibbānaṃ mean the elimination of
lust, hatred and delusion, which is Nibbāna, which is also meant by the conditions of without having lobha,
dosa, moha is known as Nibbāna which should be experienced and not to be reached.(?) When one destroys
gradually the existence of material and non-material conditions, he can reach the state of Nibbāna. Thus the
rough or material parts of the existence could be restrained from moral conduct and non-material condition
as restraint by samādhi and complete elimination of defilements could be fulfilled through paññā or wisdom.

13 This topic is not appropriate answer for the Question. This topic is about Nibbāna, but not about Right view, which
is asked in the Question!!!

95
 TILAKKHANA, THREE CHARACTERISTICS (LECTURED BY MR. UDITA GARUSINGHA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN.
SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

Three characteristics in Buddhism are basic principle namely; aniccā (impermanence),

dukkha (suffering) and anattā (soullessness). The basic teachings of the Buddha like Four Noble
truths and Dependent Origination etc. are made meaningful in the basic of the teaching of three
characteristics. Therefore Buddhism is in every important.
It appeared that in 6th century B.C. when the Buddhism arose many religions and
philosophies putting forth the view that there is permanent soul as apposed to the principle of
everything is 'impermanent'. Especially the Vedic Tradition as well as Jainism teach that there is a
permanent soul described as paramātma, jagadātma, Brāhmaṇa Īśvara and Pratyagātma existing in
the individual.

Buddhism teaches a theory of soullessness 'anattā' instead of impermanent soul. The

teaching of impermanence (aniccā) is not limited to Buddhism alone, other religions also teach it.
However, they taught, aniccā not as universal law but applicable only to certain instances, aniccā
did not apply concepts of ātman, Paramātma or Brāhmaṇa etc. but Buddhism, for the first time in
Indian religious history, taught aniccā as a universal law. Following statements clarify this fact:
»Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā
sabbaṃ aniccaṃ.
Suññaṃ idaṃ etena
vā attaniyena vā.«

Analysis is the methodology (a set or system of method) of early Buddhism to show

impermanence of everything.
Nāma rūpa (mind and matter = physical and material factor) or the beings and the world.
Everything in universe and loka is analyzed into five aggregates as;

3. Rūpa (forms)
4. Vedanā (feeling)
5. Saññā (perception)
6. Viññāṇa ( consciousness)
In early Buddhism.

96
 THE THREE CHARACTERISTICS

The three characteristic features of existence, tilakkhana are:

1. Impermanence (aniccā)
2. Unsatisfactoriness (dukkha)
3. Selflessness (anattā)

Buddhism teaches that there is nothing in the universe that does not change, nothing is
permanent, nothing remains the same for ever. Impermanence is the nature of all things be it man,
animal or whatever else. Everything that comes into existence fails to last(?) and finally perishes.
Buddhism is primarily concerned with the human being and notes that an individual, formed of the
five aggregates, is constantly changing. All things are subject to arising and passing away, they are
impermanent (sabbe sankhārā aniccā).

Another characteristic feature or existence is the presence of a general unsatisfactory state,

dukkha. Sometimes unpleasant things happen, events which are difficult to endure arise, causing
suffering, sorrow, sadness, misery or pain. All beings seek what is pleasurable and dislike what is
non-pleasurable. All like happiness and dislike unhappiness.

Happiness and pleasure however do not last forever, they are transient and bound to change.
When happiness ends and pleasurable things cease to exist one feels uneasy or sad. So in life there
is always an underlying element of unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). There are three kinds of dukkha:
1. Dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic or ordinary suffering)
2. Viparināma-dukkha (suffering due to change)
3. Sankhāra-dukkha (suffering due to formation and conditioned states)

In accordance with the law of the universe of impermanence, all the phenomena of existence
whatsoever are subject to change and dissolution and hence are miserable and unsatisfactory (sabbe
saṁkhār dukkhā).
The third characteristic feature of existence is „egolessness,“ „no-soul“ (anattā). The
impermanence and unsatisfactoriness naturally leads to the basic Buddhist concept of anattā.

The body is soul-less. If there was a soul, this body would not be subject to impermanence,
to change and suffering. If this body has a soul such possibilities like „let this body be thus“ or „let
this body not be thus“ would not be available.
Similarly, the mind is soul-less. Sensations, perceptions, mental formations and
consciousness are always changing. Since the mind and body are always changing - 'no-soul' could
exist. If one truly realizes that everything is changing it becomes obvious there is really nothing
called 'Myself' or 'Mine'.

The teaching of 'no self' (anattā) is difficult to comprehend, because for so long one is
conditioned to think in terms 'I', 'mine', 'myself', 'my soul'. The Buddha reallized and taught that
only when the three fundamental evils of desire (rāga), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha) are fully
uprooted, one is free from the bondage of the 'self'. And then the ignorance is destroyed and one's
mind becomes enlightened.

97
 INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THREE CHARACTERISTICS (ANICCĀ, DUKKHA AND ANATTĀ – TILAKKHANA)

Almost all religions and philosophies of the Buddha's time in India believed in a permanent
'thing' as the essence of all phenomena. In the individual this essence was called ātman, and in that
of the world was called Brāhmaṇ. Eternalists believed this essence to be metaphysical, permanent
and everlasting, the annihilationists/nihilists(?) considered it to be physical, impermanent and
getting annihilated. Their world view was based on this core belief in an essence, a substance, an
entity which lasted forever without changing, or which lasted for times without changing.
The Buddha considered this view pointed out that it is when viewed from this wrong point
of view that there arises suffering. Then, analysis of the cause of dukkha is that it is due to distorted
vision. This makes one believe in some entity or a substance (attā). This remains without changing,
therefore it gives happiness, whereas whatever gives happiness should not be changing. The Pāli
suttas describe the distorted vision as »anice nicca saññā, dukkhe sukha saññā, anattani atta
saññā«.
Thus the Buddha pointed out that it was against reality. Being misled by the distorted
vision, when one meets with reality he experiences change, and change produces suffering. To
explain this problem and show the real nature of phenomena the Buddha said that there are three
characteristics of all phenomena. Phenomena he pointed out in what is compunded and not
something independent and discreet. Therefore all phenomena he described as saṁkhāta. All what
is saṃkhāta has three characteristics (»tīni saṁkhāta lakkhanāni). These are aniccā
(impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anattā (no-soul). This is the true nature of all dhammā that
are saṁkhāta.
The Buddha pointed out that what is saṁkhāta is aniccā (»sabbe saṁkhārā aniccā«), what
is aniccā is dukkha (»yad aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ«), and what is dukkha is without a self (»yad
dukkhaṃ tad anattā«). This is the basis of the Buddhist world view, a view that presents the true
nature of things. Buddha's explanation is that it is the ignorance (avijjā) regarding the true nature
of things or the lack of knowledge regarding „things as they are“ (yathābhūta ñāna) is the cause of
man's suffering.
In order to bring out this clearly he analyzed the being and the world in number of ways.
These are five main such analyses:

1. nāma-rūpa
2. pañcakkhandha
3. 6 dvāra
4. 12 āyatana
5. 18 dhātu

The purpose of all these analyses is to show the absence of an entity and show that all
phenomena are impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta). This presents a
correct vision of being and the world.

98
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN HOW THE BUDDHIST WORLD VIEW IS ILLUSTRATED IN THE TEACHING OF THE THREE
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTENCE.

The aim of Buddhism is to understand the man’s predicament (dukkha) and bring about its
cessation (nirodha). To do this it is necessary to understand what dukkha is. This could be done by
udnerstanding our existence for it is said that the whole existence that is the whole world is
established on dukkha.
The Buddha explains that our vision about the world is distorted by our craving (rāga,
lobha), hatred (dosa) and confusion (moha). Due to the influence of these defiling forces we fail to
view the world as it is. Instead we view as we wish it to be. So, our vision of the world is
determined by our likes and dislikes (rāga, dosa), which are due to our confusion (moha).
Therefore, the world view we have is a misleading one.
Being misled by this wrong, distorted vision we see permanence in what is impermanent
(anicca nicca saññā), happiness in what is sorrowful (dukkha sukha saññā) and a soul or some
entity where ther is no such soul (anattani atta saññā).
It is this distorted vision, the wrong world view that causes as dukkha when we are faced
with reality. All phenomena are interdependent (sabbbe dhammā paṭiccasamuppannā). Whatever is
interdependent has no independent, permanent existence. We put together interdependent things and
call them as permanent things. But in reality what is put together or compounded (sankhāta /
saṅkhāra) are impermanent (aniccā). Whatever is impermanent is suffering (yad aniccaṃ taṃ
dukkhaṃ) From this it follows that whatever is suffering due to impermanence is wihtout a soul
(yad dukkha taṃ anattā).
Thus it is seen that all phenomena is marked by these three characteristics of aniccā, dukkha,
anattā. A world view based on this understanding straightens our distorted, crooked vision and
makes us see things, the world in its true perspective. This vision makes us understand our
predicament (dukkha) and helps us to attain its cessation (nirodha).

99
 THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. TEZANIYA)

Truth is an incontrovertible fact which everyone has to face. There are four such truths
according to Buddhism. The Buddha himself discovered them by his own intuitive knowledge and
revealed them to the deluded world. They do not and cannot change with time because they are
eternal truths.

The Four Noble Truths are as follows:

1. The truth of suffering or sorrow (dukkha sacca)
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya sacca)
3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (samudaya sacca)
4. The truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering (magga sacca)

In details, the first one is meaning that birth, old age, illness, death, association with those
we do not love, separation from those we love. Not to get whatt we desire and in brief the five
aggregates of clinging.
The second is craving what leads our life not to free from suffering from rebirth to rebirth or
from life to life in saṃsāra (the cycle of rebirth).
The third one, nirodha sacca means the deliverance or cessation from all suffering. It links
our life to the part of Noble.(?)
The last one, magga sacca means that is(?) Noble(?) including(?) with eight portions. if one
who realizes them in greatest insight knowledge, could be called Ariya or Noble man, who attained
the Nibbāna.
Whether a buddha arises or not, these Four Noble Truths exist in the universe. We can not
know because the sensible of truths of our wisdom is covered by ignorance.(?) The Buddha only
reveals these Four Noble Truths that were hidden in the dark abyss of time. The Buddha was not
indebted to anyone for his realization of them. he himself said: »They were unheard before.«
These truths are in Pāli termed as cattāri ariyasaccāni. They are so called because they were
discovered by the greatest Ariya, the Buddha, who completely removed all his passions.
Although the Buddha passed away, the Four Noble Truths that he discovered still exist in
the world. By following his teachings, one, who wants to enjoy sense of the truths, would possess
them like a Noble person, who had attained the Nibbāna, which is the ultimate goal of Buddhists.

100
 FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (1)

The Four Noble Truths contain the essence of the Buddha's teaching. At the Mahāparinibbāna sutta
states, it is the ignorance of these truths that make all beings wander in this saṃsāric round of births and deaths. In
fact the Buddhist explanation is that ignorance (avijjā) which is the primary cause of suffering is our lack of
knowledge regarding these truths (catu sacce aññānaṃ avijjā). On the contrary, vijjā is defined as knowledge of
the Four Noble Truths.
Its importance is such that the Buddha announced these Four Noble Truths in his first discourse itself.
When analyzed deeply it is seen that the presentation of the Four Noble Truths is another way of presenting the
Buddha's central teaching of dependent origination. It is accepted that the Buddha's main concern was about
man's dukkha and its cessation (nirodha). He says: »Pubbe cāhaṃ etarahi ca dukkhaṃ paññāpemi dukkhassa
nirodhaṃ.« The doctrine of the Four Noble Truths is about that, what is about the causally conditioned nature of
dukkha and its cessation. The Four Noble Truths are:

1. Dukkha ariya sacca

2. Dukkha samudaya ariya sacca
3. Dukkha nirodha ariya sacca
4. Dukkha nirodha gāminī paṭipadā

In the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta the Buddha says that the Four Noble Truths should be
apprehended in three phases and twelve aspects (ti-parivattaṁ dvādasākaraṁ). Three phases (ti-parivatta) mean:
(a) saccañāna – knowledge of each truth
(b) kiccañāna – knowledge of the approach to be applied to each truth
(c) katañāna – knowledge about the fulfillment of such approach.
When these three modes are applied to the Four Noble Truths then we get the twelve aspects.
It is only when the Four Noble Truths are comprehended and understood in manner that one becomes free
from dukkha. Such understanding makes one truly see what dukkha is, how it arises, how it could be ceased and
the way leading to its cessation. This enables one to see the dukkha originating and ceasing within one's own
mind. Then one knows that dukkha and sukha are neither punishments nor rewards given by any external agency.
One understands that they are one's own making. When one sees the causal origin of dukkha he realizes that its
cessation is possible through the removal of causes. This is the realization:

»Yam kiñci samudaya dhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodha dhammaṃ.«

The path lays down the means of achieving this cessation. It is not by washing away externally all
defilements but by having a complete internal bath that one can clean oneself of all the defiling forces and
achieving happiness. It is our failure to understand and apply a proper approach towards the Four Noble Truths
that we suffer. We take them as separate truths. The Buddha has clearly shown that understanding the Four
Truths separately is like the attempt of the blind men to understand an elephant.
The Four Noble Truths have to be taken together, for they are not four different truths, but one truth with
four aspects. The key point is dukkha. But, according to Buddhism whatever arises has to invariably/inevitably(?)
cease. Therefore, there is cessation of dukkha. For this, the cause – tanhā has to be eliminated. This could be done
by following the Noble Eightfold Path consisting of the threefold training with sīla aiding samādhi, and samādhi
supporting paññā. One will be able to see the āsavā or defiling forces that one is kept bound to saṃsāra. These
knowing and seeing (jānaṃ – passaṃ) once, āsavā get completely destroyed by seeing with paññā: »paññāya ca
disvā āsavā parikkhīnā honti.« The aim of the Four Noble Truths is to direct one to end.

101
 THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (2)

The Four Noble Truths are the most important doctrine of Buddhism. They are the noble
truth of the suffering –
1. Dukkha ariya sacca - the noble truth of the suffering
2. Dukkha samudaya ariya sacca - the noble truth of the origin of the suffering
3. Dukkha nirodha ariya sacca – the noble truth of the cessation of the suffering
4. Ariya magga sacca – the noble truth of the way to the cessation of the suffering

The truth of the suffering is to be compared with a disease; the truth of the origin of the
suffering with the cause of disease; the truth of the cessation of the suffering with the cure of the
disease; and the truth of the path to the cessation of the suffering with the medicine.14

The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects:

1. Dukkha as ordinary suffering
2. Dukkha-dukkha as a suffering produced by change
3. Viparināma dukkha – as a conditioned state (Saṁkhāra dukkha)

All kinds of suffering in life such as birth, old age, sickness and death are included in
dukkha. All such forms of physical and mental suffering are included in dukkha-dukkha. A happy
feeling and condition in life is not permanent, not everlasting. It is always changing. Sooner or later
it produces pain, suffering and unhappiness. This kind of vicissitude is included in viparināma
dukkha.
A combination of ever changing physical and mental forces or energies, which are divided
into five khanda or aggregates, is called a burning(?) dukkha itself (saṁkhāra dukkha). There is no
being or 'I' standing behind these five aggregates. mere suffering exists but no suffering is found.
The deeds are but no doer is found.
The origin of the suffering is craving (taṇhā), which produces the re-existence and
becoming. Craving for sense pleasure (kāma-taṇhā), craving for existence and becoming (bhava-
taṇhā) and craving for the non-existence (vibhava-taṇhā) are the main causes of all kinds of the
suffering.
The third noble truth is that the emancipation, liberation from the suffering is Dukkha
nirodha ariya sacca, which is Nibbāna. The Fourth Noble Truth is that of the way leading to the
cessation of dukkha. This is a middle path, because it avoids the extremeness. The Buddha
discovered this through his personal experience. This middle path can give the vision and
knowledge which can lead to the insight enlightenment, Nibbāna. It is referred to as the Eightfold
Noble Path (ariya aṭṭhaṁgika magga).

14 Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, one of the most famous translators of Pāli Tipiṭaka to English, gives the simile, that the
Buddha is like a doctor, whom we visit. The doctor examines us well and says: „You are sick.“ That is like when
the Buddha said: „There is a suffering.“ Then the doctor examines even more and tells us what is the cause of our
sickness.“ Not much differently the Buddha told us: „the cause of suffering is craving.“ Consequently the doctor,
because he has the knowledge, tells us, that it is possible to cure the sickness. The same way the Buddha
announced: „there is a way out of suffering.“ Finally, the doctor gives us some medicine and advice, so that we can
cure the sickness. Similarly, the Buddha lets us know the Noble Eightfold Path, leading out of suffering.

102
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE NOBLE TRUTH OF SUFFERING AND ADDUCE ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT A
PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF LIFE.

The essence of Buddhism is found in the Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariya saccāni). The first
of these is the Noble Truth of suffering (dukkha ariya sacca). Though it is listed first it does not
mean that it is more important than the other three. All four truths are of equal importance, and they
are not four different truths, but four aspects of the single truth, namely dukkha.
The Buddha, summing up his teaching, says that he teaches only two things, namely the
prevailence of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. The suttas contain such statements as the world
is established in dukkha (dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito). This emphasis of dukkha has made some to
consider Buddhism as a pessimistic teaching.
But such a conclusion is not at all justified. What does the First Noble Truth mean? It means
that birth is dukkha, so is old age, disease and death; similarly all kinds of disappointment are
dukkha. Finally it say that saṅsāric life or the five aggregartes of clinging (pañcupādānakkhandha)
are dukkha.
There is nothing pessimistic about this. This is only a statement of fact – describing life as it
really is. If it is anything it is a realistic view of life and not a pessimistic view.
Those who consider Buddhism as pessimistic have failed to understand the real meaning of
dukkha. They take dukkha to mean suffering. But this is only one of its many meanings. The term
dukkha means besides suffering, unhappiness, unsatisfactoriness, pain etc. In essence dukkha is a
lingering mental pain, non-satisfactoriness that makes one suffer mentally, a sharp mental agony.
Whether we like it or not, we all have to undergo such mental agony as long as we fail to get
rid of it. Buddhism teaches how one could get rid of it (nirodha). The second Truth shows the cause
of its origins, the third its cessation and the fourth the way to cessation. Finally Buddhism teaches
how to experience supreme bliss (Nibbāna) state, which is blissful, because it is free from dukkha
(dukkhakkhaya). How can a teaching, which presents supreme happiness as the goal be called
‘pessimistic’?
Such a conclusion is derived through non-comprehensive understanding of the Buddha's
teaching on dukkha. Understanding only a part of the teaching they arrive at wrong conclusions, just
like blind one attempting to understand the form of an elephant by touching its different parts.

103
 QUESTION: NOBLE TRUTH OF DUKKHA (SUFFERING) CANNOT BE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD IN SEPARATION FROM
OTHER TRUTHS. DISCUSS.

The Four Noble Truths or cattāri ariya saccāni as they are referred to in Pāli are as follows:
1. The Noble Turth of dukkha (dukkha ariya sacca)
2. The Noble Turth of the arising of dukkha (dukkha samudaya ariya sacca)
3. The Noble Truth of cessation of dukkha (dukkha nirodha ariya sacca)
4. The Noble Turth of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha (dukkha nirodha gāminī paṭipadā
ariya sacca)

In brief, they are called dukkha sacca, samudaya sacca, nirodha sacca and magga sacca.
These Truths are so important that the Buddha has declared that he has well as others continued in
Saṅsra because of the ignorance of these Truths. Thus it is clear that the correct understanding of
these Truths is the way to freedom from dukkha or realization of Nibbāna.
The first Truth deals about what dukkha is. It starts by explaining common dukkha such as
birth, decay, death and not obtaining what one desires, then goes on to explain how change of
conditions brings about dukkha. Frinally it declares that all five aggregates of grasping (upādāna) as
dukkha.
The second truth deals with the cause of dukkha and herein taṇhā or craving is given as its
cause. The third truth deals with the possibility of cessation (nirodha) of dukkha or the realization
of Nibbāna. The fourth las down the path that leads to it. This is the Noble Eightfold Path, the ariya
aṭṭhaṅgika magga.
It is clear that these four truths contain the whole of the Buddha's teaching, for the Buddha
says that he teaches only about the prevailence of dukkha is necessarily connected with its solution,
namely nirodha. Therefore, it is seen that the four truths dealing with dukkha, its arising, cessation
and the path leading to cessation are inter-related.
The basic truth is dukkha. The other three truths are different aspects of it, for they deal with
its arising (samudaya), cessation (nirodha) and the path (magga) leading to cessation.
These truths cannot be understood in isolation. They have to be understood as a whole, as
different aspects of a single truth. If one separates them, then one sees only one aspect of the truth
and the picture he obtains would be partial and incomplete as the view the blind people obtain by
trying to understand the sahpe of an elephant by touching the different parts of its body.
Dukkha can be understood only if one understands its cause; this understanding is
incomplete if does not see the possibility of its cessation (nirodha). This understanding becomes
useful only if one understands the path. Thus, it is clearly seen that these are not four different
truths, but one single truth viewed from four different angles.

104
 QUESTION: EXAMINE THE BUDDHIST TEACHING ON HAPPINESS
Some who failed to understand Buddhism properly labelled Buddhism as a pessimistic
teaching. By focussing their attention on dukkha alone, and not trying to understand the For Noble
Truths as a single teaching, they wrongly concluded that Buddhism teaches only dukkha.
This is clearly seen that the Buddhism while emphasizing the prevailence of dukkha in the
world (dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito), very clearly states that there is enjoyment (assāda / sukha) and also
complete cessation of unhappiness (nissaraṇa / nirodha).
Buddhism speaks of two main kinds of sukha or happiness. These are the happiness enjoyed
by the recluse (pabbajjita sukha) and the happiness enjoyed by the householders (gihī sukha).
Among these Buddhism consideres the former as a higher form of happiness as it comes from
renunciation (pabbajjā). This renunciation helps one to reduce selfishness, which is the basis of all
unhappiness.
Speakin gabout the householders the Buddha divides them into two categories. On eis the
householder who is dressed in white, meaning more inclined to religious life (gihī odātavasāno).
The other is the householder who enjoys pleasure (gihī kāmabhogī).
Speaking about the latter the Buddha says that poverty is a primary cause of unhappiness
for the householders. Therefore, the Buddha encourages them to work hard, earn righteously and
enjoy life, helping themselves, others and discharging all their duties.
The Buddha speaks of four kinds of happiness a householder could enjoy. These are:
1. Atthi sukha – the happiness an individual feels when he knows that he has enough. Satisfaction
and contentment (santuṭṭhī) with the fulfilling the basic needs gives one happiness.
2. Bhoga sukha – the happiness an individual feels when he enjoys what he has rightly earned.
3. Anna sukha – this is the happiness when one has enough and there is no need to fall into debt.
Falling into debt is a great source of misery. If one is able to know one is free of debts, this is a
great happiness one could enjoy.
4. Anavajja sukha – this is the deep mental happiness an individual feels when his consciousness is
clear that he has not done anything bad or wrong in earning his living.

Besides these there are various other kinds of happiness. These are happiness of married life,
having children, doing well in life and so on. But above the highest happiness (parama sukha) is
that of realization of Nibbāna, which puts an end to all unhappiness (dukkha).

105
 THE DOCTRINE OF KAMMA
Friends, in this talk I will speak to you about the doctrine of kamma, as it is a fundamental
teaching in Buddhism. In a system which does not recognize the existence of a God, who would be
the Creator, mainainer and judge who would dispense justice, many of his functions are taken by
the law of kamma. Creation is attributed to the laws of nature such as evolution, worship goes to the
Buddha, and dispensing justice and retribution goes to the impersonal law of kamma.
No one who rejects the teaching of kamma can call himself a Bbuddhist. To be a Buddhist
one will have to accept the prevailence of the law of kamma. We have to accept kamma bbecause of
its soundness and the fact that it explains the diverse fortunes of men bbetter than any other theory
known to man. The only verifiable evidence for kamma that I know of is found in the works of
Edgar Cayce of America. His clairvoyant readings about kamma and the past lives of people have
been verified and found to be correct in so far as was possible. Books such as „Many mansions,
many lives – many Loves, and the world within“ by Gina Geraminara and Edgar Cayce on
Reincarnation by Jess Stern provide the details.
The word kamma means ‘action’. Here the law of action and reaction, cause and effect
operating in the psychic realm was revealed by the Buddha. Here we are told that good actions
bear good results, while evil actions bring about bad effects. The law of cause and effect is accepted
in the scientific world and allied disciplines. Everything that we know what operates on this law,
and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that in the psychic realm too this law operates. Now
kamma is based on volition or cetanā, that caused the action. hence actions that are not motivated
byb any deliberate or calculated volution that is unintended actions do not constitute kamma. The
Buddha was clear on this when he said: „O monks, I declare that volition is the kamma“ - »Cetanā
haṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi.«
Without maintaining the existence of a person, an individual who performs good and bad
actions no kamma theory can be maintained or preached. There is no meaning in saysing that the
five-fold aggregates (pañca-khandha) performs good and bad deeds and accumulates kamma. Their
existence in combination has to be accepted as the self for purposes of teaching kamma and rebirth.
Until we realize and understand the full significance of anattā in the higher spiritual light of
Arahantship, we will have to accept and base our behavior in the conventional basis that there is a
person who wanders in saṅsāra and performs kusala and akusala kamma. In many of the
Buddha's sermons He refers to a person performing good and bad deeds. For example the lines of
the Dhammapada: „If a person performs a meritorious deed, let him perform it again and again.“
and „One who is born as a mortal must perform a large store of meritorious deeds.“
»Santi bhikkhave ekacce samaṇa brāhmaṇā ucchedavāde sato satassa vināsaṃ paññapeti.«
In this text the Buddha says that some ascetics and Brahmins and materialists say that the
being is completely destroyed at death. Here also the Buddha speaks of a person who at death is
supposed to be annihilated. Therefore, on ehas to take into account the existence of aperson, it
cannot be denied as is done by Abhidhamma casuistry. The Abhidhamma Piṭaka was ???

106
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE STATEMENT THAT „VOLITION ITSELF IS KAMMA“ IS RELEVANT TO A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING OF KAMMA.

The teaching on kamma is found in almost all religious schools of India during the time of
the Buddha. Some schools like Jainism considered to form kamma as the most important feature
that decides the present life. Many of these schools emphasized the physical performance of kamma
as being the most important aspect of kamma. The Buddha offered a completely new interpretation
in his teaching regarding kamma and its consequences (vipāka).
The Buddha defined kamma saying in the Nibbedhikapariyāya Sutta of the Aṅguttara
Nikāya, that volition is kamma; one having willed performs deeds through body, speech and mind.
Here the emphasis is on volition or intention that makes one act. The Dhammapada in its first
stanza itself shows the importance of the mind in deciding the goodness or badness that is the moral
quality of the deed.
According to this view all actions do not come under kamma. Only actions done with the
necessary intention have any moral quality. Unintentional kamma are morally neutral. Therefore,
one is responsible only for one’s intentional kamma.
The intention is decided by the root-causes that motivate one to act through body, speech
and mind. There are three evil root-causes, namely lobha, dosa and moha. All deeds done through
these are evil. Their opposite root-causes are alobha, adosa and amoha, which bring about good
deeds.
Though intention is the basis of kamma, intention by itsef does not complete kamma. If it
remains as an intention, then it is only a mental kamma, which itself can be morally good or bad. It
is only when the volition is put into action through body and speech that kamma gets completed.
Thus intention to kill, if it is not carried out will only be a mental kamma and one will obtain
consequence accordingly. If it is put into operation through body or speech he would become
murderer. Then one is guilty of intentional killing and the consequence would come accordingly.
Just as kamma is mainly mental, consequences, too, are primarily mental. Whatever physical
consequences that happen would be due to these mental consequences.

107
 QUESTION: DEFINE THE CONCEPT OF KAMMA AND DISCUSS VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE TEACHINGS OF KAMMA.

The teaching on kamma could be found in almost all religious schools of India during the
life of the Buddha. Some schools believed that everything happened due to former kamma,
everything happened due to the will of God. And some believed that everything happened without
cause, that they were mere accidents and coincidences.

The Buddha rejected all these erroneous views and defined kamma as an intentionally
committed deed. In the Nibedhikapariyāya sutta the kamma is said to be cetanā or 'volition':
»Cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi.«, were volition is understood as one of the mental
properties. There is another word – chanda – which stands for wishing, desire for a result.

Each individual kamma is one's own personal action, it results in one's own personal
inheritance. One alone should consider his decisions, no matter to what degree others may try to
force one. Yet an unwholesome deed done under strong compulsion does not have quite the same
force as one performed voluntarily. Under threat of torture or of death a man may be compelled to
torture or kill someone else. In such a case, it may be believed that the gravity of the kamma is
decided. Therefore, according to Buddhist interpretation the will is necessary to consider a deed as
kamma.

This brings us to the question of collective kamma as we have seen each man's kamma is his
own individual experience. No one can interfere with the kamma of in other beyond a certain point,
therefore no one can interfere the results of personal kamma. Yet it often happens that numbers of
people are associated in the same kind of action and share the same kind of thought, they become
closely involved with one another, they influence one another.

it is in fact this kind of mass kamma that produces different kinds or results. Therefore in
Buddhism intention is given priority taking the result of a certain kamma. The result of kamma is of
kamma is known as vipāka, which means 'ripening'. these terms – kamma and vipāka and the idea
they stand for must not be confused. Vipāka is pre-determined by ourselves according to our
previous kamma.

According to texts, kamma can be regarded as an active principle and vipāka as the passive
mode of coming to be. We have seen that through th lobha, dosa, moha and alobha, adosa, amoha
only the results of kamma can be decided. But yet there is a large number of action which can not
be avoided. In such a case psychologically each individual should decide whether he has done good
kamma or bad kamma. On the conclusion we have to understand that kamma theory is the leading
factor to decide one's process of life and it modulates one's life time in the cycle of birth. When the
good or bad actions are stopped that is the cessation of saṃsāra, that's why an Arahant is introduced
as puññapāpabahina, one who has destroyed merits and demerits, both together because he has
stopped the birth after eliminating all the cankers.

108
 NATURE OF KAMMA (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. TEZANIYA)

Volition is kamma, as the Buddha uttered. The popular meaning of kamma is 'action' or 'doing'. But
regarding its technical meaning, kamma means 'volition' or 'will'. When you do something, there is a volition
behind it, and that volition, that mental effect is called kamma. Whatever you do there is some kind of
kamma. Mental effect, 'will' and 'volition'. 'Volition' is one of the fifty-two mental states which arise together
with consciousness.
According to the law of kamma, if you do good deeds you get good results and if you do bad deeds
you get bad results. however, these good and bad results are not given by anyone and not given by as reward
and punishment. Kamma is a moral law which does not need any law-giver, it is a law that operates naturally.
Any kinds of intentional action whether mental or physical are regarded as kamma. Generally
speaking, all good or bad action constituted kamma. In this ultimate sense kamma means all moral and
immoral volition (kusala kamma, akusala kamma). The Buddha says:

»I declare, oh bhikkhus, that volition (cetanā) is kamma. Having willed one acts by body,
speech and thought.«

When you do something such as making an offering to the Buddha, there is volition which prompts
you to give, and that volition is called kamma. Thus kamma is the cause, not the effect. Some people say that
ikammai mean the cause, the deeds and also the effects. But in Theravāda Buddhism kamma never means
the effect or the result. Kamma means only the cause.
There are five aggregates:
1. Matter
2. Feeling
3. Perception
4. Mental formations
5. Consciousness

Kamma belongs to the mental aggregates; volition belongs to the aggregations of formation. The
aggregate of mental formations lasts only a very short time. It comes into beings – it stays only a little bit of
time. And then passes away. But volition is different from other mental states in that it has ability to leave
some potential when it dies, it does not disappear altogether. It leaves something, some power or potential to
give results, when circumstances favor those results to appear. One does kamma here and now, but the results
come here in this life, in the next life or in some life after after the next life.
Kamma does not end with the demise of the present life. It goes on and on. But we cannot say that
kamma is stored somewhere in our body or consciousness. Because everything is impermanent and must be
continually changing, kamma is likewise impermanent and so disappears. But it leaves a potential in the
continuity of beings, so that when circumstances are favorable for results to appear, those results appear.
Similarly, a tree can be said to have the potential to give results. There are no fruits in the trees at first. But
when the opportune-times arise, fruits appear. Likewise the results of kamma.
When we say about kamma, we should not leave the results or fruitions of kamma (kamma-vipāka).
Kamma is action or cause and vipāka, fruition or result, is its reaction. As kamma may be good or bad, so
may vipāka be good or bad. Good beget good and bad beget bad. As we sow, we reap somehwere or
someday, in this life or in the future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or
in the past.

109
 KAMMA (IN SANSKRIT KARMA) – VIPĀKA (THE FRUITION OF KAMMA) THEORY (LECTURED BY VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA)
(original by ven. Medhananda)

The Pāli word kamma (karma) literally means 'action' or 'doing'. Any kind of intentional action
whether mental, verbal or physical is regarded as kamma. It covers all that is included in the phrase „thought,
word and deed.“ Generally speaking, all good and bad actions constitute kamma. In this ultimate sense
'kamma' means all moral and immoral volition (kusala-akusala cetanā). Involuntary, unintentional or
unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute kamma, because volition, the most
important factor in determining kamma is absent.

The Buddha said:

»I declare, oh bhikkhus, that volition (cetanā) is kamma. having willed one acts by body, speech and
thought.«

Every volitional action of an individual except buddhas and arahats, is called kamma. The exception
made in their case is because they are delivered from both good and evil; they have eradicated ignorance and
craving – the roots of kamma.

»Destroyed are their (grmīnal(?)) seeds (khīna bījā); (selfish) desire grows no longer.«

states the Ratana sutta. This does not mean that the buddhas and arahants are passive. Kamma does
not necessarily mean 'past' actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. In short, kamma is the law of
cause and effect in the ethical realm.

Kamma is action and vipāka, fruit or result, is its reaction. Just a very object is accompanied by a
shadow even so every volitional activity inevitably accompanied by its due affect. Like potential seed is
kamma. Fruit, arising from the tree, is like the vipāka, effect or result. The leaves, flowers and so forth which
correspond with the external differences such as health, sickness, poverty etc. are vipāka.(?) Ānisaṁsa and
ādinavā (as the vipāka) of kamma inevitably pertain to mind.

Like kamma may be good or bad, so may vipāka fruit be good or bad. Ānisaṁsa are the concomitant
advantageous material things, such as prosperity, health and longevity. When vipāka's concomitant material
things are disadvantageous, they are known as Ānisaṁsa, „full of wretchedness,“ and appear as poverty,
ugliness, disease, short life span and so forth.
As we sow, we reap, somewhere and someday, in this life or in a future birth. What we 'reap' today is
what we have 'sown' either in the present or in the past. Saṁyutta nikāya states:

»According to the seed that's sown,

So is the fruit ye reap there from,
Doer of good will gather good, Doer of evil, evil reaps,
Sown is the seed, and thus shaft taste,
The fruit thereof.«

Kamma is a law in itself which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external,
independent ruling agency. The cause produces the effect. the effect explains the cause. The seed produces
the fruit; the fruit explains the seed, such is their relationship. Even so are kamma and its effect - „the effect
already blooms in the cause.“

110
 THE THEORY OF KAMMA (THE FRUITION OF KAMMA AND ITS DIFFERENT CATEGORIES)
(a mixed version from two anonymous originals having first half same and second half different)

Kamma is simply an action or a deed. Actions are performed in three ways, by body, by mind and by speech.
Every action during its time is performed because there is a desire for a result.15 This desire is a form of craving. It
expresses the thirst (taṇhā) for existence and for personal gain.
According to the Nibbedhika Pariyāya sutta of Aṁguttara nikāya, kamma is defined as: »cetanāhaṃ
bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi« („kamma is known as volitional act“).16 The actions in which mind is involved, are
bonded with intention. This is expressed by the Pāli word „cetanā“ or volition, which is one of the mental properties
(cetasika).
An action (kamma) is morally unwholesome (akusala) when it is motivated by the forms of craving that are
associated with greed (lobha), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha). It is morally wholesome (kusala) when it is motivated
by the opposite factors – greedlessness (alobha), amity (adosa) and wisdom (amoha).
Now each deed performed with intention is a creative act. By reason of will behind them it constitutes a force.
It is a force analogous to others unseen physical forces that move the universe (cittena nīyate loko). By our thoughts,
words and deeds, we create our worlds from moment to moment in the endless process of change. We also created
ourselves. That is to say, we mount our changing accretion of deeds and the preponderance of one kind over another,
that determines what we will become n the life and in the subsequent ones.
In this creating our personality, we create also the conditions in which it functions and the other kinds of world.
Therefore the mind is the master of world and is man's made. According to Dhammapada's first verse,
„manopubbaṁgamā dhammā“ which means mind is the forerunner of all the mental properties. From this we come to
understand that it is result of mental force, which forms the point of our new birth. This is the only link between one life
and the other.
According to Buddhist teachings, kamma, vipāka or result of the kamma can be decided according to the
intentional actions, good or bad being done by a person. In many suttas, especially in sutta in Lonaphalavaggo,
Lonaphala sutta (Aṁguttara nikāya), there must be some other conditions (paccaya) for the completion of the particular
kamma. In that sutta very satisfactory parable is given concerning the taste of salt. According to that parable when a bit
of salt is put into small jug, the taste of salt is much. But when the same quantity of salt is put into the pond, the taste of
salt is very little. Similarly, there must be some other conditions also for the fruition of a kamma. Those conditions
(paccaya) may be economic, social or political conditions. Therefore, kamma and vipāka are also regulated by many
conditions. Some kinds of kamma may be inoperative but this never happens in case of stronger kamma. Moreover, the
force of weak kamma may be suspended for a long time by the interposition of a stronger kamma. Hence, it is not
deterministic nor indeterministic.
There are some lind(?) of fruits sooner or later. Each kamma is one's own action. Its result is one's own
personal inheritance. One alone has completed his action, no matter what degree others may tried and force him. Yet an
unwholesome deed done as fulfilling someone's order does not have the same force like if one would perform the same
action voluntarily.
In the ultimate sense one must bear same responsibility for harming others like for harming oneself.17 This
brings us to the question of kamma, when we have seen that each man's kamma is his own experience. No-one can
interfere with another's kamma beyond a certain point. There no-one can intervene to the result of kamma. People
become involved with the kamma of those around and they themselves influence each other.
Good kamma produces good consequences, bad kamma – bad consequences. But as the Moliyativaka sutta of
Samyutta nikāya points out all what one experiences at present, good or bad, is not due to past kamma. This pubbekata-
hetuvāda is the Jaina view. So kamma should not be considered the sole cause of our experience. This can be further
seen by the pañcaniyāma dhamma doctrine. This gives kamma as one of the causes. Then, Buddhist doctrine of kamma
does not make a man slave of it.

15 Here should be noted, that there are three kinds of taṇhā (according to Dhammacakkappavattana sutta): kāma
taṇhā, bhava taṇhā and vibhava taṇhā. Lecturer here mentions only two – bhava taṇhā and kāma taṇhā, but that is
incomplete and therefore wrong.
16 This translation is also incomplete and wrong. I suggest this translation: „Monks, I say that the intention is action.“
17 Original is: „But in the uttimate senese be must bare same responsibility for be would avoide harming another by
tarturing on death himself.“ This sentence, not only that is full of spelling mistakes, but also does not make much
sense. Version I wrote above is the only solution I considered worth writing here.

111
 THE THEORY OF KAMMA (THE FRUTION OF KAMMA AND ITS DIFFERENT CATEGORIES) (2)
Kamma is simply action or a deed. Actions are performed in three ways – by body, by mind
and by speech. Every important action is performed because there is desire for a result. It has an aim
and objective. One wishes for something specific to happen as the result of it. This desire no matter
how mind(?) it may be is a form of craving. It expresses the thirst (taṇhā) for existence and for
action. To exist is to act on one level or another. Organic existence consists of chemical action,
psychic existence consists of mental action. So, existence and actions are inseparable.
But some actions, those in which mind is involved are bound to have intention. This is
expressed by the Pāli word cetanā or volition, which is one of the mental properties. There is
another word chanda, which stands for wishing, desiring a result. These words all express some
kind of desire. Some form of desire is behind practically every activity of life. Therefore, to live and
to desire are one and the same thing (taṇhā janeti purisaṃ). An action or kamma is morally
unwholesome when it is motivated by the forms of craving that are associated with greed (lobha),
hatred (dosa), delusion (moha). It is moral, wholesome (in ordinary language good, when it is
motivated by the opposite factor this interestedness (greedlessness), amity and wisdom. They are
unwholesome actions or akusala. An act so motivated is prompted by intention rather than crating.
Intention is included it is that which gives direction and forms to the deed.
Each deed performed with intention is a creative act. By reason of the will behind it, it
constitutes a force. It is a force analogous to the other great, unseen physical forces that move the
universe. By our thoughts, words and deeds we creat our world from movement to movement in the
endless process of change. We also create ourselves. That is to say we mould our changing
personality as we go along by the accumulation of such thought, words and deeds. It is the accretion
of deeds and the preponderance of one kind over another that determined what we shall become in
this life and subsequent ones.
In thus creating personality, we create also the condition in which it functions. In other
words we creat also the kind of world we are to live in. The mind therefore is master of the world.
As a man’s mind is, so is his cosmos.
Kamma then as the product of the mind, is the true and only real force in the life continuum,
the flux of coming to beings. From this we come to understand that it is the residue of mental force
which from the point of death kindles of a new birth. It is only the actual link between one life and
another. And since the process is a continuous one it is the last kammic thought movement at the
point of death which forms the rebirth linking consciousness, the kamma that reproduces. Other
kamma, good or bad, will come to operation at some later space(?), when external conditions are
favorable for its ripening. The force of weak kamma may be suspended for a long time by the
interposition of a stronger kamma. Some kinds of kamma may even be inoperative, but this never
happens with very strong or weighty kamma. As a general principle all kamma bears some kind of
fruits sooner or later.
Each individual kamma is his own personal act, its result is his own personal inheritance. He
alone has complete command over his action, no matter what degree others may try to force him.
Yet, an unwholesome deed done under strong compassion(?) does not have quite the same force as
that one performed voluntarily. Under threat of torture or of death, a man may be compelled to
torture or kill someone else. In such a case it may be believed that the gravity of his kamma is not so
sev ere as it would be if he deliberately chose to act in such a way. The heaviest moral

112
responsibility rests with those who have forced him to do the action. But in the ultimate sense he
still must bear some responsibility for he could in the most extreme case avoid harming another by
torturing or death himself.
This brings us to the questions of collective kamma. As we have seen, each man’s kamma is
his own individual experience. No one can interfere with the kamma of another beyond a certain
point, therefore, no one can intervene to alter the result of personal kamma. Yet it often happens that
numbers of people are associated in the same kinds of actions adn share the same kind of thought,
they become closely involved with one another, they influence one another. Mass psychology
produces mass kamma. Therefore, all such people are likely to form the same pattern of kamma. It
may result in their being associated with one another through a number of lives and in their sharing
much the same kind of experiences. Collective kamma is ismply the aggregate of individual kamma,
just as a crowd is an aggregate of an individual.
It is in fact this kind of collective kamma that produces different kinds of world we live in.
The state of creation of suffering or unhappiness. Each being has that kind of happiness which it
prepared for itself. It is how it comes about in mlutiworlds and mode of bbeing. Each one represent
particular type of consciousness, the result of kamma. The mind is confined, only boundary, it
erects itself.
The results of kamma are called vipāka (ripening). This term, kamma and vipāka and the
idea they stand for must not be confused. Vipāka is pre-determined by ourselves by previous
kamma, but kamma in the last thought moment of one’s death. Throughout life one may have
suffered the consequences of vipāka of the death whatever one has done.(?) But it doesn’t prevent
him from forming fresh kamma of a wholesome type to restore the balance in one’s next life.
Furthermore, by the aid of some good kamma from the past, together with strong effect and
favorable circumstance in the present life, the full effect of his bad kamma may be eradicated even
here and now. Causes of this kinds are seen everywhere where people overcome the most
formidable and handicap.(?)

113
 QUESTION: GIVE BROADLY THE BUDDHIST CRITERION HOW WHOLESOME AND UNWHOLESOME DEEDS ARE
DETERMINED. (LECTURED BY MR. SANANTHA NANAYAKKARA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. TAILAPON SUNDARA)

Buddhism primarily is an ethical religion and therefore it pays much attention to the problem of good
and evil or good and bad. Buddhist theory of causality explains that good and bad actions generate good and
bad consequences and the doer of such actions becomes morally responsible for these actions and has to
undergo consequences.
Thus the Dhammapada lays down the general teaching of all Buddhas as the abstention from evil,
the accumulation of the good deeds and the purification of the mind:
»Sabbapāpassa akaranaṃ, kusalassa upasampadā,
sacittapariyodapanaṃ, etaṃ Buddhānasāsanaṃi.«

In Buddhism, there are two sets of terms used to connote good and bad. These sets of terms are
puñña/kusala meaning good and pāpa/akusala meaning bad. Though generally these two terms are used,
there is an important difference between puñña and kusala. Puñña means meritorious or good and all puñña
actions produce good consequences leading to happiness in this life and in the hereafter. Thus puñña
conduces to prolong Saṅsāra. Kusala actions in the ultimate sense are leading to stop Saṅsāric process and
rebirth.
However, irrespective of this subtle difference, puñña and kusala mean good. Pāpa and akusala
mean bad. What are the Buddhist criteria used for distinguishing them? Good and bad can be done through
speech, bodily action and mental action. A basic criterion in distinguishing acts as good or bad is by finding
out the root causes that motivated such actions. If they are due to rāga, dosa and moha, they are definiteyl
bad. If stimulated by their oppositions, they are good.
Another very well known criterion is the one found in Amalaṭṭhikā Rāhulovāda Sutta. Therein it is
explained that any action that is good for oneself and others is good. The opposite actions are bad. So, herein
the good and the bad is decided on the consequence of an action. The Kālāma, Bāhitika and such other suttas
also accept this criterion.
Another way of testing the ethical and moral quality of an action is to take oneself as the standart
(upamā) and see how one would react to such an act done to oneself by others. The Dhammapada lays down
this standard which is called Attipanāyika:
»Sabbe tasanti daṇḍassa – sabbe bhāyanti maccuno,
attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā – haneyya na ghataye.«

The Sālyyaka Sutta also accepts this.

There are few more criteria. One is self-conscience (attādhipatayya). What is not approved by self-
conscience is bad. Another is public opinion, especially the opinion of the wise. This is Lokādhipatayya. As
the Mettā Sutta says, one should not even do the slightest thing that is condemned by the wise: »Na kuddhaṃ
samācare kiñci, samācare yena viññū pare upavadeyyuṃ.« Yet another criterion accepted is the moral
standards – dhammādhipatayya.
A very simple standard is to judge one’s action according to hiri and ottappa, moral shame and
moral fear, which keep one away from evil. If hiri and ottappa prompt or whisper that what we are about to
do is not acceptable, then we should consider it bad and give it up.

114
 QUESTION: ALL HAPPINESS AND SORROW ONE EXPERIENCES IN THIS LIFE IS DUE TO PAST ACTIONS. EXAMINE HOW
FAR THIS STATEMENT AGREES WITH THE BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF KAMMA.

Except some extreme materialsts, all other religious teachers generally accepted the doctrine
of kamma. Thus in the 6th century BC in India kamma doctrine was known prior to the rise of
Buddhism. The Brahmins generally held that whatever action that is done in accordance with the
God’s wish is a good kamma. According to them, going against the God’s wish was bad kamma or
pāpa.
The above view, that is that all happiness and sorrow one experiences in this life is due to
one’s past actions was the kamma teaching presented by Jainas. The Buddhist texts refer to this
teaching as Pubbekatahetuvāda. According to Jaina explanation kamma or daṇḍa as they named it,
is threefold. These are verbal, physical and mental and that physical kamma is the gravest of all
these. Once an action is performed, it produces a power which they consider something material
and compare it to ‘dust’. This effect of kamma is to soil(?) or to make the soul impure by getting
attracted to it.(?) There is no power within man to control this soiling of the soul by dust like
particles of kamma power. There are only two ways of eradicating kamma – one is by
undergoing(?) its(?) experience(?) and the other by completely abstaining from collecting new
kamma.
This Pubbekatahetuvāda of Jainas made their kamma doctrine very deterministic.
Everything was fixed, according to this theory, by one’s past kamma, over which one has no power.
Therefore, the individual was made a slave to his kamma. He had no escape from saṅsāra till he had
completely experienced the consequences of all his past actions and till he stopped to accumulate
new kamma.
Buddhist theory of kamma has many similarities with the Jaina teaching of kamma too. But
it differs in certain fundamental aspects. Buddhist view is that mental kamma is of great importance.
Kamma is only willed or intentiona actions and as such mere physical actions are not kamma.
Besides, Buddhism does not say that kamma is deterministic law operating in pre-
determined way. Explaining the difference between the Jaina and Buddhist view the Buddha says
that it is wrong to hold what does not experience in the same manner.(?) Buddhism does not agree
with this.
In answering a Jaina follower called Moliasivaka noted in Saṅyutta Nikāya the Buddha
clearly says that he does not uphold the Pubbekatahetuvāda. He says that what one experiences in
the present is not always the consequence of one’s past actions. Therein he gives various other
causes, physical, biological, psychological, externally man-made causes as sources of what one
experiences in this life.
Similarly in the Lonaphala Sutta the Buddha says that operation of kamma and
consequences is influenced by many other factors. Later texts explain that there are five universal
laws that influence man’s life (pañca-niyāma) and that kamma is only one such law.
A good example to show that an individual is not a slave of his own action is in the story of
Aṅgulimāla Thera, who overcame kamma and attained Arahatship.

115
 QUESTION: EXAMINE THE BUDDHIST CRITERIA THAT CAN BE USED TO JUDGE GOOD AND BAD
Buddhism is an ethical religion. Therefore, it teaches that one should give up all that is bad
and evil and engage in what is good (sabha pāpassa akaranaṃ, kusalassa upasampadā). There are
some terms very commonly used in Budhist texts to indicate good and bad. The term puñña and
kusala devote good, and term pāpa and akusala devote bad or evil. Though when analyzed deeply,
puñña and kusala are different, in text these two terms are used synonymously.
There are cetain specific criteria or measurements used to judge good and bad. One such
criterion is given in the Ambalaṭṭhika Rāhulovāda of the Majjhima Nikāya. Therein the Buddha
says that one should consider the effect or consequence and actions has on oneself and others and
on this decide the moral quality of a deed. According to this criteria any deed that is harmful to
oneself and to others in bad, what is beneficial to oneself and other in good.
There is another well known criteria and that is to understand the root causes or the
motivation forces behind one’s action. If any action is motivated by greed, hatred or confusion that
is lobha, dosa or moha such action is considered as being evil. Their opposites, namely actions
done through non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa) and non-confusion (amoha) are considered as
good and wholesome. A very popular method of deciding whether an action is good or evil is to see
whether that action is in accordance with one’s conscience (atta-dhipateyya), public opinion
(lokādhipateyya) and righteousness (dhammadhipateyya).
A self-test that can be used to judge good and bad is to see how one would react if some
others would do the same thing to oneself. For example, if one was to be oppressed by others, wone
would not like it. Therefore, one should understand that others also would not like such harmful acts
being done to them. This is called attūpanāyaka criterion.
These are some of the important criteria adopted in judging good and bad.

116
 PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA (LECTURED BY MR. UDITA GARUSINGHA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. SAMNANG PHY) (2009)

All the teachings of Buddhism can be described aspects of Paṭiccasamuppāda. It forms the basis of the
fundamental doctrine of aniccā, dukkha, anattā and suñña. the universe which exists in time and spread over
religion is a continuation of activity that is varied. Paṭiccasamuppāda gives the fundamental truth of the
interrelatedness, clash and cessation of conditioned phenomena. Therefore the being and the world are
realistically described by Paṭiccasamuppāda. It gives in a large frame what the Four Noble Truths give in a
concise form. Therefore it is said that one who comprehends the Paṭiccamuppāda as a law of causality, also
comprehends the Dhamma.
»Yo paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati.«
Paṭiccasamuppāda or Idappaccayatā pervades the whole universe including beings, that is everything
which is called material and psychological phenomena. It is not the formulation of any religious teacher but a
universal law. The Paṭiccasamuppāda which is realizable by paññā by everybody is discovered by the Buddhas
and they preach it for the sake of the world.
»Katamoca bhikkhave paṭiccasamuppādo uppādāvā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādāvā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāvasā
dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati, abhisameti
abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā āchikkhati deseti paññapeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti passathāti
āha.«
As the Buddhas' teachings state he attained Sambodhi by realizing the origin of suffering having reflected
on the Paṭiccasamuppāda in direct order, and the cessation of suffering by reflecting on it in reverse order.
According to the Nidāna Saṃyutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya in the teaching of the origin and cessation of the suffering,
the Paṭiccasamuppāda is described as having 12 components. Those are avijjā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa, nāma-rūpa,
saḷāyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna, bhavo, jāti, jarā, maraṇa ………..!
Suffering arises with cause becoming the result and the result in turn becoming the cause. Suffering
ceases with the cessation of cause and with the result also in turn ceasing. Though avijjā is posited as the
beginning Paṭiccasamuppāda is like a cycle. The beginning or the end of the cycle cannot be found. Therefore the
starting point of the being in Saṃsāra also cannot be found.
»Anamataggoyaṃ bhikkhave saṃsra pabbākoṭo na paññāyati.«
(S. 11, ii 178)
The philosophical meaning of above statement is the existence of a being occurs according to a cycle of
cause and effect. By comprehension of the Dhamma is meant that the realization of this Paṭiccasamuppāda or in
other words, the Saṃsāric condition that exists with the interconnection of cause and effect.
»Yo paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati.«
M.N. Mahāhatthipadopama Sutta-
The above statement indicates this point. The main aim of Paṭiccasamuppāda is to show that man comes
into being due to cause and effect and with the cessation of cause and effect the concept of being ceases.
»Na idaṃ atta kataṃ bimbaṃ na idaṃ para kataṃ aghaṃ hetuṃ paṭicca saṃbhūtaṃ hetu bhaṃghā
nirujjhati.«
S.N. I p. 134 (Sela Sutta).
In short it is the intention of the Paṭiccasamuppāda to show that the dukkhakkhandha arises due to cause
effect and with their cessation suffering ceases. The Mahānidāna Sutta of D.N. says that due to not
comprehending the Paṭiccasamuppāda the individual goes through immense suffering in saṃsāra.
The Paṭiccasamuppāda comprises a basic theory as
»Asmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti imassa uppādā idaṃ uppajjati asmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirojjhati.«
- „When there is this, this becomes, with arising of this, this arises. When there is not this, this becomes not, with
the cessation of this, this ceases.“
This is the basis of Paṭiccasamuppāda the components of which are varied in suttas and employed for

117
various purposes. When this fundamental doctrine is applied with reference to suffering of the being it is known as
twelve fold Paṭiccasamuppāda.
The Mahānidāna Sutta of D.N. gives a different text of the Paṭiccasamuppāda and it explains how the
individual suffering becomes social suffering as follows:
“Thus, Ānanda in dependence upon feeling (vedanā) there is craving (taṇhā); in dependence upon
craving there is pursuit (pariyesanā); in dependence upon pursuit there is gain (lābho); in dependence upon gain
there is decision-making (vinicchayo); in dependence upon decision-making there is desire and lust
(chandarāgo); in dependence upon desire and lust there is attachment (ajjhosānaṃ); in dependence upon
attachment there is possessiveness (pariggaho); in dependence upon passiveness there is stinginess
(macchariyaṃ); in dependence upon stinginess there is safeguarding (ārakkho) and because of safeguarding
various evil unwholesome phenomena originate the taking up of club (daṇdādāna) and weapons (satthādāna),
conflicts (kalahā), quarrels (viggaha) and disputes (vivāda), insulting speech (bho), slander (pesuñña) and
falsehood (musāvādā). Although the Paṭiccasamuppāda with 12 factors is traditionally handed down the Saṃyuta
Nikāya gives unique Paṭiccasamuppāda system with 22 components analyzing the origin and cessation of
suffering;

»Iti kho avijjupanisa saṅkhārā Upādānupanisa bhavo Sukkhupanisa samādhi

Saṅkhārāpanisa viññanaṃ Bhavupanisa jāti Samādhupanisa yathābhutā
Viññanupanisa nāmarupaṃ Jātupanisa dukkhaṃ āṇadassanaṃ
nāmarupanisa salāyathataṃ Dukkhupanisa saddhe Yathābhutupanisa Nibbida
salāyathanupanisa phassaṃ Saddhupanisa pamojjaṃ Nibbadupanisa virāgo
phassupanisa vedanaṃ Pamojjupanisa pīti Virāgupanisa vimutti
vedanupanisa taṇhaṃ Pītupanisa passadhi Vimuttupanisa khayeñaṇaṃ
(knowledge obtained by
Taṇhupanisa upādānaṃ Passadhupanisa sukhaṃ
destroying all influxes).«
The aim of the Paṭiccamuppāda of Sivaka Sutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya is to demolish the view that
everything happens according to one’s earlier karma.
The Brahmajāla Sutta of Dīghanikāya and Nirodha pātha Nikāya and some other suttas give the aim of
Paṭiccasamuppāda to demolish Akiriyavāda, Nāstikavāda (nihilism), Ahetukavāda (no cause and fruitful).
The aim of Paṭiccasamuppāda in Samaṇabrahmana Sutta of Samyutta Nikāya is to analyze the Four
Noble Truths in the Cakkavattihinda sutta, Aggañña sutta, Mahānibbāna sutta. The aim of Paṭiccasamuppāda is
to analyze social lives suffering of the individual being.

118
 DEPENDENT ORIGINATION OR CAUSATION (PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA)

No God, no Brahma can be found no matter of this wheel of life, just bare phenomena roll
depend on conditions all.(?) (Visuddhi Magga)

The law of dependent origination is one of the most important teaching of the Buddha and
it is also very profound.
The Buddha has often expressed his experience of enlightenment in one of ways, either in
terms of having understood the Four Noble ruths, or in therms of having understood the nature of
the dependent origination.
However, more people have heard about the Four Noble Truths and can discuss about them
better than about the Law of Dependent Origination, which is actually more important.
Although the actual insight into dependent origination arises with spiritual maturity it is still
possible for us to understand the principle involved.
The basis of dependent origination is that the life or the world is build on a set of relations,
in which the arising and cessation of factors depend on some other factors which condition them.
This principle can be given as follows:

1. Dependent on ignorance (avijjā) arise kamma formations or activities (saṁkhārā).

or: Dependent on ignorance there are activities (avijjā paccayā saṁkhārā).
2. Dependent on kamma formations arises rebirth consciousness (paṭisandhi viññāṇa).
or: Dependent on activities there is consciousness (saṁkhārā paccayā viññāṇaṃ).
3. Dependent on rebirth consciousness arises mind and matter (nāma-rūpa).
or: Dependent on consciousness there is mentality-materiality (viññāṇa paccayā nāma-
rūpaṃ).
4. Dependent on mind and matter arise the six spheres of senses or bases (saḷāyatana).
or: Dependent on mentality-materiality there are six bases (nāma-rūpa paccayā
saḷāyatanaṃ).
5. Dependent on six spheres of senses arises feeling, contact or impression (phassa).
or: Dependent on the six bases there is contact (saḷāyatana paccayā phasso).
6. Dependent on conduct arises feeling (vedanā).
or: Dependent on contact there is feeling (phassa paccayā vedanā).
7. Dependent on feeling arises craving (taṇhā).
or: Dependent on feeling there is craving (vedan paccayā taṇhā).
8. Dependent on craving arises grasping or clinging (upādāna).
or: Dependent on craving there is clinging (taṇhā paccayā upādānaṃ).
9. Dependent on grasping arises action or becoming (kamma-bhava).
or: Dependent on clinging there is becoming (upādāna paccayā bhavo).
10. Dependent on action or becoming arises birth (jāti).
or: Dependent on becoming there is birth (bhava paccayā jāti).
11. Dependent on rebirth arise decay and death (jarā-maraṇa).
or: Dependent on birth there is old age and death (jāti paccayā jarā maraṇaṃ).

The fundamental principle at work in dependent origination is that of cause and effect. It is
described in detail what takes place in the casual process in the Dependent Origination.

119
 QUESTION: EXAMINE THE PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA

All religions attempt to find out the nature and the origin of things. Religions that are older than
Buddhism have their own theories regarding the nature and origin of things. The Buddhist theory of causality was
presented against the background of a variety of such theories. The following are the major theories of causality
that were prevailing during the time of the Buddha and these can be broadly divided into four groups.

1. Theory of self causation or internal causation

This is the theory of causality put forward by those, who accepted the existence of a
permanent soul or the „sassatavādins.“ According to them, everything is cause by the self or soul
within oneself. They believed that everything is caused by this internal self and that no outside
cause influenced it. According to Buddhist texts, this is reffered to as „Sayaṃ kataṃ“ (self
caused).

2. Theory of external causation or paraṃ kataṃ

This put forward the view, that everything is caused by some outside or external forces.
Various religious schools gave different external causes, some said that it is fate, it is the cause of
everything. Some others said that it is Time, that is the cause of everything. Yet others said that it
is inherent nature (svabhāva), that is the cause, some put forward the view that the kamma is the
only cause. A very popular theory of external causation is that everything is created by the God
(issaranammanavāda).

3. Some schools like Jainism put forward the view, that everything is caused by both internal and
external cause. In Buddhism this is known as „sayaṃ kataṃ caparaṃ katañca.“

4. Another theory of causation is that everything is cause due to neither internal nor external
causes but due to acccent(?) or change and this is called Ahetuappaccayavāda.

These were the major theories of causality that were known during the time of the Buddha. It seems that
He have studied all these theories known at that time. This is seen from the fact, that He rejected them.18
The Buddha rejected the self-causation theory, because he showed the non-existence of a soul. As there
is the non-existence, then it follows that there cannot be a self-causation. He found the external causation theory to
be equally baseless. He clearly demonstrated the absence of a creator God or any such external forces, Time or fat.
As he rejected these two theories, it naturally follows that he rejected also the combination of these theories of
causation. Besides, his observations made him realise that everything happened due to causes and conditions and
this made him reject the theory of causation which hold that everything is cause due to accident or change.
The Buddha very thoroughly observed the nature and understood certain special features, that operate in
nature. He found out, that nothing happens without any cause, that everything takes place due to certain causes.
He observed that there is a system, a uniform pattern in the working of the nature. When he carefully observed the
nature of things, he understood four specific features.
Thus he realized that causation is not a mentally made up thing, but something that really takes place in
nature. That is something that happens objectively or something, that takes place really. The Buddha very clearly
says, that it is not something created, caused by the Buddha or any others. He says, that whether the Buddhas
were to appear in this world or not, this causation takes place in the world.
Secondly he found that when certain condition exists, then necessarily certain effects follow. This is a
necessity and there is no exception to this. Whenever causes are present then one can be certain that there will be
some effect. Thus it is seen that what we think to be accidents are also due to certain conditions. If those
conditions were not there, then what we generally consider to be accidents world not take place. Therefore we say,
that certain events are accidents, because we fail to see the real conditions behind them (avitathata).
It is by making these observation that the Buddha finally formulated the theory of Paṭiccasamuppāda.

18 I think there was no need for the Buddha to study anything as he was omniscient.

120
The general theory of Paṭiccasamuppāda runs as folows:

When this is present, that comes to be;

from the arising of this, that arises,
when this is absent, that does not come to be on the cessation of this, that ceases.

»Imasmiṁ sati idaṃ hoti imassa uppāda idaṃ uppajjati.«

»Imasmiṁ asati idam na hoti imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati.«

This is the general theory of causality expounded by the Buddha. This explains everything in the world.
Fundamental truth, that the Buddha discovered. To all spheres of life, namely physical, mental, social, moral and
even spiritual happiness, Theory of Dependent Origination shows that:

1. Nothing arises without a cause.

2. Nothing arises from a single cause. Nothing can exist independently, unaffected and unrelated to other
phenomena.
3. Nothing can exist independently, unaffected and unrelated to other phenomena.
4. There is no first cause – thus a concept of a creator God gets rejected.

This formula of Paṭiccasamuppāda consists of twelve factors, and hence it is referred to as the twelve
linked formula of dependent co-origination (dvadasanga-paṭiccasamuppāda).

1. On ignorance depends dispositions (avijjapaccayā-sankhārā).

2. On dispositions depends consciousness (sankhārā paccayā viññāṇaṃ).
3. On consciousness depends name and form (viññānapaccayā nāma-rūpaṃ).
4. On name and form depend the six gates, ways of sense-perception (nāma-rūpa paccayā saḷāyatanaṃ).
5. On six gateways depends contact (saḷāyatana paccayā phasso).
6. On contact depends feeling (phassa paccayā vedanā).
7. On feeling depends craving (vedanā paccayā taṇhā).
8. On craving depends grasping (taṇhā paccayā upādānaṃ).
9. On grasping depends becoming (upādāna paccayā bhavo).
10. On becoming depends birth (bhava paccayā jāti)
11. On birth depends aging, sorrow, lamentation etc. (jāti paccayā jarā maranaṃ, soka, parideva...)19

As this theory embodies the Truth the Buddha discovered at his enlightenment this is called the central
philosophy of Buddhism, this theory rejects both the theories of eternalism and annihilationism.
This formula shows that things come into existence through causes and conditions and cease when causes
and conditions are absent. Therefore, this theory illustrates the change and impermanence of everything. This
theory rejects both the theory of eternalism and annihilationism. Thus it is rightly called „middle doctrine.“

19 As it is clear from What the Buddha Taught from Walpola Rāhula, the last condition can be either together as
eleventh one or divided into 11. jāti + 12. jarā, maranaṃ, soka, parideva... where we get finally 12 conditions,
whereas in the former case we get only 11 conditions.

121
 PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA (VEN. SĪLAVAṀSA) (ORIGINAL BY VEN. TEZANIYA)

The doctrine of paṭiccasamuppāda is very important in Buddhism. The substance of the

paṭiccasamuppāda teaching is as follows.

1. From ignorance there arises sankhārā (kamma formation).

2. From saṁkhārā there arises consciousness of the new existence.
3. Consciousness gives rise to nāma-rūpa.
4. Nāma-rūpa leads to āyatana (six bases).
5. From āyatana arises the phassa (impression).
6. Phassa causes feeling.
7. Feeling leads to craving.
8. From craving here results clinging (upādāna).
9. Because of clinging there is the process of becoming (kamma-bhava).
10. From the process of becoming there arises rebirth (jāti).
11. And rebirth leads to old age, death, sorrow, grief and lamentation.
Thus the whole mass of suffering arises.

According to the Buddha, avijjā is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, viz. the truth about
suffering, its cause, its cessation and the way to its cessation. It makes us mistake what is false and illusory
for truth and reality. Because of avijjā there is sankhārā, which in turn causes viññāṇa. As a result of good or
bad kamma in the previous life there arises the stream of consciousness beginning with rebirth consciousness
in the new life.

Viññāṇa gives rise to nāma-rūpa. This means that with the arising of rebirth consciousness there also
arise mind and body. Because of rebirth consciousness there arise mental phenomena associated with it such
as feeling, remembering etc. Nāma-rūpa leads to salāyatana or five physical sense-organs, viz. eye, ear,
nose, tongue, body and consciousness. Existence of salāyatana causes contact (phassa). This means the
contact between the six senses and the respective objects. here contact arises, feeling (vedanā) exists. When
there have been various sorts of contact through the six senses, feelings arise which are the emotional
response to those contacts. Feelings are of three sorts:
1. Pleasant
2. Painful
3. Neither pleasant nor painful

When feelings arise, cravings are (usually) produced. Craving leads to the making of new kamma in
the present and it is possible now, and only now, to practice Dhamma.

Where the kamma of further craving is produced there arises grasping (upādāna). When these
become strong in people, they cannot even become interested in Dhamma and towards(?) dukkha. Where this
grasping is found, there becoming (bhava) is to be seen.

With hearts boiling with craving and grasping, people ensure/enjoy(?) for themselves more and more
of various sorts of life. In the presence of becoming there is arising of a new birth (jāti). Birth is shown as a
mother in the process of childbirth. It arises conditioned by the kamma made in this life. Naturally where
there is birth, there is also old age and death (jarā, maraṇa), sorrow, grief etc.

122
 PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA

The central philosophy of Buddhism is Paṭiccasamuppāda. This is the Buddhist theory of causality. All
religions attempt to explain how things happen. This is a feature of all religions. There were many such causal doctrines
during the Buddha's time. Among them there were four major ones. These were:

1. Sayaṃ kataṃ vāda (self-causation or internal causation which gave „self“ as the agent of all that happened)
2. Paraṃ kataṃ vāda (external causation – explaining that the cause of everything is external; God, fate, luck
and so on)
3. Sayaṃ katañ ca paraṃ katañ ca (combination of the above two theories; this one was the causal theory of
Jains)
4. Ahetu-appaccaya or Adhiccassamuppañña (no-cause, no-condition theory); Yadrcchāvāda (a theory of
chance happening)

After examining all these theories and understanding the nature properly, the Buddha discoursed that
everything happens due to causes and conditions. To explain this causality he came up with the following formula:
»Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti,
imassa uppādā idaṃ upajjati,
imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti,
imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati.«

This is the general formula of paṭiccasamuppāda applical to all spheres of life, ethical, social, economical,
political and so on. This was not a theory created by the Buddha, but what he found to be operating in nature.
Therefore he says that this causality operates in the world whether there is a Buddha or not. Hence, he did not say it is
his theory but the dhammatā, the nature of things.
Buddha's main concern was the problem of dukkha and its cessation. As understood by the Buddha dukkha is
also something that arises »yaṃ kiñci samudaya dhammaṃ.« All that arise cease to be »sabaṃ taṃ nirodha dhammaṃ.«
Working as this premise the Buddha applied the general paṭiccasamuppāda doctrine to the specific problem of human
predicament of dukkha. By this application the Buddha himself evolved the 12 linked theory of paṭiccasamuppāda
(dvādasa-ākāra-paṭiccasamuppāda). This is Buddha's own interpretation of the origin and cessation of dukkha. This
particular paṭiccasamuppāda formula consists of 12 items:
1. avijjā 7. vedanā
2. saṁkhāra 8. taṇhā
3. viññāṇa 9. upādāna
4. nāma-rūpa 10. bhava
5. saḷāyatana 11. jāti
6. phassa 12. jarā-maranaṃ-soka-parideva-dukkha-domanassa20

These are mutually inter-related and inter-dependent. Though the formula begins with avijjā it is not the first
cause. As shown in the Anamatagga sutta of the Samyutta nikāya, the first beginning of avijjā is not perceivable.
Buddhism also does not consider that an effect is produced by a single cause. This is a doctrine which say that things
happen due to cause and condition. The change of cause and conditions change the effect; similarly with the removal of
cause and conditions the effect is also removed. This is a totally new theory of causality, never heard of before (pubbe
ananussuta). This understanding enabled the Buddha to explain how things happen without a soul, a god, any other
external power or agency. Thus, this is a totally new theory of causality.

20 As it is clear from What the Buddha Taught from Walpola Rāhula, the last condition can be either together as
eleventh one or divided into 11. jāti + 12. jarā, maranaṃ, soka, parideva... where we get finally 12 conditions,
whereas in the former case we get only 11 conditions.

123
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA
All religions attempt to explain how things happen, how things are caused. Hence all religions have their
own particular theories explaining this. They are called ‘theories of causality’. Broadly speaking, these theories
can be categorized into four. They are as follows:
1. Self causation – everything is caused by soul or self.
2. External causation – everything is caused by some external power, example – God, fate, time etc.
3. Self causation and external causation – a combination of the first two theories
4. Neither self causation nor external causation – which says that everything happens due to accidents.
The Buddha rejected all these and puts forwards the law which he observed as operating in the world.
This is called the Paṭiccasamuppannavāda, the doctrine of dependent origination. According tot his, everything
happens due to cause and condition. When particular cause and condition exists, particular effects come into being
and when the cause and condition ceases, the effect ceases. This general formula is that which the Buddha
expressed in words as follows:
»Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti,
imassa uppādā idaṃ uppajjati,
imasmiṃ asati, idaṃ na hoti,
imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati.«
„When this is there, this comes to be,
with rising of this – this rises,
when this is absent - this does not come to be,
with the cessation of this – this ceases.“
This general formula is applied to explain all happening, origination of the world, society, social
institution and other phenomena even how people become good and bad and so on. Even kamma is explained
according to this cause and effect relation. This shows that there is neither a first cause like the God or fate etc.
nor a single cause. Nothing happens by chance. Everything happens due to causes which prevail in a certain
pattern.
While this general theory could be happened to explain the operation of all phenomena, the Buddha's
main concern was to explain the arising of dukkha and its cessation. In other words, the arising of the Saṅsārici
process and its cessation. Therefore, the Buddha applied the general formula to explain the arising of dukkha and
its cessation. By this application he evolved a 12 linked formula of dependent co-origination (dvdasakāra paṭicca-
samuppāda). This is as follows:
»Avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā, saṅkhārā paccayā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇa...« and so on.
The reverse order of this formula namely »avijjā nirodhā saṅkhāra nirodha« etc. explains how the
dukkha ceases when causes disappear.
This general theory of paṭicca-samuppāda is called the central philosophy of Buddhism, bbecause all
other teachings are based and founded on this teaching. The theory of kamma, rebirth all are based on this. It also
rejects the two main views that were known at the time, namely eternalism (sassatavāda), which accepts
something permanent and annihilationism (ucchedavāda), which accepts the fatal destruction. Instead the
Paṭicca-samuppāda adopts a middle position, a position that goes beyond both eternalism and annihilationism. It
puts forwards that view of rising and falling a continuous process of change that takes place in phenomena. Hence
it is said that the Buddha teaches this docrine from middle (majjhima deseti) without going to extremes of
eternalism and annihilationism. Hence this teaching is rightly referred to as the central philosophy of Buddhism.

124
 THEORY OF CAUSALITY
Paṭiccasamuppāda. That is Buddhist causality. The name is given in the Diṭṭhāyana Sutta.
We have already touched upon the subject somewhat the other day. Causality means the theory , a
searching for cause of certain effect. Why we are here? Why the world is in this way? like that. For
some people, they just don’t accept any causefor whatever effects. So, things just happen by chance
(according to them). For that kind of things, but they will call that causality as theory of causality.
(?) Because that conclusion comes a path after having searched for cause. That is causality, that is
the opinion and attitude towards causality.
The particular kind of causality in Pāli is called aṭiccasamuppannā. Aṭiccasamuppannā
which does not believe in any cause. But you also do have one cause, theory for whatever is it. It is
due to Brahma, or it is due to God, or it is due to Ramma the only cause. And that kind of theory is
called in the Aṅguttara Nikāya as Isaranimmānavāda. here the word Isarā means ‘creator’. I would
like to distinguish here, as we come across the word Isarā. This word is important in relation to the
word ‘deva’. We bbelieve in gods as well. People say why Buddhism, on the other hand, denies
God. On the other hand, they have something like deva, which is translated into English as ‘gods’.
So, remember when we say that Buddhism denies God, we mean the only one God.
When we accept gods in Buddhism, it means plural gods and is (simplicity) and not only
gods but also (god it is).(?) This is just in spelling. When we come to the term in Pāli, the Buddha
used, then we come to have a very clear distinction between the two. The word ‘God’ (with capital
letter at the beginning), is never used as ‘Deva’, it is used in Pāli as Isarā. So, we deny existence of
Isarā, we don’t deny deva. Deva is other form of being, other than human being. Many of them are
there. They are subject to impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-soullessness, apart from not-
being creators. So, the capital one, capital God is Isarā – we deny existence of Isarā. Here is the
other word, ‘nimmāna’, which means ‘creation’ or ‘creator’. Then the second theory according to
this – they believe whatever happens, good or bad, it happens due to the wish of God. The only
cause, the sole cause is to be the God.
When few people died, you see in the newspapers, it happens according to the wish of God,
and when something good happens again, it happens according to the wish of God. This is
according to this type of causality. And the third one, I think that is more important for us, like
Jainism. Why? Because the Jainism also believes in kamma, just like Bubddhism. Kamma means
ethical action, the action which has ethical implication, not all actions. That ethical action has the
result. And the one who carries the action is responsible for that. This is the brief explanation of
kamma. Then according to Jainism, kamma means only past action, it doesn’t include the present
one. According to them, to burn away the evil action which one has committed in the past, it is not
that he/she might have commited it, but that they indeed have committed it. They are quite sure.
Then one has to practice what they call „self-torture practice.“

125
 QUESTION: DESCRIBE THE RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE TWELVE LINKS OF DEPENDENT
ORIGINATION (DVĀDASAṄGA PAṬICCASMUPPĀDA).
Paṭiccasamuppāda or the Dependent Origination is the central teaching of Buddhism. All other
fundamental teachings of Buddhism are founded on this. The Four Noble Truths, the Nobble Eightfold Path,
Tilakkhana etc. are all different expressions of this central teaching. In brief this is the theory of causality
explaining how things happen, as presented by the Buddha. This is not a creation of the Buddha, but what
he observed as operating in nature. Hence it is called the dhammatā, dhammaniyāmatā of all phenomena.
During the time of the Buddha there were at least four such major causal theories put forward by the
religious teachers of the time. These are:
1. Self-causation (sayaṃ kataṃ)
2. External causation (paraṃ kataṃ)
3. Self and external causation (sayaṃ katañ ca paraṃ katañ ca)
4. Fortuitous causation or accidental causation (asayaṃ kāraṃ aparaṃ kāraṃ adhicca samuppannaṃ)

These theories either accepted existence of ‘self’, the God, fate or some such internal or external
agent as the doer of everything. There were also others who said that everything happened without causes or
condition.
Rejecting all these theories as baseless the Buddha presented what he saw in the nature and called it
paṭiccasamuppāda, the theory, which says that everything happens on causaes and conditions. Through this
the Buddha attempted to explain everything as a process of evolution taking place according to some causal
pattern. This rejected the idea of a soul, God etc. as being in control of everything.
This general theory he aplied to the problem of dukkha and its cessation (nirodha). This special
application of the general formula »imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti« „when this is present, this comes to be,“ is
called the twelve-linked Dependent Origination, because it contains 12 links, namely:
1. Depending on ignorance (avijjā) arise mental formations (saṅkhārā).
2. On saṅkhārā arises consciousness (viññāṇa).
3. On consciousness arises psychophysical personality (nāma-rūpa).
4. On psychophysical personality arises six-gathering of sense-perception (salāyatana).
5. On six gathering of sense perception arises contact (phassa).
6. On contact arises feeling (vedanā).
7. On feeling arises craving (taṇhā).
8. On craving arises grasping (upādāna).
9. On grapsing arises becoming (bhava).
10. On becoming arises birth (jāti).
11. On birth arises decay, disease, death, sorrow etc. (jarā vyādhi maraṇa dukkha)
This explains the arrising of dukkha or in other words the saṅsāric existence established in dukkha.
Similarly depending on the cessation of ignoracnce as there comes to be the cessation of mental formations
etc. Then the reverse order of these 12 links explains the cessation of the process of dukkha.

126
 QUESTION: EXAMINE HOW THE TEACHING OF DEPENDENT ORIGINATION REFERS TO ALL VIEWS AND METAPHYSICAL
THEORIES.

In the sixth century BC in India, there were many very religious activities.(?) There were
many religious teachers. They put forward edifferent religious views regarding man, the problems
he has to face in life and what life really is. The Brahmajāla Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya shows very
clearly how busy(?) the religions were and what different theories they put forward. This sutta says
that there were 62 views, but in fact the numbber can be much larger.
Each religious teacher claimed his view to be the right one, and all others as false theories.
Therefore, there was much confusion also. What is seen sis that all these theories were metaphysical
theories, theories that were imagined to exist and not theories that would be empirically tested.
The Bubddha categorized all such religious teachers and their religious theories as
extremes. This is why the Kaccāyanasotta Sutta of Saṅyutta Nikāya says that the world is usually
accustomed to go to extremes. While some say that everything exists or everything „is“, others go
to the extreme and say that everything gets completely destroyed or annihilated and therefore
everything „is not.“
Broadly these are the metaphysical theories that fall into eternalism (sassatavāda) and
materialism (ucchedavāda). These are speculations, attempts to explain reality through philosophy
which has no real objective foundation. They are mere views and nothing more.
Rejecting all this the Buddha explained that he stands in the middle and teaches. He says
that what he teaches is what he observes in the universe. This is that everything is risieng and
folling. He saw everything as a process of rising (uppāda) and falling (vaya). He saw that when
certain causes exist, certain specific effects rise and when these causes fall, the effect also falls.
Through this the Buddha explained all happenings in the universe. Hence, he was able to
reject the metaphysical beliefs such as God, Brahma, Emau(?), fate and even the metaphysical
view that everything happens by chance.
Thus, the Buddha applied this Paṭiccasamuppāda doctrine to explain all the physical
happenings and moral and spiáritual happenings. The rising of the universe, society, social
institutions as well as kamma and rebirth are explained through this theory.

127
 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND FOUR-FOLD PROPOSITIONS AND BUDDHA'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM

There are four types of questions which can be seen in the Pāli literature. They are:
1. Ekamsa vyākaranīya
2. Vibhajja vyākaranīya
3. Patipucchā vyākaranīya
4. Thāpanīya vyākaranīya

These are the methods of communicating in the teachings of the Buddha.

The first one is Ekamsa vyākaranīya method, which can be answered directly. This can be
seen in suttas sach as Dhammacakkappavattana sutta. The Buddha avoiding two extremes gave
way of the Noble Eightfold Path as a new message among the several philosophers at that time.
The second one is Vibhajja vyākaranīya, which can be analyzed and answered. For this form
of answer , the Buddha preached to the Yasa in Barānasī:

»Dānakathaṃ sīlakathaṃ saggakathaṃ kāmānaṃ ādīnavaṃ okāraṃ samkilesaṃ

nikkhammañca ānisaṁsaṃ pakāseti.«

„Talk about charity, morality, heavenly happiness, the offence of sensuality as low, good
results by renouncing household life,“ etc.

The third one is Patipucchā vyākaranīya, which could be answered by counter-questions. In

Brahmajāla sutta in Dīgha nikāya (heretic) views, held by several śramaṇas who were
contemporary with the Buddha (altogether 62 views) were rejected and explained by the Buddha.
In Ālāvaka sutta is also mentioned, that Ālāvaka asked the Question: „What is the noble wealth of a
person?“ (»Kimsūdha vittaṃ purisassa setthaṃ«) and then „how can one cross over a flood“
(»Kathamsu tarati ogham«). The Buddha answered: »The faith is the noble wealth of a person.«
»Saddhīdha vittaṃ purissassa setthaṃ.« and »With faith one can cross over a flood« (»Saddhāya
tarati oghaṃ«). One night a god asked the Buddha about blessings (mangala) of the world. The
Buddha answered and preached about 38 fold blessings – that Mangala sutta is also included in the
patiputchā vyākaranīya.
The fourth one is Thapanīya vyākaranīya, which should be set aside – unanswered. For
example, when Paribhājaka Vacchagotta asked the Buddha about soul (ātman):
a) »Is the soul and body the same?« (»Taṃ jīvitaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ.«)
b) »Is the soul and body different?« (»Aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ.«)

The Buddha puts it aside and remained silent when asked these questions. If the Buddha
said: „the soul is body“ he would hold the nihilistic theory (ucchedavāda) and if the Buddha said
„the sould is different from body“ he would hold the eternalist theory (sassatavāda). Therefore
Buddha sets aside these questions and remained silent. The Buddha rejected both the nihilism and
the eternalism because both are fetters and arising out of the false idea. The main teaching of the
Buddha is Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path which are for the sake of attaining Nibbāna.

128
 THE FOURFOLD ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITIONS AND CATEGORY OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS (NOT
COMPLETED)

It is not altogether correct to say that the Buddha did not answer the avyākrta questions. Although
he did not answer these questions and other many such questions in 'yes' and 'no' terms, he did answer them
in different manner.

Early discourses mention four kinds of questions, which require different strategies of answering.
They are:
1. Question analyzing and separating (vibhajja vyakaraniya)
2. Question answerable directly (ekaṅsa vyakaranīya)
3. Question answerable by countre-question (patipuccha vyakaranīya)
4. Question that could be set aside (thappaniya vyakaranīya)

Of these questions the last is supposed to contain avyakrta questions as proposed to the first three
categories, which are described as answerable – 'vyakaranīya'. The last is simply described as „should be set
aside“ (thappaniya), which suggests that the fourth category was not considered a form of answering. This
seems to support the view that the Buddha did not really answer questions that belong to the forth category.
Nevertheless, there are certain other instances which suggest the opposite view. For example, in this dialogue
with Puttapadakaparibhacaka the Buddha says: „some teachings I have taught and pointed out,
Puttapada, as being definite (ekaṅsika), other as being indefinite (anekaṅsika), which are the teaching I have
taught and pointed out as indefinite. The world is eternal I have taught and pointed out as indefinite. The
Tathāgata eneither exdists nor does not exist I have taught and pointed out indefinite.

What teachings have I taught and pointed out as definite? For example, this is sufferingů I have
taught and pointed out as definite. This is origin of suffering, this is cessation of suffering, this is the path
leading to cessation of suffering, and I have taught and pointed out as definite.

According to this statement, what the Buddha set aside at times without answering (thapaniya) and
what he calles indefinite (anekaṅsika) referred to the same questions. Jayatilleka thinks that these questions
were called indefinite owing to their very nature. It is impossible to say categorically true or false.
Discussing these four categories of questions, Jayatilleka surmises that the third category of questions to be
answered by a counter question is a sub-category of the second, those answered by analysis. Matilal
improving on Jayatillaka's view suggests that even the forth category is a sub-category of the second. He
further says that these unanswered questions were not regarded by the Buddha as clearly unanswerable. It
would be a wrong interpretation. We believe that the Buddha left this question entirely unanswered. The
Buddha used in fact vibhajja method to give answeres to these questions.
Obviously there is a difference between not giving any answer and saying that the question doesn't
permit the categorical answer. The latter requires analysis of the question. Such an analytical answer was
given by the Buddha to Vacchagotta Paribājaka. Vacchagotta asked from the Buddha whether the latter
is of the view that „the world is eternal,“ this is indeed the truth or else falsehood. The Buddha says that he
is not of that view. Vacchaputta goes on asking about all ten questions in the same manner, and the Buddha
gives the same answers. Then Vacchaputta asked the Buddha all these views. The Buddha's asnwer was –

129
Vaccha to think that the world is eternal. It is going to a speculative view. Holding a view, the wilds(?) of
views, wriggling of view, the scuffing of views, the fetter of view it is accompanied by anguish, distress,
misery, fever.(?) It does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super
knowledge, awakening nor to Nibbāna. Vaccha, going to speculative view this has been got rid of by the
Tathāgata.

In this example the Buddha doesn't keep silent. When these questions were asked, instead he
described them as spectrum. Viewd them by alluding to the reason why he did not hold them. In the
subsequent discussion with Vacchagotta there is a more detailed explanation of the four avyakrta questions.

„But, good Gotama, where does a monk arise, whose mind is freed thus?“
„Arise, Vaccha, does not apply.“
„Well then, good Gotama, does he not arise?“
„Does not arise Vaccha, does not apply.“
„Well then, good Gotama, does he both arise and not arise?“
„Both arise and doesn't arise, Vaccha, does not apply.“
„Well then, good Gotama, does he neither arise nor does not arise?“
„Neither arise nor does not arise, Vaccha, does not apply.

Vaccha gets gonfused at the rejection of all four alternatives. At this point the Buddha gives the
following analyogy to him.

„What do you think about this, Vaccha: if a fire were blazing in front of you, would you know, this
fire is blazing in front of me?“
„Godd Gotama, if the fire was blazing in front of me, I should know this fire is blazing in front of
me.“
„But if, Vaccha, someone were to question you thus – this fire that is blazing in front of you, what is
the reason that this fire is blazing, what would you, Vaccha, reply when questioned thus?“
„If, good Gotama, someone were to question me thus, this fire that is blazing in front of you, what is
the reason that this fire is blazing – I, good Gotama, on being questioned thus would reply thus – this fire is
blazing because of a supply of grass and sticks.“
„If that fire that was in front of you, Vaccha, when quenched, would you know, this fire that was in
front of me has been quenched – this fire that was in front of me has been quenched. But if someone were to
question you thus, Vaccha, that fire that was in front of you and that has been quenched, to which direction
has that fire gone from here – the East or West or North or South? On being questioned thus what would
you, Vaccha, reply? It... ???

130
 THE FOURFOLD ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITION AND CATEGORY OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Early discourses mention four kinds of questions, which require different strategies of answering. They
are:
(1) Question answerable directly (ekaṅsa vyākaranīya)
(2) Question analyzing and separating (vibhajja vyākaranīya)
(3) Question answerable by counter-question (patipucchā vyākaranīya)
(4) Question that could be set aside (thapaniya vyākaranīya)
Of these questions, the last is supposed to contain certain avyākata questions, as opposed to the first three
categories which are described as answerable (vyākāta). The last is simply described as should be set aside
(thapaniya) which suggests that the fourth category was not considered as a form of answering. This seems to
suppose the view that the Buddha did not really aswered the questions that belong to the frouth category.
Nevertheless, there are certain other instances found in case of Buddha and Vacchagotta Paribhājaka.
Vacchagotta asked the Buddha the ten questions, which were four questions regarding the world, two questions
regarding the soul and four questions regarding the Tathāgata or saints. The Buddha answer was: „Vaccha, to
think that such as(?) the world is eternal is going to speculative views. Vacchagotta, going to speculative views
has been got rid of by Tathāgata.“
In this example the Buddha doesn't keep silent. When these questions were asked instead he described
them as spectrume, viewd them by alluding to the reason why he did not hold them. The Buddha further asked
Vacchagotta reagrding reasons of fire blazed and quenched. The Buddha by asking this example explained
Vacchagotta that the Arahant who passed away is like a fire which extinguishes due to lack of fuel. This dialogue
should show that the Buddha was not silent nor it is the case that he refrains from answering these questions at all
times.
The above is an instance when the Buddha consideres these questions to be answered indirectly
(anekaṅsika). However in Māluṅkyaputta's case in Majjhima Nikāya the Buddha did not give even anekaṅsika
answer to the questions, he simply refused to answer.
When the two instances are combined, it shows that the same questions were regarded by the Buddha as
both indirectly answerable and to be kept aside (thapaniya). It is possible that before deciding on the type of
answer, the Buddha took into consideration the special cinrcumstances under which such questions were put to
him. This is quite clear in the case of Māluṅkyaputta. For him the Buddha plainly says that he should také what
the Buddha had said as said and what he had not said as not said. The Buddha had not said whether or not the
world is eternal etc. Because it is unbeneficial, it does not lead to cessation of suffering, to enlightenment, to
Nibbāna. And he had said that there is suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the way leading
to the cessation of suffering. Because it is beneficial, it leads to cessation of suffering, to enlightenment, to
Nibbāna.
Due to this special circumstances the Buddha does not even border(?) to analyze the question as he did
in the case of Vacchagotta, but he simply explained that knowing the answer to these questions have nothing to
do with the discipline of the order.

131
 ATTAKILAMATHĀNUYOGA – SELF MORTIFICATION
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta has mentioned the attakilamathānuyoga.
Attakilamathānuyoga, observing the rigorous practices of ṛta, the way of self-torturing belongs to
the view of eternalism. The eternalists believe that there is an ātman, which continues without
changing life after life. According to Ṛg Veda it is said that after the death the ātman becomes
immortal in man. Therefore, people prayed to the departed ones to accept the offering with the
Yama. And also further they prayed to him: „come again in the shape of material form.“ The Pāli
word attā means 'oneself', 'I am', 'I was', 'I shall be'. This is the base of ātmavāda. Here 'I' means
one who continues without changing life after the life. The view of ātmavāda has been discussed
and developed in various ways in Indian philosophy. This concept has been developed at last as the
entity of sat.
To achieve the ultimate freedom it is accepted that one should follow the path of self-
mortification. The word 'attā' is implied as the permanent ātman and one's self. Kilamatha means
'weaken'. Ānuyoga means 'one who performs'. Attakilamathānuyoga means one's self, being
weakened by following various practices. The Buddha has mentioned in Khandaraka Sutta the
attakilamathānuyogi, eternalists as attantapa. The ways of attantapa practices have been discussed
under these five groups:
1. Concerning the food (just begging etc.)
2. Using the cloth (made of hair, skin, feather etc.)
3. Under the various activities (not sleeping, just sitting etc.)
4. Various practices (not washing oneself etc.)
5. Practices which had been followed those days and the animal's behavior etc.
Although rigorous practice has been rejected in Buddhism, it is considereed as
sīlabbataparamāsa. It is a canker. According to Cūlasīhanāda Sutta this kind of sīlabbata is
reckoned as one of the upādāna. According the sutta there are many upādānas – kamma, diṭṭhi,
sīlabbata etc. Buddha preaches the Dhamma to eradicate those upādānas. Although upādāna arises
due to the taṇhā or desire, desire is the first cause of upādāna. Therefore, by ceasing the taṇhā or
desire upādāna also can be ceased. Bby upādāna nirodha there would be bhava nirodha. By bhava
nirodha it leads to jāti nirodha. Further Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta explains how the noble one removes the
suffering. Self-mortification or self-torturing is not the way of achieving the last freedom. It is
according to Buddhism reckoned as sīlabbataparamāsa. It is one of the cankers.
Sīlabbataparamāsa means one of the practices being considered as sīla and being observed in one's
life and leading the same by thinking that it is the only way to freedom and clinging to it. It is a
canker.
Buddhism formerly rejected that and accepted that the noble one should recognize it as a
canker and remove it if one wants to realize the ultimate truth. According to Aṭṭhaka and Pārāyana
Vagga in Sutta Nipāta the way of attantapa has been followed by those śramaṇas and Brahmaṇas
considereing it as the way to the highest purity of ātman. Sometimes those followers themselves
were identifies as muni. Nanda Sutta in Sutta Nipāta has been questioned about who would be the
muni, whether those who are having great knowledge or those who follow the rigorous practices
which lead to one's bodily suffering.
By following or observing all those practices no ona can cross the circle of Saṅsāra, said the

132
Buddha to the youth Punna. According to the ??? the disciples of the Buddha remove all these
rigorous practices and achieve the peaceful life. They lead the peaceful life. The way of Buddha is
rejecting the extremes without clinging to other way and following the middle path. ??? Sutta
clearly mentions how one should remove the saṅyojana. Observing the sīla also should not be
extremely followed. Sīla is needed to some extent till the mind achieves the purification.
Kukkuravatika Sutta further explains those who formerly observe the kind of practice as a result of
that they might beget birth in the particular sphere of beings (i.e. if one practices ascetism of
imitating an animal, he might be reborn as that particular animal).
Following the path of self-mortification is a tough and difficult thing. Therefore it has been
identified aslo as the path of attantapa. Buddha has rejected the observation of attantapa because
of three reasons:
1. That path, again and again makes difficulties to one who follows it
2. One will not understand any kind of wholesome or kusala dhamma
3. One will not see any kind of knowledge leading to noble life
»Ayaṃ gāminī tapassi lokajīvi. Tinimanehi karāyaho. Attāna anapeti parinpeti. Kusalaṃ ca
dhammaṃ natigaccanti. Uttari manussadhamma allamariyañānadassana visesaṃ na saccikammaṃ
karohi.«
(Saṅyutta Nikāya, Rassa Sutta)
By following the path of self-mortification one cannot achieve any spiritual attainements. It
does not help to develop one's character or personality. The path of self-mortification is an action
prescribed by person who does not have knowledge to understand the reality of this world.
Therefore it is fruitless activity of a fool. According to buddhism aall the views belong to either
externalism or nihilism. Buddha's path does not belong to either ism(?) and rejected all the
extremes. It follows middle path and dependent origination as the theory. According to Majjhima
Nikāya Khandaraka Sutta advises person to follow the middle path and behave(?) the triśikhas(?).

133
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN ON WHAT GROUND (REASON) THE BUDDHA REJECTED THE ĀTMAN THEORY.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta mentions about the Atthakilamathānuyoga, observing the

rigorous practices of Ṛta, the way of self-torturing which is view of eternalism. The eternalists
believe that there is ātman, which continues without changing life after life. Here I or ātman means
a constant moment(?) without a change to achieve the ultimate freedom. One should follow the path
of self-mortification. The word attā is implied as the permanent ātman or one’s self and kilamatha
means weaken.
So, attakilamathānuyoga means one’s self being weakened by following various practices.
In Khandaraka Sutta the Buddha mentioned the Attakilamathānuyogic eternalists as attantapa. The
way of attantapa practices has been discussed under the five groups:
1. Concerning the food (just begging etc.)
2. Using the cloth (made of hair, skin, feather etc.)
3. Under the various activities (not sleeping – just sitting etc.)
4. Various practices (not washing oneself etc.)
5. Practices which had been followed those days and animals’ behavior etc.

Although rigorous practices have been rejected in Buddhism, it is considered as

Sīlabbataparamāsa, the canker.
According to the suttas, there are many – upādāna, kamma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata etc. Buddha
preached the Dhamma to eradicate those upādāna. It arises due to the taṇhā or desire, the first cause
of upādāna. Therefore, by ceasing the taṇhā, upādāna also can be ceased. Further, Sammādiṭṭhi
Sutta explains how the noble one removes the suffering. Self-mortification is not the way to achieve
the final goal. It is reckoned as sīlabbataparamāsa. Early Buddhism rejected that and accepted the
noble one. One should recognize it as a canker and remove it if one wants to realize the ultimate
truth. Nanda Sutta in Suttanipāta questioned who whould be the muni.
Whether those who are having a great knowledge or those who follow the rigorous practices
to make one’s body suffer.(?) According to the Mahāvyuha Sutta in Suttanipāta the disciples of the
Buddha removed all these rigorous practices and achieved the peaceful life. The way of Buddha is
rejecting the extremes, clinging to other way, and following the middle path instead.
One can not achieve any spiritual attainment by practicing the self-torture. It does not help
one’s character or personality in developing spirituality and it is an action prescribed by person who
does not have knowledge to understand the reality of this world.

134
 QUESTION: EXPLAIN BRIEFLY THE BUDDHA'S TEACHING THAT HELPS TO DISPEL THE BELIEF IN A PERMANENT
SELF.

The Buddha cites the belief in a permanent self or sakkāya diṭṭhi as a primary cause of
suffering. Bbecause of this belief we become selfish and selfishness generates all kinds of conflicts,
within oneself and conflicts between oneself and others and so on. It is, in order to show that there
is no such enduring self or soul (attā), that the Buddha put forwards in His anattā teaching. It is
not another view, but a description about the nature of all phenomena.
To show that there is no self or substance behind phenomena, the Buddha analyzed
phenomena in various ways. There are five such major analyses in the Nikāyas:
1. Nāma-rūpa analysis: that is the broad analysis of the whole world of existence in mind and
matter.
2. Pañca-khandha analysis: this is the most comprehensive and the best known analysis of
phenomena. In this, everything is analyzed into five groups or aggregates as form (rūpa), feeling
(vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formation (saṅkhārā) and consciousness (viññāṇa). It is seen
that this is an elaboration of the nāma-rūpa analysis. The matter is represented by rūpa and mind by
other four aggregates. These are not independent, but interdependent. Therefore, they have no
independent existence.
3. The six dhātu or elements analysis. In this, the rūpa or material is analyzed into the four mahā-
bhūta (paṭhavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo). To this is added ākāsa (space), which is neither material nor
mental. And then the sixth element of phenomena is consciousness (viññāṇa).
4. The fourth analysis is into 12 āyatanas or ‘gateways’; these constitute the six sense faculties and
six sense objects. The whole world is nothing but the interaction between these.
5. The fifth is a further elaboration of this. It is the 18 dhātu analysis. It consists of the six sense
faculties, the six sense objects and the related six consciousnesses.

By these analyses the Buddha makes it clear that there is no permanent, enduring soul or
self; that everything is compounded; that everything is a combination of different forces which are
always changing and therefore without any permanency. Hence, these analyses help to dispel the
belief in a permanent, everlasting, enduring self.

135
 QUESTION: EXAMINE THE RELEVANCE OF THE BUDDHIST ANALYSES INTO KHANDHA, ĀYATANA AND DHĀTU TO THE
ELIMINATION OF THE BELIEF IN A SOUL-ENTITY.

All major religions and philosophical traditions of the time of the Buddha accepted the
belief in a soul. On emmajor tradition, namely eternalism (sassatavāda) accepted a permanent, non-
destructible, transmigrating soul. This they considered to be different from the body (aññaṃ jīvaṃ
aññaṃ sarīraṃ). Therefore, according to their belief this soul was metaphysical.
The annihilationists (ucchedavādins) on the other hand considered the soul to be identical
with the body (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarṃraṃ). Hence, according to them the soul is physical and gets
destroyed at the destruction of the body. They did not believe in transmigration of the soul.
According to the Buddha's explanation of the problem of dukkha this belief in a soul is one
of the main causes that brings about dukkha. Therefore, one of his primary objects was to show that
this belief in any kind of a soul is a misconception.
In order to show this, the Buddha analyzed the whole world of our experience in numerous
ways. These analyses are the pancakkhandha (five aggregate analysis), twelve āyatana analysis
(that is the six sense organs and six sense objects), six dhātu (elements) that is the world as being
constituted of four great elements (mahābhūta), namely paṭhavī (earth), āpo (water), tejo (heat) and
vāyo (wind), eighteen dhātu that is the six sense organs, six sense objects and six sense
consciousnesses (viññāṇa) such as cakkhu viññāṇa (eye-consciousness), sota viññāṇa (ear-
consciousness) etc.
According to the Buddha this whole existence could be reduced to any of these
constituents. These constituents, whether the five aggregates (namely, rūpa, vedanā, saññā,
saṅkhāra or viññāṇa) or any other constituents are not permanent entities. These are dependent on
each other and are always undergoing changes.
The pañcakkhandha analysis which is the best known and the most comprehensive of these
analyses shows that the man is a composition of these five inter-dependent, inter-commended
aggregates as not independent, discrete constituents. They are described as mere forces of energy,
continually changing.
Thus, these different analyses are used to show that there is no substance or entity or self or
soul that remains permanent and unchanging.

136
 QUESTION: EXAMINE THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH AS A GRADUAL PROCESS
The Buddha says clearly that he does not preach that the goal could be reached at the
beginning itself. He clearly says that his path is a graduated one. Hence it is described as anupubba
paṭipadā (gradual practice), anupubba sikkhā (gradual training) and anupubba kiriya (gradual
course of action).
It is also explained that the division of the path into three kinds of training called sīla
(morality), samādhi (concentration) and paññā (wisdom) is meant to show this graduated nature of
the path. The Buddha was not presenting any secret or mystic way to end dukkha. He explained
that both dukkha and its cessation is within oneself and therefore one should adopt a practical
method of understanding dukkha and eradicating it.
According to Buddhism it is said that a wise person should first cultivate morality, then
develop concentration and wisdom.
The whole path is a programme or a course of practical action or training, which a person
has to follow. Firstly, one should establish oneself in the path by developing one’s verbal and
physical behavior. When one is doing this, one finds it easier to concentrate one’s mind. When the
mind is concentrated, it becomes manageable and one finds it easier to direct it to wisdom.
The problem of dukkha is caused by kilesas or defilements. These defilements function at
three levels. These defilements are very easily seen in our physical and verbal behavior. This stage
of appearance of these defilements is called vitikama level or level of transgression of accepted way
of behavior. A person who wishes to follow the path therefore has to stop such transgression. For
this he has to control his bodily and verbal action through morality (sīla).
When so suppressed, the defilements sink deep into the mind and lay hidden and sleeping
lay latent to rise when there is opportunity. Thus it becomes very clear that the whole path has a
practical value and it is so structured.

137
QUESTION: SHOW THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH, AS A GRADUAL PROCESS, RELATED TO MORALITY, CONCENTRATION
AND WISDOM

In Buddhism the path leading to cessation of dukkha (dukkha nirodha gāminī paṭipadā) is
called the Noble Eightfold Path (ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga). This is because it constitutes of eight
factors, namely:
1. Right view
2. Right thought
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

As this path avoids the two extreme paths namely self-indulgence (kāmasukhallikānuyoga)
and self-mortification (attakilamathānuyoga) it is called the Middle Path (Majjhima Paṭipadā). The
factors in the path are not arranged in any hierarchical order. On eis not important than the other.
All these factors in combination culminate, reach the climax in bringing about freedom from
Saṅsāric dukkha.
This is the path, however, said to be a gradual one. This does not mean that its factors are to
be cultivated one by one, little by little. What is meant is that it has to be followed in some method,
because the purpose of the path is to enablbe one to get rid of defilements. The defilements came
into operation at three levels. They operate in our verbal and physical behavior. Then they operate a
little deeper in our mind, when they are suppressed the ygo still deeper and lay dormant, hiding in
the depth of themind. To fight these defilements at these three levels of operation the path is divided
into three kinds of trainig (tisikkhā). These are sīla (morality), samādhi (concentration) and paññā
(wisdom). So, the path has to bbe treaded upon in this order.
Thus the Saṅyutta Nikāya says: „A wise person having established himself in morality
should cultivate concentration and wisdom - »sile patiṭṭhāya naro sapañño cittaṃ paññaṃ ca
bhāvayaṃ).« With practice of sīla, that cultivation of right speech, right action and right livelihood,
one is able to perfect morality (sīla) and then become better equipped to practice of right effort,
right mindfulness and right concentration (sammā vīriya, sammā sati and sammā samādhi). With
the mind well concentrated one is able to develop paññā or vipassanā (insight knowledge) by
cultivating sammā diṭṭhi and sammā saṅkappa (right view and right thought).

138
 QUESTION: DESCRIBE CLEARLY THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH AND EXAMINE HOW IT BECAME THE VIA MEDIA.

The Noble Eightfold Path is the Buddhist way to the cessation of dukkha. According to Buddhist
view the world is established in dukkha or non-satisfactoriness. The cessation of this is the goal – Nibbāna.
The Noble Eightfold Path is the way (magga) recommended for the realization of this goal.

It is called Noble Eightfold Path because it consists of eight of eight items or links. Therefore in Pāli
it is called the „ariya aṭṭhaṅghika magga.“ These links are:
(1) Right view (sammā diṭṭhi)
(2) Right thought (sammā saṅkappa)
(3) Right speech (sammā vācā)
(4) Right action (sammā kammanta)
(5) Right livelihood (sammā ājīva)
(6) Right effort (sammā viriya)
(7) Right mindfulness (sammā sati)
(8) Right concentration (sammā samādhi)

These eight items represent three salient factors of the individual's personality, namely his morality
(sīla), concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (paññā). The path is meant as a way to regulate and develop
these three aspects – right speech, action and livelihood, constitute sīla aspect, right effort, mindfulness and
concentration the samādhi and right view and thought the paññā aspect. As the Saṅyutta says, a wise man is
expected to establish himself in sīla and then develop concentration and wisdom.

This means one should methodically change one's personality by developing a moral life blending
and culminating in wisdom. This will bring about a personality change, leading to a change in thinking,
views, attitudes regarding life and the world, enabling the individual to get a proper understanding of the
whole existence. This understanding will make him remain unshaken by all vicissitudes (aṭṭhalokadhamma)
of life.

This path is also called the via media or the middle way for very good reson. At that time all
religions advocated one of the two extreme paths, namely self-mortification (attakilamatthānuyoga). The
first advocated excessive enjoyment of sense pleasures and teachers like Ajita Kesakambali upheld this
path. Others like Jaina Mahāvīra advocated the second and insisted on giving pain to the body to enable the
soul imprisoned within the body to find release.

The Buddha rejected both as harmful, ignoble and condemned kāmasukhallikānuyoga even as
vulgar. He advocated a path that transcends both these extremes. It is not a combination of a little from both
these paths, but a new path, which aimed at developing morality and wisdom. As it transcends the two
extremes mentioned above it came to be described by the Buddha himself as the middle path (majjhima
paṭipadā), the via media.

139
 ??? (SALĀYATANA) (NOT COMPLETED)

There are six internal avenues – that of cakkhu, sota, ghaṇa, jivhā, kāya and mana. There are
external objects which are represented represent the object of internal avenues, namely rūpa, sadda,
gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba and dhamma. As those 12 āyatanas are subject to breaking, they are
impermanent. Therefore, they also can be named as world, because the world's characteristic is
impermanency. Further in Saṅyutta Nikāya the Lokapannaha Sutta reveals how the word 'world' can
be used concerning 18 elements. According to Buddhism there are 18 elements, 18 dhātus that of
cakkhu, sota, ghana, jivhā, kāya, rūpa, sadda, gandha, rassa, phoṭṭhabbba – cakkhu viññāṇa etc.
Whatever exists is called world, because 18 elements are also impermanent, breakable. Wherever is
impermanency, that is called world. In Saṅyutta Nikāya Sabba Sutta further explains what is world.
According to that sutta which is Sabba the sutta says 'sabba' is that cakkhu, rūpa, sota, sadda etc.
Here the sabba word has been used as the synonym to loka. Th