These books of the Pali Canon correctly represent the Buddha's Teaching, and can be regarded as trustworthy throughout. (Vinayapitaka:) Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga; (Suttapitaka:) Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā. (The Jātaka verses may be authentic, but they do not come within the scope of these Notes.) No other Pali books whatsoever should be taken as authoritative; and ignorance of them (and particularly of the traditional Commentaries) may be counted a positive advantage, as leaving less to be unlearned.
***
As regards my views on the Abhidhamma Pitaka, for my general attitude see Preface (a). More particularly, I consider that none of the A.P. is the Buddha's word, and furthermore, that it is a positively misleading compilation, often inconsistent with the Suttas. This does not mean, however, that I regard every single statement in it as false—the short work, the Puggala Paññatti, may well be trustworthy in parts. But I must confess that most of my acquaintance with the A.P. is at second hand. I have never, myself, found anything in it of the slightest value to me, and I normally advise people to leave it entirely alone. If you press me, I might express myself more emphatically on the uselessness and misleadingness of the A.P., but since I do not think you are violently enamoured of it, perhaps I have said enough.**
Disapproval, naturally, is to be expected, particularly in the quarter where it has been expressed. A parallel may be found in the medical profession, where a doctor with an unorthodox but effective remedy meets the greatest opposition from the Medical Association rather than from the patients who have benefitted from his unorthodoxy. But we can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.
I could, naturally, soften or omit the passages complained of, but I don't particularly want to. The Notes have been written with the purpose of clearing away a mass of dead matter which is choking the Suttas, and some reference to it is necessary. Furthermore, if this is to be effective, shock-treatment is sometimes best: mere hints that all is not quite in order can only too easily be ignored.[a] It is possible that a reader who is not familiar with English idiom might suppose that when I say that the 'rot sets in with the Abhidhamma Pitaka' (CITTA) I am saying that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is rot (in the colloquial sense of rubbish). This, of course, is not my intention, and if it seems likely that many people are going to misunderstand this, the word 'decay' could be substituted without loss of meaning but with loss of strength. The 'vicious' doctrine I cannot help—it is vicious—, but I don't suppose that anyone will think that I mean to say that it has taken to drink and debauchery.
***
[L. 79 | 86] 29 December 1963
I expect this letter will be a little dull and prosy since I propose to talk about the cittavīthi and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. My purpose is rather to put you in a position to answer questions that may be raised about the rough treatment that these things receive in the Notes.
I have been refreshing my mind about the cittavīthi and its origins in the Abhidhamma Pitaka in order to make sure that CITTA is all in order. I find, to begin with, that I have given a wrong reference—it should be Chapter XIV, and not XXII, of the Visuddhimagga. This is not of much importance, and can easily be corrected; and, anyway, Ch. XXII is the correct reference for the second part of the note. Next, I see that the whole question of the origins of the cittavīthi is dealt with in the Ven. Ñānamoli Thera's translation, The Path of Purification, Ch. IV note 13 (p. 131).[1] The relevant passages from the Vibhanga and Patthāna are given in full, and it can be seen how the Sutta material is there interpreted (or, rather, misinterpreted) for the first time as a temporal 'succession of items each coming to an end before the next appears' (to quote my own words from CITTA). If, therefore, anyone asks why these two particular books are singled out for criticism and on what grounds they are criticized, it is necessary only to point to this footnote in The Path of Purification. Turning to Ch. XIV of that book (which chapter contains the principal account of the cittavīthi), I find the following footnote (no. 47, p. 515):
'For those who do not admit the cognitive series beginning with receiving, just as they do not admit the heart basis [don't worry about this—it has no connexion with the cognitive series], the Pali has been handed down in various places, in the way beginning "For the eye-consciousness-element as receiving (sampaticchanāya cakkhuviññānadhātuyā)"; for the Pali cannot be contradicted.' (Paramatthamañjūsa—Vis. Mag. Sub Commentary) The quotation as it stands is not traced to the Pitakas.
So you see that I am not the first to question the validity of the cittavīthi. Apparently there has been, in time past, enough opposition to it to call for official censure of scepticism about it, and quotation of passages from the Pali (i.e. earlier texts) in support of the doctrine. Alas! these would-be authoritative passages are not to be found even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The very fact that it is found necessary to assert the validity of a doctrine (instead of allowing it to speak for itself) is at once enough to arouse suspicions. Compare this passage from Kierkegaard:
Objective thinking...imparts itself without further ado, and, at the most, takes refuge in assurances respecting its own truth, in recommendations as to its trustworthiness, and in promises that all men will some time accept it—it is so certain. Or perhaps rather so uncertain; for the assurances and the recommendations and the promises, which are presumably for the sake of the others who are asked to accept it, may also be for the sake of the teacher, who feels the need of the security and dependability afforded by being in a majority. (CUP, pp. 70-1)
How often K. hits the nail on the head! And how quotable he is! So much for the cittavīthi.
In my last letter I sent you a translation of Anguttara V,viii,9, which contains this passage: '...they, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing the advanced teaching and engaging in cross-questioning, falling into a dark teaching will not awaken.' I added a footnote to say that the word abhidhamma that occurs in this passage does not refer to the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This needs some further discussion.
In the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera's Commentary (Atthasālinī) to the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (Dhammasanganī), he gives the traditional account of the origin of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This is to the effect that, during the three months of one vassāna[2] season, the Buddha stayed in the Tāvatimsa heaven (or perhaps Tusita, I forget) teaching abhidhamma to the assembled devatā. At the end of each day he repeated the day's instruction to the Ven. Sāriputta Thera, who handed it on to the other bhikkhus. This instruction was gathered together and now forms the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. According to the tradition, then, the matter contained in the present Abhidhamma Pitaka was in existence before the Buddha's final extinction at Kusināra.
In accordance with this tradition, all the other Commentaries of the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera insist that wherever the word abhidhamma occurs in the Suttas it refers to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Moreover, the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera, in the Atthasālinī, utters anathema—perhaps this is too strong, but I don't recall the actual words—against people who doubt that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is really the Buddha's ipsissimum verbum. (As above, with the cittavīthi, this circumstance points to a solid body of scepticism about the authenticity of the A.P., and to the commentator's subconscious uneasiness about the soundness of his position, requiring him to have the majority on his side.)
The word abhidhamma occurs in the Suttas, sometimes alone, and sometimes together with the word abhivinaya, just as the simple word dhamma is sometimes linked with the simple word vinaya. This leads at once to the question: If the word abhidhamma refers to the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from the word dhamma, which refers to the Dhamma (i.e. Sutta) Pitaka, are we not entitled to look for an Abhivinaya Pitaka as well as a Vinaya Pitaka? But there is no trace of such a thing; and it is quite clear that abhivinaya means something like 'advanced discipline', which is part and parcel of the Vinaya Pitaka. (We can ignore here the possibility that vinaya, as well as abhivinaya, means something more than just the rules. Literally, it means 'leading out', and as vineti it occurs in the Anguttara Sutta that I translated for you, where it is rendered as 'to direct'—'they are unable to direct them in higher virtue, higher mind, and higher understanding'.)
Similarly, we have no a priori reason for supposing that abhidhamma means more than 'advanced teaching', understood as the more difficult and essential parts of the Sutta teaching. It is a constant feature of Indian philosophical or religious texts that they are attributed to some ancient and famous teacher in order to give them authority (in the West, on the contrary, the more modern the text the better); and this holds true even of the obviously later Pali books (the Ven. Mahākaccāna Thera is credited with the Nettipakarana and with a grammar, while the Ven. Sāriputta Thera has the Patisambhidāmagga and, possibly, the Niddesas attributed to him). It is thus wholly to be expected that attempts should be made to secure the authority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (assuming that it is, in fact, a later production) by identifying it with the abhidhamma of the Suttas. Add to this the fact that the Atthasālinī and the other commentarial works of the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera are perhaps nine hundred years later than the Abhidhamma Pitaka that they set out to defend, and you will see that if we find internal reason for rejecting the books of the A.P. as not authoritative (i.e. if we find that the texts of these books cannot be reconciled with our understanding of the Sutta texts) there is nothing very much to compel us to accept them as the Buddha's own Teaching.
My teacher, the late Ven. Nāyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment)—that is, if it sets out to do so—can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding.
Be all this as it may, the Notes refer to the A.P. only in connexion with two specific things—the cittavīthi and the paticcasamuppāda—and there is no indiscriminate criticism of the A.P. as a whole.
Editorial notes:
[79.1] Path of Purification, p. 131, note 13: This long note begins:
Bhavanga (life-continuum, lit. Constituent of becoming) and javana (impulsion) are first mentioned in this work at Ch. I §57 (see n. 16); this is the second mention. The 'cognitive series (citta-vīthi)' so extensively used here is unknown as such in the Pitakas...
[79.2] Vassāna (Sinh: Vas): Rains. The rainy season, following the four months of the hot season and preceding four months of cold, lasts (in the Ganges Valley area) from July to November. During three of these four months monks are expected to live in one place and not wander about; and thus the Vas is sometimes regarded as a period of retreat.
***
L 83 | 90] 4 January 1964
More about the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I think I said in my last letter that 'I do not know of any Sutta where it is said that the Buddha taught the A.P., or even abhidhamma, to the devatās'. The words 'or even abhidhamma' should be deleted, since, if abhidhamma in the Sutta sense means 'advanced dhamma', then the Buddha did teach abhidhamma to the devatās—though not more than to the bhikkhus, and not in a Vas season spent in Tāvatimsa.[1]
Another point. The Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera and the other Commentators maintain (as I said earlier) that the material contained in the present A.P. was in existence before the Buddha's final extinction. They also maintain, consistently with this opinion, that the A.P. was recited at the First Council (of Rājagaha) after the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas. But in the account of the First Council (which is contained in the Cūlavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka, and is certainly authentic), the word abhidhamma does not occur at all. The arahat theras debated which should be recited first, Dhamma or Vinaya. They concluded that, since there is no practice of the Dhamma without observance of the Vinaya, the Vinaya should have precedence. Accordingly, the Ven. Upāli Thera was questioned about Vinaya, and answered, beginning with an account of the First Pārājika. When he had finished, the Ven. Ānanda Thera was questioned about Dhamma, and answered, beginning with a recitation of the Brahmajāla Sutta, which is the first Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya. When he had finished, certain other business was disposed of and the Council dispersed. The statement by the Commentators that the A.P. was recited on this occasion is purely gratuitous—one can accept it if one wishes, but there is nothing in the account of the First Council to support it.
One of the books of the A.P. (the Kathā Vatthu) consists of a detailed account of the refutation of a number of heretical views about the Dhamma. This is supposed to have taken place at the Third Council (of Pātaliputta or Patna) during the reign of Asoka. (I forget the authority for this statement but there seems to be no reason to doubt it.)[2] The question has arisen how it was that the text of a debate with members of heretical sects at the time of Asoka had already been taught by the Buddha to devatās some two-and-a-half centuries earlier. The answer that is given by the Commentators is that the Buddha, foreseeing that such a debate would take place on a future occasion, gave the outline of the correct answers (but not the full text), in advance, to guide the orthodox party when the time came. Once again, one can accept this account, if one wishes. But with whom is the onus probandi?
Editorial notes:
[83.1] abhidhamma: Although various disciples are sometimes said to discuss abhidhamma and abhivinaya amongst themselves, in fact the Suttas nowhere describe the Buddha himself as teaching either abhidhamma or abhivinaya to either humans or deities. This suggests that perhaps the prefix abhi- might best be taken in this instance not as 'higher' or 'advanced' but as 'extended', and to understand that the monks sometimes discussed dhamma and vinaya in their own terminology rather than in the terminology used by the Buddha. See in particular A. VI,60: iii,392f.
[83.2] Third Council: Traditional views on the Kathā Vatthu are set forth at Mahāvamsa v,278 and Dīpavamsa vii,41, 56-8. Source material on the Third Council is also to be found in the Samantapāsādikā (i,57ff.) and Papañca Sūdanī (vv. 240ff
No comments:
Post a Comment