What the Buddha taught
Walpola Rahula
---o0o---
Chapter I
THE BUDDHIST
ATTITUDE OF MIND
Among the founders of religions the
Buddha (if we are permitted to call him the founder of a religion in the
popular sense of the term) was the only teacher who did not claim to be
other than a human being, pure and simple. Other teachers were either
God, or his incarnations in different forms, or inspired by him. The
Buddha was not only a human being; he claimed no inspiration from any
god or external power either. He attributed all his realization,
attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence.
A man and only a man can become a Buddha. Every man has within himself
the potentiality of becoming a Buddha, if he so wills it and endeavours.
We can call the Buddha a man par excellence. He was so perfect in
his ‘human-ness’ that he came to be regarded later in popular religion
almost as ‘super-human’.
Man’s position, according
to Buddhism, is supreme. Man is his own master, and there is higher
being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny.
‘One is one’s own refuge,
who else could be the refuge?
said the Buddha. He admonished his disciples to ‘be a refuge to
themselves’, and never to seek refuge in or help from anybody else.
He taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and
to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate
himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and
intelligence. The Buddha says: ‘You should do your work, for the
Tathāgatas
only teach the way.’
If the Buddha is to be called a ‘saviour’ at all, it is only in the
sense that he discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvāna. But
we must tread the Path ourselves.
It is on this principle
of individual responsibility that the Buddha allows freedom to his
disciples. In the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta the Buddha says that he
never thought of controlling the Sangha (Older of Monks),
nor he did want the Sangha to depend on him. He said that there
was no esoteric doctrine in his teaching, nothing hidden in the
‘closed-fist of the teacher’ (ācariya-muttbi), or to put it in
the other words, there never was anything ‘up his sleeve’.
The freedom of thought
allowed by the Buddha is unheard of elsewhere in the history of
religions. This freedom is necessary because, according to the Buddha,
man’s emancipation depends on his own realization of Truth, and not on
the benevolent grace of a god or any external power as a reward for his
obedient good behaviour.
The Buddha once visited a
small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of
his town were known by the common name Kālāma. When they heard that the
Buddha was in their town, the Kālāmas paid him a visit, and told him:
‘Sir, there are some
recluses and brāhmanas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine
only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’
doctrines. Then come other recluses and brāhmanas, and they, too, in
their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise,
condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always
doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and
brāhmanas spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood.’
Then the Buddha gave them
this advice unique in the history of regilions:
‘Yes, Kālāmas, it is
proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has
arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kālāmas, do not be
led by reports, or tradition or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of
religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering
appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming
possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘this is our teacher’. But, O Kālāmas,
when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala),
and wrong, and bad, the give them up… And when you know yourselves that
certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them
and follow them’
The Buddha went even
further. He told the bhikkus that a disciple should examine even the
Tathāgata (Buddha) himself, so that he (the disciple) might be fully
convinced of the true value of the teacher whom he followed.
According to the Buddha’s
teaching, doubt (vicikkcchā) is one of the five Hindrances (nīvarana)
to the clear understanding of Truth and to spiritual progress (or for
that matter to any progress). Doubt, however, is not a ‘sin’, because
there are no articles of faith in Buddhism. In fact there is no ‘sin’ in
Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions. The root of all evil
is ignorance (avijjā) and false views (micchā ditthi). It
is an undeniable fact that as long as there is doubt, perplexity,
wavering, no progress is possible. It is also equally undeniable that
there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly.
But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid
of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.
There is no point in
saying that one should not doubt or one should believe. Just to say’ I
believe’ does not mean that you understand and see, When a student works
on mathematical problem, he comes to a stage beyond which he does not
know how to proceed, and where he is in doubt and perplexity. As long as
he has this doubt, he cannot proceed. If he wants to proceed, he must
resolve this doubt. And there are ways of resolving that doubt. Just to
say ‘I believe’, or, ‘I do not doubt’ will certainly not solve the
problem. To force oneself to believe and to accept a thing without
understanding is political, and not spiritual or intellectual.
The Buddha was always
eager to dispel doubt. Even just a few minutes before his death, he
requested his disciples several times to ask him if they had any doubts
about his teaching, and not to feel sorry later that they could not
clear those doubts. But the disciples were silent. What he said then was
touching: ‘If it is through respect for the Teacher that you do not ask
anything, let even one of you inform his friend’ (i.e., let one tell his
friend so that the latter may ask the question on the other’s behalf).
Not only the freedom of
thought, but also the tolerance allowed by the Buddha is astonishing to
the student of the history of religions. Once in Nālandā a prominent and
wealthy householder named Upāli, a well-known lay disciple of Nigantha
Nātaputta (Jaina Mahāvīra), was expressly sent by Mahāvīra himself to
meet the Buddha and defeat him in argument on certain points in the
theory of Karma, because the Buddha’s views on the subject were
different from those of Mahāvīra.
Quite contrary to expectations, Upāli, at the end of the discussion, was
convinced that the views of the Buddha were right and those of his
master were wrong. So he begged the Buddha to accept him as one of his
lay disciples (Upāsaka). But the Buddha asked him to reconsider
it, and not to be in a hurry, for ‘considering carefully is good for
well-known men like you’. When Upāli expressed his desire again, the
Buddha requested him to continue to respect and support his old
religious teachers as he used to.
In the third century
B.C., the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka of India, following this noble
example of tolerance and understanding, honoured and supported all other
religions in his vast empire. In one of his Edicts carved on rock, the
original of which one may read even today, the Emperor declared:
‘One should not honour
only one’ own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one
should honour others’ religions for this or that person. So doing, one
helps one’s own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of
others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one’s own religion
and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own
religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion
to his own religion, thinking “I will glorify my own religion”. But on
the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely.
So concord is good: Let
all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by
others’.
We should add here that
this spirit of sympathetic understanding should be applied today not
only in the matter of religious doctrine, but elsewhere as well.
This spirit of tolerance
and understanding has been from the beginning one of the most cherished
ideals of Buddhist culture and civilization. That is why there is not a
single example of persecution or the shedding of a drop of blood in
converting people to Buddhism, or in its propagation during its long
history of 2500 years. It spread peacefully all over the continent of
Asia, having more than 500 million adherents today. Violence in any
form, under any pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching
of the Buddha.
The question has often
been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter
what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put
on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label ‘Buddhism’ which we give
to the teaching of the Buddha is of little importance. The name one
gives it is inessential.
What’s in a name? That
which we call a rose,
By any other name would
smell as sweet.
In the same way Truth
needs no label” it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu nor Moslem. It
is not the monopoly of anybody. Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the
independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices
in men’s minds.
This is true not only in
intellectual and spiritual matters, but also in human relations. When,
for instance, we meet a man, we do not look on him as a human being, but
we put a label on him, such as English, French, German, American, or
Jew, and regard him with all the prejudices associated with that label
in our mind. Yet he may be completely free from those attributes which
we have put on him.
People are so fond of
discriminative labels that they even go to the length of putting them on
human qualities and emotions common to all. So they talk of different ‘
brands’ of charity, as for example, of Buddhist charity or Christian
charity, and look down upon other ‘brands’ of charity. But charity
cannot be sectarian; it is neither Christian, Buddhist, Hindu nor
Moslem. The love of a mother for her child is neither Buddhist nor
Christian: it is mother love. Human qualities and emotions like love,
charity, compassion, tolerance, patience, friendship, desire, hatred,
ill-will, ignorance, conceit, etc., need no sectarian labels; they
belong to no particular religions.
To the seeker after Truth
it is immaterial from where an idea comes. The source and development of
an idea is a matter for the academic. In fact, in order to understand
Truth, it is not necessary even to know whether the teaching comes from
the Buddha, or from anyone else. What is essential is seeing the thing,
understanding it. There is an important story in the Majjhima-nikāya
(sutta no.140) which illustrates this.
The Buddha once spent a
night in a potter’s shed. In the same shed there was a young recluse who
had arrived there earlier.
They did not know each other. The Buddha observed the recluse and
thought to himself: ‘Pleasant are the ways of this young man. It would
be good if I should ask about him’. So the Buddha asked him ‘O bhikkhu,
in whose name have you left home? Or who is your master? Or whose
doctrine do you like?’
‘O friend,’ answered the
young man, ‘there is the recluse Gotama, a Sakyan scion, who left the
Sakya-family to become a recluse. There is high repute abroad of him
that he is an Arahant, a Full-Enlightened One. In the name of that
Blessed One I have become a recluse. He is my Master, and I like his
doctrine.’
‘Where does that Blessed
One, the Arahant, the Fully-Enlightened One live at the present time?’
‘In the countries to the
north, friend, there is a city called Sāvatthi. It is there that Blessed
One, the Arahant, the Fully-Enlightened One, is now living.’
‘Have you ever seen him,
that Blessed One? Would you recognize him if you saw him?’
‘I have never seen that
Blessed One. Nor should I recognize him if I saw him.’
The Buddha realized that
it was in his name that this unknown young man had left home and become
a recluse. But without divulging his own identity, he said: ‘O bhikkhu,
I will teach you the doctrine. Listen and pay attention. I will speak.’
‘Very well, friend,’ said
the young man in assent.
Then the Buddha delivered
to this young man a most remarkable discourse explaining Truth (the gist
of which is given later).
It was only at the end of
the discourse that this young recluse, whose name was Pukkusāti,
realized that the person who spoke to him was the Buddha himself. So he
got up, went before the Buddha, bowed down at the feet of the Master,
and apologized to him for calling him ‘friend’
unknowingly. He then begged the Buddha to ordain him and admit him into
the Order of the Sangha.
The Buddha asked him whether he had the alms-bowl and the robes ready.
(A bhikkhu must have three robes and the alms-bowl for begging food).
When Pukkusāti replied in the negative, the Buddha said that the
Tathāgatas would not ordain a person unless the alms-bowl and the robes
were ready. So Pukkusāti went out in search of an alms-bowl and robes,
but was unfortunately savaged by a cow and died.
Later, when this sad news
reached the Buddha, he announced that Pukkusāti was a wise man, who had
already seen the Truth, and attained the penultimate stage in the
realization of Nirvāna, and that he was born in a realm where he would
become an Arahant
and finally pass away, never ti return to this world again.
From this story it is
quite clear that when Pukkusāti listened to the Buddha and understood
his teaching, he did not know who was speaking to him, or whose teaching
it was. He saw Truth. If the medicine is good, the disease will be
cured. It is not necessary to know who prepared it, or where it came
from.
Almost all religions are
built on faith-rather ‘blind’ faith it would seem. But in Buddhism
emphasis is laid on ‘seeing’, knowing, understanding, and not on faith,
or belief, In Buddhist texts there is a word saddhā (Skt.
Śraddhā has three aspects: (I) full and firm conviction that a thing is, (2) serene joy at good qualities, and (3)
aspiration or wish to achieve an object in view.
However you put it, faith
or belief as understood by most religions has little to do with
Buddhism.
The question of belief
arises when there is no seeing- seeing in every sense of the word. The
moment you see, the question of belief disappears. If I tell you that I
have a gem hidden in the folded palm of my hand, the question of belief
arises because you do not see it yourself. But it I unclench my fist and
show you the gem, then you see it for yourself, and the question of
belief does not arise. So the phrase in ancient, Buddhist texts reads:’
Realizing, as one sees a gem (or a myrobalan fruit) in the palm’.
A disciple of the Buddha
named Musila tells another monk: ‘Friend Savittha, without devotion,
faith or belief,
without liking or inclination, without hearsay or tradition, without
considering apparent reasons, without delight in the speculations of
opinions, I know and see that the cessation of becoming is Nirvāna.’
And the Buddha says: ‘O
bhikkus, I say that the destruction of defilement and impurities is
(meant) for a person who knows and who sees, and not for a person who
does not know and does not see.’
It is always a question
of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing. The teaching of the
Buddha is qualified as ehi-passika, inviting you to ‘come and
see’, but not to come and believe.
The expressions used
everywhere in Buddhist texts referring to persons who realized Truth
are: ‘The dustless and stainless Eye of Truth (Dhamma- cakkhu)
has arisen.’ ‘He has seen Truth, has attained Truth, has known Truth,
has known Truth, has penetrated into Truth, has crossed over doubt, is
without wavering.’ ‘Thus with right wisdom he sees it as it is (yathā
bhūtam)’.
With reference to his own Enlightenment the Buddha said: ‘The
eye was born, knowledge was born, wisdom was born, science was born, and
light was born.’
It is always seeing through knowledge or wisdom (ŭāna-dassana),
and not believing through faith.
This was more and more
appreciated at a time when Brāhmanic orthodoxy intolerantly insisted on
believing and accepting their tradition and authority as the only Truth
without question. Once a group of learned and well-known Brahmins went
to see the Buddha and had a long discussion with him. One of the group,
a Brahmin youth of 16 years of age, named Kāpathika, considered by them
all to be an exceptionally brilliant mind, put a question to the Buddha:
‘Venerable Gotama, there
are the ancient holy scriptures of the Brahmins handed down along the
line by unbroken oral tradition of texts. With regard to them, Brahmins
come to the absolute conclusions: “This alone is Truth, and everything
else is false”. Now, what does the Venerable Gotama say about this?’
The Buddha inquired:
‘Among Brahmins is there any one single Brahmin who claims that he
personally knows and sees that “This alone is Truth, and everything else
is false.”?’
The young man was frank,
and said: ‘No’.
‘Then, is there any one
single teacher, or a teacher of teachers of Brahmins back to the seventh
generation, or even any one of those original authors of those
scriptures, who claims that he knows and he sees: “This alone is Truth,
and everything else is false”?’
‘No.’
‘Then, it is like a line
of blind men, each holding on to the preceding one; the first one does
not see, the middle one also does not see, the last one also does not
see. Thus, it seems to me that the state of the Brahmins is like that of
line blind men.’
Then the Buddha gave
advice of extreme importance to the group of Brahmins: ‘It is not proper
for a wise man who maintains (lit. protects) truth to come to the
conclusions: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’
Asked by the young
Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the
Buddha said: ‘A man has a faith. If he says “This is my faith”, so far
he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute
conclusions: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’ In
other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say ‘I believe
this’. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he
should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything
else is false.
The Buddha says: ‘To be
attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other
things (views) as inferior – this the wise men call a fetter.’
Once the Buddha explained
the doctrine of cause and effect to his disciples, and they said that
they saw it and understood it clearly. Then the Buddha said:
‘O bhikkhus, even this
view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle
it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not
understand that the teacher is similar to a raft, which is for crossing
over, and not for getting hold of.’
Elsewhere the Buddha
explains this famous simile in which his teaching is compared to a raft
for crossing over, and not for getting hold of and carrying on one’s
back:
‘O bhikkhus, a man is on
a journey. He comes to a vast stretch of water. On this side the shore
is dangerous, but on the other it is safe without danger. No boat goes
to the other shore which is safe and without danger, nor is there any
bridge for crossing over. He says to himself: “This sea of water is
vast, and the shore on this side is full of danger; but on the other
shore it is safe and without danger. No boat goes to the other side, nor
is there a bridge for crossing over. It would be good therefore if I
would gather grass, wood, branches and leaves to make a raft, and with
the help of the raft cross over safely to the other side, exerting
myself with my hands and feet”. Then that man, O bhikkhus, gather grass,
wood, branches and leaves and makes a raft, and with the help of that
raft crosses over safely to the other side, exerting himself with his
hands and feet. Having crossed over and got to the other side, he
thinks: “This raft was of great help to me. With its aid I have crossed
safely over to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet. It
would be good if I carry this raft on my head or on my back wherever I
go”.
‘What do you think, O
bhikkhus, if he acted in this way would that man be acting properly with
regard to the raft? “No, Sir”. In which way then would he be acting
properly with regard to the raft? Having crossed and gone over to the
other side, suppose that man should think: “This raft was a great help
to me. With its aid I have crossed safely over to this side, exerting
myself with my hands and feet. It would be good if I beached this raft
on the shore, or moored it and left it afloat, and then went on my way
wherever it may be”. Acting in this way would that man act properly with
regard to that raft.
‘In the same manner, O
bhikkhus, I have taught a doctrine similar to a raft – it is for
crossing over, and not for carrying (lit. getting hold of). You, O
bhikkhus, who understand that the teaching similar to a raft, should
give up even good things (dhamma); how much more then should you
give up evil things (adhamma).’
From this parable it is
quite clear that the Buddha’s teaching is meant to carry man to safety,
peace, happiness, tranquillity, the attainment of Nirvāna. The
whole doctrine taught by the Buddha leads to this end. He did not say
things just to satisfy intellectual curiosity. He was a practical
teacher and taught only those things which would bring peace and
happiness to man.
The Buddha was once
staying in a Simsapā forest in Kosambi (near Allahabad). He took a few
leaves into his hand, and asked his disciples: ‘What do you think, O
bhikkhus? Which is more? These few leaves in my hand or the leaves in
the forest over here?
‘Sir, very few are the
leaves in the hand of the Blessed One , but indeed the leaves in the
Simsapā forest over here are very much more abundant.’
‘Even so, bhikkhus, of
what I have known I have told you only a little, what I have not told
you is very much more. And why have I not told you (those things)?
Because that is not useful… not leading to Nirvāna. That is why I
have not told you those things.’
It is futile, as some
scholars vainly try to do, for us to speculate on what the Buddha knew
but did not tell us.
The Buddha was not
interested in discussing unnecessary metaphysical questions which are
purely speculative and which create imaginary problems. He considered
them as a ‘wilderness of opinions.’ It seems that there were some among
his own disciples who did not appreciate this attribute of his. For, we
have the example of one of them, Mālunkyaputta by name, who put to the
Buddha ten well-known classical questions on metaphysical problems and
demanded answers.
One day Mālunkyaputta got
up from his afternoon meditation, went to the Buddha, saluted him, sat
on one side and said:
‘Sir, when I was all
alone meditating, this thought occurred to me: There are these problems
unexplained, put aside and rejected by the Blessed One, Namely, (I) is the universe eternal or (2) is it not
eternal, (3)
is the universe finite or (4) is it infinite, (5) is soul the same as body
or (6)
is soul one thing and body another thing, (7) does the Tathāgata exist after death, or (8) does he not exist after death, or (9) does he
both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death, or (10) does he both (at the same time) not exist and not not-exist. These
problems the Blessed One does not explain to me. This (attitude) does
not please me, I do not appreciate it. I will go to the Blessed One and
ask him about this matter. If the Blessed One explains them to me, then
I will continue to follow the holy life under him. If he does not
explain them, I will leave the Order and go away. If the Blessed One
knows that the universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the
Blessed One knows that the universe is not eternal, let him say so. If
the Blessed One does not know whether the universe is eternal or not,
etc., then for a person who does not know, it is straight forward to say
“I do not know. I do not see”.’
The Buddha’s reply to
Mālunkyaputta should do good to many millions in the world today who are
wasting valuable time on such metaphysical questions and unnecessarily
disturbing their peace of mind:
‘Did I ever tell you,
Mālunkyaputta, “Come, Mālunkyaputta, lead the holy life under me. I will
explain these questions to you?”
‘No, Sir.’
‘Then, Mālunkyaputta,
even you, did you tell me: “Sir, I will lead the holy life under the
Blessed One, and the Blessed One will explain these questions to me”?’
‘No, Sir.’
‘Even now, Mālunkyaputta,
I do not tell you: “Come and lead the holy life under me, I will explain
these questions to you”. And you do not tell me either: “Sir, I will
lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and he will explain these
questions to me”. Under these circumstances, you foolish one, who
refuses whom?
Mālunkyaputta, if anyone
says: “I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until he
explains these questions,” he may die with these questions unanswered by
the Tathāgata. Suppose Mālunkyaputta, a man is wounded by a poisoned
arrow, and his friends and relatives bring him to a surgeon. Suppose the
man should then say: “I will not let this arrow be taken out until I
know who shot me; whether he is a Ksattiya (of the warrior caste) or a
Brāhmana (of the priestly caste) or a Vaiśya (of the trading and
agricultural caste) or a Sūdra (of the low caste); what his name and
family may be; whether he is tall, short, or of medium stature; whether
his complexion is black, brown, or golden: from which village, town or
city he comes. I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know the
kind of bow with which I was shot; the kind of bowstring used; the type
of arrow; what sort of feather was used on the arrow and with what kind
of material the point of the arrow was made.” Mālunkyaputta, that man
would die without knowing any of these things. Even so, Mālunkyaputta,
if anyone says: “I will not follow the holy life under the Blessed One
until he answers these questions such as whether the universe is eternal
or not, etc.,” he would die with these questions unanswered by the
Tathāgata.’
Then the Buddha explains
to Mālunkyaputta that the holy life does not depend on these views.
Whatever opinion one may have about these problems, there is birth, old
age, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, “the
Cessation of which (i.e. Nirvāna) I declare in this very life.”
‘Therefore,
Mālunkyaputta, bear in mind what I have explained as explained and what
I have not explained as unexplained. What are the things that I have not
explained? Whether the universe is eternal or not etc., (those 10
opinions) I have not explained. Why, Mālunkyaputta, have I not
explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally
connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conducive to aversion,
detachment, cessation, tranquility, deep penetration, full realization,
Nirvāna. That is why I have not told you about them.
‘Then, what,
Mālunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained dukkha, the
arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the way
leading to the cessation of dukkha.
Why, Mālunkyaputta, have I explained them? Because it is useful, is
fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is conductive to
aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquility, deep penetration, full
realization, Nirvāna. Therefore I have explained them.’
Let us now examine the
Four Noble Truths which the Buddha told Mālunkyaputta he had explained.
Back to content
