Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught

Questions Put Aside: I

Given that the Buddha’s primary focus as a teacher was on distinguishing whether actions are skillful or unskillful in leading to awakening, and given that the activities of asking and answering a question count as actions, it is only natural that he would have to focus on the issue of which questions are skillful to answer and which are not. With some questions, he concluded that it would be unskillful to answer them in certain situations, but not in others, largely for reasons of etiquette. With other

questions, he

concluded that

it

would be

unskillful

to

answer

them

in

any

situation

because

they

were

inherently

unconducive to awakening.

The questions the Buddha put aside thus fall into two distinct categories. The first consists of questions that can have true and beneficial answers, but which the Buddha sometimes put aside out of considerations of time and place. The second category consists of questions for which there is no beneficial answer—in some cases, the issue is left open as to whether there even is a true or a false answer—so the Buddha put them aside regardless of time or place. We will discuss the first category in this chapter, and the second category in the next.

Only a few questions fall into this first category, and they cover two topics:

the teachings and attainments of the teachers of other sects, and the results of unskillful forms of livelihood. These are sensitive matters, especially for a teacher who wants to avoid the harm that comes with disparaging others or exalting himself.

The correct categorical answers concerning these topics are actually quite clear. With regard to the first topic, we have already noted in Chapter Three the passage from SN 48:53 [§144] stating that one of the realizations following on the attainment of stream-entry, the first level of awakening, is this:

“Furthermore, the monk who is a learner [one who has attained any of the first three levels of awakening] reflects, ‘Is there outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] any contemplative or brahman who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?’ And he discerns, ‘No, there is no contemplative or brahman outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.’”

This point is seconded in MN 48 [§143]:

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Is there, outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya], any other contemplative or brahman endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed?’ “He discerns that, ‘There is no other contemplative or brahman outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed.’ This is the third knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.”

This fact is not always stated in a general, impersonal form. Occasionally the Buddha, when speaking to monks, would single out a particular sectarian teacher for harsh criticism. As might be expected—given that the basic principle of his teaching concerns action and result—he reserved his harshest criticism for a teacher, Makkhali Gos›la, who taught that action bears no result.

We know Makkhali’s doctrine primarily as reported by King Aj›tasattu. The account of the king’s report seems somewhat tongue-in-cheek, both because of the bizarre nature of some of the details—the various kinds of dust-realms, jointed plants, precipices, and dreams—and because it is unlikely that the king would have actually remembered all of them. Nevertheless, it is the fullest account we have of Makkhali’s teachings.

[King Aj›tasattu:] “Another time I approached Makkhali Gos›la and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there, I asked him, ‘Venerable Gos›la, there are these common craftsmen….

[see §5] They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now…. Is it possible, venerable Gos›la, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here & now?’ “When this was said, Makkhali Gos›la said to me, ‘Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no persistence, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of persistence. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, & nature, they are sensitive to pleasure & pain in the six great classes of birth.

“‘There are 1,406,600 principle modes of origin. There are 500 kinds of kamma, five kinds, & three kinds; full kamma and half kamma. There are 62 pathways, 62 sub-eons, six great classes of birth, eight classes of men, 4,900 modes of livelihood, 4,900 kinds of wanderers, 4,900 N›ga-abodes, 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, 36 dust-realms, seven spheres of percipient beings, seven spheres of non-percipient beings, seven kinds of jointed plants, seven kinds of deities, seven kinds of human beings, seven kinds of demons, seven great lakes, seven major knots, seven minor knots, 700 major precipices, 700 minor precipices, 700 major dreams, 700 minor dreams, 84,000 great eons. Having transmigrated & wandered on through these, the wise & the foolish alike will put an end to pain.

“‘Though one might think, “Through this habit, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it”—that is impossible. Pleasure & pain being measured out, the wandering-on being fixed in its limits, there is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated & wandered on, the wise & the foolish alike will put an end to pain.’

“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here & now, Makkhali Gos›la answered with purification through wanderingon. Just as if a person, when asked about a mango, were to answer with a breadfruit; or, when asked about a breadfruit, were to answer with a mango; in the same way, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here & now, Makkhali Gos›la answered with purification through wandering-on.” — DN 2

When

speaking

to

his

monks, the

Buddha criticized Makkhali—and his

teaching—in no uncertain terms.

“Monks, just as a hair blanket is judged to be the most miserable of woven cloths—a hair blanket cold in the cold, hot in the heat, bad-looking, bad-smelling, bad to the touch—in the same way, the teaching of Makkhali is judged to be the most miserable of the teachings of run-ofthe-mill contemplatives. The worthless man Makkhali has this teaching, this view: ‘There is no action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ “Those in the past who were worthy ones, rightly self-awakened:

Those Blessed Ones were teachers of action, teachers of activity, teachers of persistence. But the worthless man Makkhali contradicts even them, (saying,) ‘There is no action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ “Those in the future who will be worthy ones, rightly self-awakened:

Those Blessed Ones will be teachers of action, teachers of activity, teachers of persistence. But the worthless man Makkhali contradicts even them, (saying,) ‘There is no action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ “I in the present who am a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, am a teacher of action, a teacher of activity, a teacher of persistence. But the worthless man Makkhali contradicts even me, (saying,) ‘There is no action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ “Just as a trap would be strung up at the mouth of a river for the harm, pain, misfortune, & destruction of many fish; in the same way, the worthless man Makkhali has arisen in the world as a trap, as it were, for human beings, for the harm, pain, misfortune, & destruction of many beings.” — AN 3:138

Thus it is clear that, from the Buddha’s point of view, there are no awakened teachers outside of his dispensation, and many of the other teachers outside of his dispensation teach doctrines that are clearly harmful.

As for the topic of unskillful livelihood, the general principle is also clear: Any occupation that entails killing others or exciting greed, aversion, and delusion in oneself or others leads to unfortunate results, including undesirable destinations after

death

[§§145-146]. Even

if

the

occupation

doesn’t

inherently

involve

unskillful activity, if one pursues it in a dishonest way, it can lead to the same undesirable results [§111]. Similarly, if an ascetic practice entails developing unskillful habits or views it leads to a bad destination [§147]; even if it doesn’t, but one pursues it in a dishonest way, the result can be the same [§148].

But even though the general principles underlying both topics are clear, the questions based on them can quickly become personal, leading some listeners to resent

frank

answers. If

a teacher, when

addressing

people

who

are

not

committed to his teaching, speaks disparagingly of the attainments of other teachers, his motives are suspect. If he criticizes those who follow a particular occupation, he risks setting himself up as a judge, condemning other people who did not ask for his opinion. In this way, he can alienate large numbers of potential listeners even before they have had a chance to listen to the Dhamma.

Thus the Buddha’s policy in cases like this was to answer these questions only in contexts where his answers were likely to be well received. In other instances, he would put them aside. The discourses show two situations in which a teacher might be confident of the listener’s receptivity. In §§145-147, this receptivity is shown by the fact that the listener repeats his question three times—a sign of sincerity in India at the Buddha’s time. In §111, it’s gauged by the fact that Ven.

S›riputta

is

already

on

familiar

terms

with

Dhanañj›nin, the

person

he’s

teaching. Even though Dhanañj›nin doesn’t ask for Ven. S›riputta’s advice on how

he

makes

his

livelihood,

Ven.

S›riputta

assumes—rightly—that

Dhanañj›nin will regard his advice as an act of kindness and respond to it well.

Of the two topics covered by the questions listed in this chapter, the Buddha’s treatment of the topic of livelihood is the simpler and easier to describe—even though right livelihood, of all the factors of the noble eightfold path, is defined in the vaguest terms.

“And what, monks, is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his/her life going with right livelihood: This, monks, is called right livelihood.” — SN 45:8

MN 117 expands on this definition slightly by defining wrong livelihood for monks.

“And what is wrong livelihood? Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, & pursuing gain with gain.”

DN 2 expands further on this passage with a long list of occupations that monks should avoid. Yet, given the even wider range of occupations followed by

laypeople, it’s

surprising

that

the

Canon

gives

only

one

brief

list

of

undesirable

lay

occupations, and

even

that

is

not

phrased

as

a universal

condemnation. It simply states that a Buddhist lay follower should avoid these forms of business.

“Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.

Which five? Business in weapons, business in living beings [this would include selling slaves], business in meat, business in intoxicants, & business in poison.” — AN 5:177

One

of

the

reasons for

the

Buddha’s general reticence

on

this topic is

suggested by passages §§145-147: People can react unfavorably when told that their occupation or practice is inherently unskillful and conducive to a bad rebirth. The

Buddha’s

approach

in

these

cases

was

simple. He

would not

condemn a person’s occupation to the person’s face unless that person had shown his/her sincerity in asking for the Buddha’s opinion on the matter by repeating the question up to three times. Even then the Buddha would not simply condemn the occupation—soldiering and acting are the examples given in the discourses—but would also explain why it was inherently unskillful. He followed the same approach when asked about ascetic practices.

The skill of the Buddha’s approach here is shown by the fact that, with one exception, all of his interlocutors in these cases take refuge in the Triple Gem. The one exception is Seniya, the dog-practice ascetic, who goes even further: He abandons his dog-practice, ordains, and becomes an arahant.

As for occasions when people who were not committed followers of the Buddha would question him on the teachings and attainments of the teachers of other sects, the examples collected in this chapter show the variety of ways in which, having set the question aside, the Buddha might address his listeners’ underlying question in other ways.

One of his primary

approaches was to

put aside a question framed in

personal terms, and then pose his own question touching on the same topic but framed in more general principles. This strategy is similar to giving an analytical answer to the original question, in that it replaces one mode of analysis with another, but the fact that the Buddha puts the original question aside shows that he is doing more than simply answering the question from a different angle; he is teaching his listeners general principles whose range of application goes far beyond

the

original

question. For

example, in

AN

3:66 [§149], when

the

K›l›mas—depicted as a group of skeptics—ask him about other teachers who have taught them in the past, the Buddha puts the question aside and then, by cross-questioning them, teaches them how to apply the principle of kamma to the issue of judging a teaching: The verdict is reached pragmatically by gauging the results that come when putting the teaching into action. This principle—the same principle the Buddha used in his own quest for awakening—can then be applied to other areas of life where the K›l›mas need to gain assurance. The K›l›mas all respond to this teaching by taking refuge in the Triple Gem.

In AN 9:38 [§156], two brahman cosmologists come to the Buddha with a quandary: Two sectarian teachers, PÒra˚a Kassapa and Niga˚˛ha N›˛aputta, both claim to have omniscient knowledge of the cosmos, but the first claims that the cosmos is finite, whereas the second claims that it’s infinite. Which of the two is telling the truth? The Buddha puts the question aside and then gives a twofold response. First he notes that it isn’t physically possible to reach the end of the material cosmos, but then he goes on to redefine cosmos as the five strings of sensuality, saying that a more meaningful quest would be to reach the end of the cosmos in this sense through the attainment of the nine meditative attainments.

The discourse does not record how the two brahmans respond to this teaching.

In MN 30 [§150], the brahman Piºgalakoccha names some of the leading teachers of the day, asking the Buddha whether all of them are awakened, only some of them, or none of them at all. The Buddha’s response, after setting the question aside, is to describe step-by-step how a person would attain awakening by practicing the Dhamma. The discourse gives no indication of Piºgalakoccha’s motive for asking his question, but he responds to the Buddha’s reply by taking refuge in the Triple Gem.

In DN 16 [§151], the Buddha on his deathbed is asked the same question by Subhadda the wanderer. Again the Buddha puts the question framed in personal terms aside and answers it with a general principle: Awakened people are to be found only in a teaching containing the noble eightfold path. Then, however, having

established

this

general

principle, the

Buddha answers

Subhadda’s

original question, saying that there are no awakened people outside of the Dhamma and Vinaya—his term for his teaching. Perhaps the Buddha sensed that Subhadda’s motivation was different from that of the K›l›mas—he was seeking a teacher under whom to study—and that the Buddha’s first answer was so inspiring that Subhadda was ready to hear the straight answer to his question.

Or the Buddha may have seen that—after identifying the path to awakening in impersonal rather than personal terms—he was in a position to point out the obvious: that no other teaching contains the necessary path. In any event, this strategy was so successful that Subhadda asked for ordination and, soon after their conversation, became an arahant.

Perhaps the most inspiring aspect of these responses is that, even though the questions would appear to give the Buddha an opening to lambast his opponents or people of a particular occupation, he does not take advantage of the opening.

Instead, he uses the questions as an opportunity to teach the Dhamma in terms of general principles. In so doing he works for the true benefit of his listeners— another example of the responsible and compassionate nature of his teaching approach.

READINGS

LIVELIHOOD

§ 145. As he was sitting there, T›lapu˛a, the head of an acting troupe, said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that ‘When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.’ What does the Blessed One have to say about that?”

“Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”

A second time… A third time T›lapu˛a, the head of an acting troupe, said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that ‘When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.’ What does the Blessed One have to say with regard to that?”

“Apparently, headman, I don’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’ So I will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor—himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless—with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this:

‘When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,’ that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.”

When this was said, T›lapu˛a, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said,] “That was what I didn’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’”

“I’m not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who said, ‘When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.’” — SN 42:2 § 146. As he was sitting there, Yodh›jıva [Professional Warrior] the headman said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of professional warriors that ‘When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’ What does the Blessed One have to say with regard to that?”

“Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”

A second time… A third time Yodh›jıva the headman said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of professional warriors that ‘When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’ What does the Blessed One have to say about that?”

“Apparently, headman, I don’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’ So I will simply answer you. When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought, ‘May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.’ If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: ‘When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,’ that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.”

When this was said, Yodh›jıva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said,] “That was what I didn’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, headman. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’”

“I’m not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of professional warriors who said, ‘When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’” — SN 42:3 [Similarly in SN 42:4 & SN 42:5, although the warriors there are an elephant warrior and a cavalry warrior]

§ 147. Then Pu˚˚a Koliyaputta, an ox-practice ascetic, and Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, Pu˚˚a Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one side, whereas Seniya, the naked dog-practice ascetic, exchanged courteous greetings with the Blessed One and, after an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, sat down to one side, hunched up like a dog.

As they were sitting there, Pu˚˚a Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic said to the Blessed One, “This Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, does what is hard to do. He eats food thrown on the ground. He has for a long time undertaken and perfectly conformed to that dog-practice. What is his destination? What his future course?”

“Enough, Pu˚˚a. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”

A second time… A third time Pu˚˚a Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic said to the Blessed One, “This Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, does what is hard to do. He eats food thrown on the ground. He has undertaken and perfectly conformed to that dog-practice. What is his destination? What his future course?”

“Apparently, Pu˚˚a, I don’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, Pu˚˚a. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’ So I will simply answer you. There is the case where a certain person develops the dog-practice fully and without lapse, develops the dog-habit fully and without lapse, develops the dog-mind fully and without lapse, develops dog-behavior fully and without lapse. Having developed the dog-practice fully and without lapse, the dog-habit fully and without lapse, the dog-mind fully and without lapse, dog-behavior fully and without lapse, he—with the breakup of the body, after death—reappears in the company of dogs. But if he is of a view such as this: ‘By this habit or practice or asceticism or holy life I will become one deva or another,’ that is his wrong view. For a person of wrong view, Pu˚˚a, there is one of two destinations, I tell you: hell or the animal womb. Thus when succeeding, Pu˚˚a, the dog-practice leads to the animal womb; when failing, to hell.”

When this was said, Seniya, the naked dog-practice ascetic, sobbed & burst into tears. So the Blessed One said to Pu˚˚a Koliyaputta, the ox-practice ascetic, “That was what I didn’t get leave from you, Pu˚˚a [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, Pu˚˚a. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’”

“I’m not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have for a long time undertaken and perfectly conformed to this dog-practice.” — MN 57

§ 148. An ochre robe tied ’round their necks, many with evil qualities

—unrestrained, evil—

rearise, because of their evil acts,

in hell.

Better to eat an iron ball

—glowing, aflame—

than that, unprincipled &

unrestrained,

you should eat the alms of the country. — Dhp 307-308

OTHER TEACHERS

§ 149. The K›l›mas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, “Lord, there are some contemplatives & brahmans who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, disparage them, show contempt for them, & pull them to pieces. And then other contemplatives & brahmans come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, disparage them, show contempt for them, & pull them to pieces. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable contemplatives & brahmans are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”

“Of course you are uncertain, K›l›mas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, K›l›mas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’—then you should abandon them.

“What do you think, K›l›mas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For harm, lord.”

“And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”

“Yes, lord.”

“Now, what do you think, K›l›mas? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For harm, lord.”

“And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”

“Yes, lord.”

“Now, what do you think, K›l›mas? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For harm, lord.”

“And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”

“Yes, lord.”

“So what do you think, K›l›mas? Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?”

“Unskillful, lord.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameworthy, lord.”

“Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?”

“Criticized by the wise, lord.”

“When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?”

“When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us.”

“So, as I said, K›l›mas: ‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering”—then you should abandon them.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“Now, K›l›mas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to benefit & to happiness’—then you should enter & remain in them.

“What do you think, K›l›mas? When lack of greed arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For benefit, lord.”

“And this ungreedy person, not overcome by greed, his mind not possessed by greed, doesn’t kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person’s wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for longterm benefit & happiness.”

“Yes, lord.”

“What do you think, K›l›mas? When lack of aversion arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For benefit, lord.”

“And this unaversive person, not overcome by aversion, his mind not possessed by aversion, doesn’t kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person’s wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term benefit & happiness.”

“Yes, lord.”

“What do you think, K›l›mas? When lack of delusion arises in a person, does it arise for benefit or for harm?”

“For benefit, lord.”

“And this undeluded person, not overcome by delusion, his mind not possessed by delusion, doesn’t kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person’s wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term benefit & happiness.”

“Yes, lord.”

“So what do you think, K›l›mas? Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?”

“Skillful, lord.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameless, lord.”

“Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?”

“Praised by the wise, lord.”

“When adopted & carried out, do they lead to benefit & to happiness, or not?”

“When adopted & carried out, they lead to benefit & to happiness. That is how it appears to us.”

“So, as I said, K›l›mas: ‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to benefit & to happiness”—then you should enter & remain in them.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“Now, K›l›mas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones—thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute—keeps pervading the first direction [the east]—as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth—with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

“He keeps pervading the first direction—as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth—with an awareness imbued with compassion… empathetic joy… equanimity. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with equanimity: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

“Now, K›l›mas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones—his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure—acquires four assurances in the here & now:

“‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the breakup of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.

“‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease—free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance he acquires.

“‘If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance he acquires.

“‘But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

“One who is a disciple of the noble ones—his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure—acquires these four assurances in the here & now.”

“So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a disciple of the noble ones—his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure—acquires [these] four assurances in the here & now…

“Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One—through many lines of reasoning—made the Dhamma clear. We go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Community of monks. May the Blessed One remember us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life.” — AN 3:66 § 150. As he was seated to one side, the brahman Piºgalakoccha said to the Blessed One, “Master Gotama, these contemplatives & brahmans, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large—i.e., PÒra˚a Kassapa, Makkhali Gos›la, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kacc›yana, Sañjaya Vela˛˛haputta, & the Niga˚˛ha N›˛aputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?”

“Enough, brahman. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma.

Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.”

“Yes, sir,” the brahman Piºgalakoccha responded to the Blessed One, and the Blessed One said, [here the Buddha gives the similes of the men seeking heartwood who come to a tree possessing heartwood. One of them goes home taking the branches & leaves, another the outer bark, another the inner bark, another the sapwood, and only one of them takes the heartwood. The Buddha then compares these people respectively, with those who, in search of the end of suffering, content themselves with gain, offerings, & fame; with consummation of virtue; with consummation of concentration; with consummation of knowledge & vision; and the person who rests content with none of those, but strives for qualities that are higher & more sublime.] “And which, brahman, are the qualities that are higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision?

“There is the case where a monk—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jh›na: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jh›na: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation—internal assurance. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jh›na, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress—as with the earlier disappearance of joys & distresses—he enters & remains in the fourth jh›na:

purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ he enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ he enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ he enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, he enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his fermentations are completely ended. This too is a quality higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“These are the qualities higher & more sublime than knowledge & vision.

“I tell you, brahman, that this person is like the man who, in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, goes in search of heartwood and comes to a great tree standing possessed of heartwood, cuts away just the heartwood and returns taking it with him, knowing that it is heartwood. Whatever purpose he had for heartwood, that purpose will be served.

“Brahman, this holy life doesn’t have as its reward gain, offerings, & fame, doesn’t have as its reward consummation of virtue, doesn’t have as its reward consummation of concentration, doesn’t have as its reward knowledge & vision, but the unprovoked awareness-release: That is the purpose of this holy life, that is its heartwood, that its final end.” — MN 30 § 151. Subhadda the wanderer went to Upavattana, the Mallans’ sal-grove, and on arrival said to Ven. finanda, “I have heard the elder wanderers, teachers of teachers, saying that only once in a long, long time do Tath›gatas—arahants, rightly self-awakened—appear in the world. Tonight, in the last watch of the night, the total unbinding of Gotama the contemplative will occur. Now there is a doubt that has arisen in me, but I have faith that he could teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might abandon that doubt. It would be good, Ven.

finanda, if you would let me see him.”

When this was said, Ven. finanda said to him, “Enough, friend Subhadda.

Don’t bother the Blessed One. The Blessed One is tired.”

For a second time… For a third time, Subhadda the wanderer said to Ven.

finanda, “…It would be good, Ven. finanda, if you would let me see him.”

For a third time, Ven. finanda said to him, “Enough, friend Subhadda. Don’t bother the Blessed One. The Blessed One is tired.”

Now, the Blessed One heard the exchange between Ven. finanda & Subhadda the wanderer, and so he said to Ven. finanda, “Enough, finanda. Don’t stand in his way. Let him see the Tath›gata. Whatever he asks me will all be for the sake of knowledge, and not to be bothersome. And whatever I answer when asked, he will quickly understand.”

So Ven. finanda said to Subhadda the wanderer, “Go ahead, friend Subhadda. The Blessed One gives you his leave.”

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, these contemplatives & brahmans, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large— i.e., PÒra˚a Kassapa, Makkhali Gos›la, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kacc›yana, Sañjaya Vela˛˛haputta, & the Niga˚˛ha N›˛aputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?”

“Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma.

Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.”

“Yes, lord,” Subhadda responded to the Blessed One, and the Blessed One said, “In any Dhamma & Vinaya where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first… second… third… fourth order [stream-winner, oncereturner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any Dhamma & Vinaya where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first… second…

third… fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this Dhamma & Vinaya, and right here there are contemplatives of the first… second… third…

fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants.” — DN 16

CHAPTER EIGHT

Questions Put Aside: II

When a person consistently puts a question aside as a matter of principle, it may arouse suspicion that he is ignorant of or embarrassed by the answer. To maintain the questioner’s respect and trust, he has to provide a convincing case that the lack of answer is not a failing on his part. If he is asked for information or an opinion, he has to show why the question is not worth answering. If he is presenting a system of thought based on first principles, he has to show why his refusal to answer the question is not simply an attempt to mask a gap or inconsistency in the system.

As we have seen, the Buddha was not attempting to build a system of thought, so he was not caught in the latter dilemma. The consistency in his teaching was teleological, in that all the issues he discussed were aimed at a single end. As he repeatedly stated, all he taught was stress and the end of stress [§192].

Thus he was free to put questions aside on the grounds that they did not lead to that end. And, as we shall see, this was his primary reason for putting a wide variety of questions aside.

However, there were still instances in which he was accused of betraying his ignorance by refusing to answer a question. To this accusation he and his disciples responded strongly that he was actually acting from knowledge and vision. Precisely because he knew and saw, he knew that the question was best not answered. But this knowledge too was teleological, framed primarily in terms of cause and effect. It focused either on the kammic effects, present or future, of answering the question; or—in what amounts to the same thing—on the fact that the mental states giving rise to the question blocked the path to the end of stress.

For someone who had asked a question concerning action and its results, an answer framed in these terms might be immediately satisfying. But for a person who had asked a question about the existence or nature of such entities as the cosmos or the self, the Buddha’s claim to knowledge might still seem like a strategy of avoidance. This, however, is to miss the point. The Buddha wanted to focus attention on the kammic process of creating a perception of self or cosmos, for to view these processes as actions was to enter the path to the end of stress through the framework of the four noble truths. This, for him, was the most important knowledge one could have on these topics.

As we noted in the preceding chapter, when the Buddha put a question aside for reasons of etiquette he would often take the opportunity to teach the Dhamma in different, more beneficial terms. Here the same strategy is almost always at work. When he explains the drawbacks of asking and answering these questions in terms of the unskillful kamma involved, he is giving an important lesson in how to view experience in a framework conducive to right effort on the path.

This point is underlined by the two passages where the Buddha simply remained silent and did not immediately explain his reasons for refusing to answer a question. In SN 44:10 [§162], when he remained silent after Vacchagotta asked him

whether there is or is not a self, Vacchagotta got up and left,

apparently dissatisfied. Fortunately, Vacchagotta later returned to the Buddha to ask further questions, and subsequently—as the result of a later conversation— took refuge in the Triple Gem [§190]. Ultimately (MN 73), he ordained and became an arahant. Perhaps the Buddha foresaw this sequence of events, which was why he allowed Vacchagotta to depart dissatisfied in SN 44:10; or perhaps he wanted to explain his silence, but Vacchagotta—in leaving so quickly—didn’t give him the chance. In either event, it’s noteworthy that Vacchagotta’s act of taking refuge occurred after he had asked the Buddha another set of questions that the Buddha refused to answer, but on that occasion Vacchagotta did ask the Buddha’s

reasons

for

refusing

to

answer

the

questions, and

the

Buddha

explained why [§190]. The explanation is what led Vacchagotta to take refuge.

This

fact

demonstrates

two

points: the

collaborative

nature

of

the

act

of

teaching—Vacchagotta benefited more when he asked the Buddha to explain himself—and the fact that explained silence can have a more precise and telling effect on the mind than unexplained.

As for those of us in later generations reading SN 44:10, we are fortunate that, after Vacchagotta’s departure, Ven. finanda approached the Buddha, asking for the reasons behind his silence. The Buddha responded with three categorical answers and a cross-question, stating that his refusal to answer Vacchagotta’s questions was based primarily on impersonal standards: To say that there is no self would involve siding with the extreme wrong view of annihilationism; to say that there is a self would side with the extreme wrong view of eternalism and would get in the way of giving rise to the knowledge that all phenomena are not-self.

(See

Appendix

Three.)

Only

partly

was

his

silence

based

on

Vacchagotta’s personal inability to understand one of the possible responses:

Vacchagotta would have been bewildered if told that there is no self. And because Vacchagotta’s questions derived ultimately from four questions that MN 2 [§25] lists as unworthy of attention—“Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?”—we can conclude that questions about the existence or non-existence of the self should be put aside across the board.

The other case of the Buddha’s remaining silent is in AN 10:95 [§163], where he responded with silence when Uttiya the wanderer asked him what portion of the cosmos would gain release. In this instance, Ven. finanda—fearing Uttiya would react negatively to the Buddha’s silence—took matters into his own hands. After using the analogy of the fortress gatekeeper to explain the nature of the Buddha’s knowledge of the way to awakening, Ven. finanda pointed out that Uttiya’s question was assuming an answer to a question the Buddha had previously put aside. In other words, to ask what portion of the cosmos will gain release is to ask, in different terms, what portion of the cosmos will come to an end. This question, in turn, is a different way of asking whether the cosmos is eternal, not-eternal, or partially eternal and partially not. As we will see, this question is one that the Buddha refused to answer across the board.

In addition to these two passages, there is another important passage in which the Buddha put a question aside without stating any reasons for why he was doing so. This is MN 109 [§142], which we discussed in Chapter Six—the case where a monk in the Buddha’s presence asked himself: “So—form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?”

The

Buddha announced to

the

assembled monks that “It’s possible

that a

senseless person—immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving—might think that he could outsmart the Teacher’s message in this way,” and then quoted the question to them without explaining why it was senseless. However, in this case he

did not

simply

remain

silent

and leave

the

issue

hanging. Instead, he

immediately plunged into the line of cross-questioning introduced in SN 22:59 [§140], with the result that sixty monks gained total release. Thus, even though the Buddha didn’t state his reasons for putting the question aside, his successful use of cross-questioning showed why he put it aside: There is a better way to use the perception of not-self. Instead of drawing metaphysical conclusions from that perception, one would do better to use it to question the skillfulness of the act of I-making and my-making, so that those actions can be dropped and liberation attained.

Thus the simple act of putting a question aside is not, in and of itself, a sufficient teaching strategy. As this chapter will show, the Buddha’s most fruitful approach when putting a question aside was, when given the opportunity, to teach the Dhamma in other terms, offering another way of viewing experience:

in the framework of skillful and unskillful action.

We have already seen, in Chapter One, that this framework underlies his categorical answers; and in Chapter Six, that it underlies the process of self crossexamination. Here, in the lessons the Buddha teaches when putting a question aside, he is offering further insights into this framework. In some cases, by explaining his reasons for putting a question aside, he is illustrating the teaching of kamma by showing that the question just asked is an example of unskillful kamma. In this way, he brings the teaching into the immediate present, pointing to the kamma the person asking the question is engaging in here and now. In other

cases, he

demonstrates

the

difference

between

skillful and unskillful

kamma—again in the

here

and now—by

posing

a different, more

skillful,

question, and proceeding to answer it. Or he may propose an alternative way of looking at experience in general.

In particular—as we will see in this chapter—the Buddha often uses the context of putting a question aside to introduce a further refinement in the teaching on skillful and unskillful action, expressed in terms of dependent coarising. In fact, this is one of his prime contexts for showing how these terms can be most effectively

applied

to

problems

in

the

immediate

present. When

analyzing the drawbacks of an unskillful question, or showing how best to avoid the traps of unskillful questions, he utilizes the terms of dependent co-arising in a way that demonstrates how pragmatic knowledge and mastery of these terms is one of the most skillful means to release. And in doing so, he drives home the point that the knowledge through which he sees that the question does not deserve answering is much more beneficial than any knowledge that could have come from answering it.

The Buddha’s emphasis on knowledge in this context shows that, in general, when he was putting a question aside he was not making a case for agnosticism.

Particularly with regard to the categorical issue of which actions are skillful and not, he was an advocate of clear and detailed knowledge [§20, §§26-29], for knowledge of this topic is central to any program for putting an end to stress.

Without this knowledge, clinging and attachment cannot be overcome. Although some people might imagine agnosticism to be a way of avoiding attachment to views, the

Buddha saw

clearly

that

it’s

a fabrication

born

of

craving

and

ignorance [§153]. It too can be an object of attachment—and it’s an attachment that leads nowhere. When applied to issues of skillful and unskillful action, agnosticism undercuts any desire to develop the skillful strategies that actually lead to release [§152]. For these reasons, such agnosticism has to be abandoned through knowledge if one wants to make progress on the path.

Still, the Buddha left open the question of what sorts of things he knew above and beyond the express purpose of his teachings. In a famous simile (SN 56:31, Chapter One), he stated that the knowledge he had gained in his awakening was like the leaves in the forest; what he had taught—the four noble truths in all their various permutations—was like a mere handful of leaves. He hadn’t taught the leaves in the forest because they didn’t lead to unbinding. He had taught the leaves in his hand because they did. Thus, by implication, any question about the full range of a Buddha’s knowledge should be put aside.

In

fact, he

said

as

much

in

AN

4:77 [§154], where

he

listed

four

inconceivables—topics that lay beyond the range of an ordinary person even to speculate about in a healthy way. In the words of the passage, these topics “would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.”

They are:

the Buddha-range of the Buddhas

the jh›na-range of a person in jh›na

the results of kamma

conjecture about the cosmos.

The inclusion of the first two items in the list serves notice that the Buddha was not putting himself in the position of an ordinary person speculating about these matters. There was much that he knew through direct knowledge— through mastering jh›na and becoming a Buddha—that he did not have to speculate about. Thus, although the entire list lies beyond the range of healthy speculation, it tells us that we cannot know the range of the Buddha’s own knowledge of these things.

The inclusion of the third item in the list, the results of kamma, may come as a surprise, given the care with which the Buddha explained the results of kamma in many discourses. However, its inclusion here points to the fact, discussed in MN 136 [§66], that the workings of kamma are complex—more complex, in fact, than is indicated in that discourse. Their complexities would have posed a challenge for the Buddha if he had wanted to construct an explanation of stress and its end based on first principles, for a theory of kamma would have been a logical place to start. Thus he would have been required to give a full explanation of how and why kamma is complex. But because his teaching was teleological, aimed at actually putting an end to stress, he needed to explain only what was necessary toward that end: the ways in which past and present kamma shape experience. Although past kamma can influence the conditions on one’s sensory experience, the actual stress or lack of stress experienced by the mind is the direct result of present kamma—the act of following or abandoning clinging and craving. For the purpose of putting an end to stress, all that needs to be known is how to create skillful kamma and then—once that skill is mastered—how to create the kamma that puts an end to kamma [§31]. Thus there is no need to account for all the complex interactions of kammic results. A knowledge of general principles is enough.

And the general principles of kamma are simple. There is the potential for choice in every action. An action based on right views and skillful intentions leads

to

pleasant

results; an

action

based

on

wrong

views

and

unskillful

intentions, to unpleasant results. But even though these principles are simple, the interactions of a person’s many actions in the course of a day, to say nothing of a lifetime, combined with the state of mind at the time when those results bear fruit, mean that the precise lines connecting actions to their results are too complex for an ordinary person to trace.

The

irony

here

is

that, although

the

Buddha discouraged

any

further

speculation on the topic of kammic results, this sort of speculation has fired a great deal of scholastic Buddhist philosophy over the centuries. Many of the major concepts of that philosophy—the storehouse consciousness, the reality realm of the Buddhas, the Tath›gata-embryo, the reversal of the basis—grew from speculations about such issues as the mechanism by which the impulse of an action gets carried through time until it yields its results, or the way in which awakening can be achieved despite the kammic residue of one’s past ignorant actions. Had Buddhist thinkers followed the Buddha’s advice, the course of Buddhist thought would have been very different.

As for conjecture about the cosmos (or world, loka), the Buddha simply noted

that no beginning point in time could be discerned [§155], and that the cosmos was so large that its limits could never be reached [§§156-157]. He was unwilling to encourage conjecture about what lay beyond ordinary human powers to measure in space and time. Instead, he encouraged people to view the cosmos simply as the basic sensory information from which the concept or perception of world or cosmos is derived. Focusing here, they could see how the process of becoming, leading to stress, was created through the creation of those concepts, thus framing their attention appropriately in terms of the four noble truths. But as for the limits of the cosmos “out there,” the Buddha advised that the issue be put aside.

Thus the four inconceivables are areas in which the Buddha did encourage an

attitude of agnosticism among his followers, so as to focus their attention on the question of which actions are

skillful and which are

not—questions where

knowledge is beneficial for purposes of release.

By and large, the same purpose underlies the many instances in which he put specific questions aside. A survey of these specific questions, however, yields many other insights into the Buddha’s reasons for not answering them.

For the sake of analysis, these questions can be classified by topic or context.

In

terms

of

topic, there

are—in

broad

terms—three: questions

about

the

metaphysics of the cosmos, questions about the nature and existence (or nonexistence) of the self, and questions about whether an awakened person exists or doesn’t exist after death (see Appendix Four). This last category, however, is actually an extension of the second, for questions on this topic usually boil down to a concern for what will ultimately happen to the self if the Buddha’s path is pursued.

When grouped by topic, the questions put aside in the discourses are these (the meaning of the asterisks will become clear in the following discussion):

The cosmos/world:

“‘Your question should not be phrased in this way: ‘Where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder?’ Instead, it should be phrased like this: ‘Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?’” — DN 11

“And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of unbinding, will all the cosmos be led to release, or a half of it, or a third?”

— AN 10:95

“Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?” “Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?” “Then is everything a Oneness?”

“Then is everything a plurality?” — SN 12:48* “Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘The cosmos is eternal: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”**

“Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that: ‘The cosmos is not eternal: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** “Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘The cosmos is finite: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** “Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘The cosmos is infinite: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** — AN 10:95 An existent being/self:

“Now then, Master Gotama, is there a self?” “Then is there no self?” —

SN 44:10

“By whom was this being created? Where is the being’s maker?

Where has the being originated? Where does the being cease?” — SN 5:10 “So—form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?” — MN 109 “Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?” “Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?”

“Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?” — SN 12:20***

“Now, then, Master Gotama, is pain self-made?” “Then is pain othermade?” “Then is pain self-made & other-made?” — SN 12:17* “Now, then, Master Gotama, are pleasure & pain self-made?” “Then are pleasure & pain other-made?” “Then are pleasure & pain self-made & other-made?” — SN 12:18*

“Now, then, Master Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results of the act]?” “Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other than the one who experiences?” — SN 12:46* “Now tell me, S›riputta my friend: Is aging-&-death self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made?” [etc., with regard to factors of dependent co-arising] — SN 12:67* “Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?“ “Lord, who makes contact?” [etc., with regard to factors of dependent co-arising] —

SN 12:12*

“Which is the aging-&-death, lord, and whose is the aging-&-death?”

[etc., with regard to the factors of dependent co-arising] — SN 12:35* “Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘The soul is the same thing as the body: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** “Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that: ‘The soul is one thing and the body another: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** — AN 10:95

Existence after awakening:

“But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?” “Very well then, Master Gotama, does he not reappear?” “… does he both reappear & not reappear?” “… does he neither reappear nor not reappear?” — MN 72

“With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection], is it the case that there is anything else?” “With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?” “… is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?” “… is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?” — AN 4:173 “He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you.” — Sn 5:6

“Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘After death a Tath›gata exists: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** “Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that: ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”**

“Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”**

“Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”** — AN 10:95

From this list of topics, two points immediately stand out. The first is that all the questions deal in the terms most basic to the process of becoming: one’s sense of self in a particular world or cosmos of experience. Because becoming is intimately

tied

up

with

the

first

noble

truth

of

suffering

and

stress, the

appropriate duty for dealing with its underlying concepts is to comprehend them to the point of dispassion, so as to gain release from them. But these questions provoke passion for these concepts by giving substance and reality to them.

Thus they run counter to the duties of the path.

Directly related to this first point is the second one: All these questions are products of papañca, or objectification. As we noted in Chapter Three, this sort of thinking derives its classifications from the basic thought, “I am the thinker.”

Having objectified the “I am,” one has created an agent of actions, and an experiencer of pleasure and pain. At the same time, one has created a nucleus of categories

around

which

many

questions

can

coalesce:

self/not-self,

existence/non-existence, thinker/thought, agent/object. For example, once the conceit “I am” becomes a meaningful statement, the question “Am I not?”

becomes meaningful as well. Given the many roles played by a thinker— constantly

changing, arising

only

to

disappear—one

has

implicitly

raised

questions about whether these identities do or do not really exist. One has also created questions of how they exist, for as a being, the thinker needs to keep consuming physical and mental nourishment. This leads to questions about the existence

of

the

world

or

cosmos

from

which

one

expects

to

draw

that

nourishment: To what extent can it be controlled? Does it offer a finite or infinite amount of food? Will it supply food forever, or will it come to an end? Will total awakening put an end to the thinker, or will it supply the thinker with an unending source of food?

The

primary

danger

of this sort of questioning

is that it treats mental

processes—the perception of self, the perception of cosmos—as objects rather than processes. Thus it interferes with the radical self cross-examination discussed in Chapter Six, by which these processes are viewed as forms of unskillful action and thus abandoned so as to lead to the deathless.

But objectification presents other drawbacks as well, which can be seen most clearly if we group the questions the Buddha put aside, not according to topic, but according to the general contexts in which they are found in the discourses.

This way of grouping the questions also has the advantage of highlighting the Buddha’s

specific

strategy

for

dismantling

questions

framed

in

terms

of

objectification by using those framed in the terms of appropriate attention.

Aside from a few miscellaneous situations scattered randomly in the texts, there are four major contexts in which the Buddha puts questions aside, with the fourth context a subset of the first. The contexts are these: the ten undeclared issues; the questions of inappropriate attention; questions applied to dependent co-arising; and the last four of the undeclared issues—the tetralemma, or set of four unacceptable alternatives, on the Tath›gata after death—discussed as a separate set. The way in which the Buddha treats the questions in these contexts reveals a great deal about where the line between objectification and appropriate attention

lies, and

how

appropriate

attention

can

be

used

to

deconstruct

objectification and its attendant problems.

1) The ten undeclared issues

are the questions marked with a double asterisk in the

above

list

of

questions

put

aside. These

were

apparently

a standard

questionnaire used by philosophical debaters in the Buddha’s time to map where they and their opponents stood on the vital issues of the day. And, of course, these questions—and the views derived to answer them—were not peculiar to India or to the time of the Buddha. Plato, for one, offered answers to all of them, and his answers to the questions about the nature of the soul and its fate after death were central to his thought. In the Timaeus he postulated a cosmos partly eternal, partly not, partly finite and partly not. In the Symposium, Phaedo, and Republic he insisted that the soul is distinct from the body and that, after death, the philosopher’s soul will exist for eternity in rapturous contemplation of the eternal forms. This, as he saw it, is the aim of all philosophy. Later Western philosophers and theologians argued over Plato’s answers to these questions, but the vast majority of them agreed that the questions were worthy of answer.

In fact, a long and interesting study could be made of the variety of answers that Western thought has provided for these questions, all of which the Buddha labeled as deserving to be put aside.

The

ten undeclared issues are

discussed as a set in a large

number

of

discourses, among

them

§§176-183. A few of the

views that the

Buddha’s

contemporaries offered as answers to these questions are presented in DN 1 [§184]. The discourses discussing these ten questions focus initially on explaining why the Buddha puts them aside, after which they often propose various ways of replacing these questions with the framework of appropriate attention.

In the various explanations for why the Buddha put these questions aside, the term objectification appears in only one discourse [§178], but objectification is clearly the underlying issue in all the explanations, for the drawbacks they attribute

to

the

questions

put

aside

are

identical

to

the

drawbacks of

objectification. It’s because the Buddha knows and sees these drawbacks that he can assert that, in refusing to answer these questions, he is acting not from ignorance, but from knowledge.

What

does

he

know?

In

general

terms, he

sees

the

extent

of

viewstandpoints, the cause of views, and the uprooting of views [§178]. In more particular

terms, he

sees

the

origins

of

these

questions

and

views, their

immediate kammic effect, their long-term kammic effect, and the advantages of letting them go.

Thus his reasons for putting them aside are primarily pragmatic. Instead of

stating whether the questions can or cannot be answered, he puts them aside because he sees that the act of asking and answering them can lead to short-term and long-term harm.

This point is vividly illustrated by the famous simile of the arrow, in MN 63 [§176]:

“It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.”

Because the information requested by the wounded man is theoretically knowable, it’s possible to read this simile as suggesting that there could be answers to the ten questions, but that the Buddha wanted to avoid giving them because they were a waste of valuable time. After all, as we have noted, knowledge of the limits of the physical cosmos might possibly have been in the Buddha’s range. But, in terms of his general standards for what he would teach— that it had to be true and beneficial and timely—the simple pragmatic fact that these questions were unbeneficial was reason enough not to answer them.

The Buddha’s various lists of pragmatic reasons for not answering the ten questions fall into two main sorts:

a) In what might be called his basic list of pragmatic reasons—the one most commonly

cited in

the

discourses—he

simply

notes that the

questions are

irrelevant to the goal of his teaching:

“[This] does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding.” — MN 63 MN 63 further states that, “It’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘the cosmos is eternal’ that there is the living of the holy life (Sassato lokoti… di˛˛hiy› sati brahma-cariya-v›so abhaviss›ti: evaª no).” This discourse then applies the same verdict to the nine other views. In other words, these views do not constitute the practice, and they distract attention from the practice, but there is nothing in MN 63 to indicate that they are antithetical to the practice.

b) However, in what might be called the

strong lists of pragmatic reasons, the

Buddha notes that these questions derive from unskillful states of mind that actually foster the causes of suffering rather than trying to abandon them. To try to answer these questions is thus not simply to stray aimlessly from the duties of the path; it’s to go against those duties in the opposite direction. This point is highlighted by SN 12:35 [§167], which goes considerably further than MN 63 in stating that:

“When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. (Taª jıvaª taª sarıraª v›… di˛˛hiy› sati brahma-cariya-v›so na hoti; aññaª jıvaª aññaª sarıraª v›… di˛˛hiy› sati brahma-cariya-v›so na hoti).” — SN 12:35 In other words, instead of simply being an irrelevant waste of time, the act of holding to any of these views makes the practice of the holy life impossible.

This point is illustrated by the ways the Buddha, in connection with the strong list of pragmatic reasons, discusses his knowledge of the origin of these ten questions. For example, he sees that they derive from a misunderstanding of and attachment to the aggregates and sense media [§178, §181]. As Ven. Isidatta adds in §179, these questions are also the result of self-identity views related to the aggregates. In other words, they arise because one holds to a sense of self both as object of some of the views and as thinker/holder of views: the “I am” in “I am the thinker.” In DN 1 [§184], the Buddha notes that attempts to answer these questions are based on logical deductions either from first principles or from limited meditative experiences, both of which are inadequate grounds for proof, in that each can be used to reach contradictory conclusions.

With regard to the immediate consequences of holding to any views derived from these questions, the Buddha sees that they are entangling—“a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views… accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever” [§183]—and an expression of anguish [§178]. In holding to them, one is holding on to agitation and vacillation [§184], to suffering and stress [§182]. This anguish and agitation can involve the mental unrest that comes from getting entangled in arguments over such views, the internal agitation that comes from holding on to uncertain knowledge, as well as the basic suffering that comes from holding fast to the basic terms of becoming: one’s sense of self and of the world. As long as one objectifies the issues of world and self, one cannot engage in the self crossexamination that treats the perceptions of world and self as a form of kamma.

And again, one is fostering the causes for suffering rather than abandoning them.

The long-term consequences of all this, as stated in the strong lists, is that some of these views lead to bad states of rebirth; and that, in pursuing these questions, one does not reach unbinding.

Taken together, the Buddha’s two ways of stating the pragmatic drawbacks of answering these ten questions—in the basic list and the strong lists—highlight two important points. The first is that the motivation behind these questions is not always innocent ignorance. When based on attachment, these questions can be a strategy for avoiding the hard work of abandoning unskillful actions and developing skillful ones in their place. This point is dramatized in MN 63, where the monk M›luºkyaputta refuses to practice until the Buddha has answered these ten questions to his satisfaction. Thus if, in the course of the practice, the mind finds itself attached to these questions, it needs to see what important issues it is avoiding and why.

The second important point related to the Buddha’s pragmatic reasons for leaving the undeclared issues undeclared is that his analysis of the present impact of holding to these views—immersing

one

in

a “thicket,” a “writhing,” a

“contortion”—parallels his discussion of the conflicts arising from objectification.

We have already noted, in Chapter Three, five ways in which the categories of objectification give rise to various forms of conflict: (1) They deal in abstract uncertainties, rather than the certainties of action and result; (2) one’s identity as a being, once created by these categories, gets drawn into the issues created by those categories; (3) such an act of self-definition is an act of self-limitation; (4) one gets inevitably drawn into conflict with the categories and issues created by other people as they define themselves and others—and try to impose these definitions on others—each doing this on his or her own terms; and (5), in defining oneself, one becomes a being with a need to feed off the world, with the attendant uncertainties that come from an insecure food source, as well as the dangers posed by others who might want to take that food source—or oneself— as food for themselves.

Thus the conflict caused by

objectification is both internal and external:

internal in the limitations and agitation that come from unskillful desire; external in the quarrels, disputes, rivalry, and hostility that can occur when one’s views and desires come into conflict with those of others. In refusing to declare an answer to any of the ten undeclared issues, the Buddha was avoiding both the internal suffering of conflictive thoughts and the external suffering of needless quarrels and debates.

It’s important to emphasize the word needless here, for—as we have seen— the Buddha didn’t try to avoid conflict by simply putting all questions aside.

When questions of skillful and unskillful action were at stake, he was prepared strongly to argue his case. In this way, he showed the attitude of a skillful warrior. Unlike the sectarians of AN 10:93 [§182], he knew which battles were worth fighting and which best left aside. Unlike the agnostics of DN 1 [§152], who were afraid to advance any ideas about skillful and unskillful action for fear of being bested in argument, he knew how to win the important battles.

In fact, once the Buddha had explained his reasons for putting the ten undeclared issues aside—which, as we have already noted, is an implicit way of shifting attention to the important battles of skillful and unskillful action—he would often shift attention to these battles in an explicit way, stating that the framework

of

objectification

should

be

attention. His

primary

explicit

tactic

in

objectification

is

caused

by

unskillful

actions. In

other

words, he

placed

objectification as an action in maps showing chains of unskillful actions, making the point that the frameworks supplied by objectification are actually subsumed under the framework of appropriate attention.

Here he was repeating in a more extended way one of the tactics he used in a cursory way when explaining why the ten undeclared issues should be put aside—briefly citing their origins in unskillful mental states—but the explicit maps

have

the

advantage

of

explaining

further

why

the

framework

of

appropriate attention is such an important replacement for objectification—in other words, why the battles of appropriate attention are the important ones to win. At the same time, they show why these battles are ultimately won within the mind, and why these inner battles have to take a few strategic turns.

A useful set of maps to begin with are those detailing the causal chain of actions by which the categories of objectification arise and lead to needless conflict. These maps are found in MN 18 [§50], DN 21 [§4], and Sn 4:11. Because the Buddhist analysis of causality is generally non-linear, with plenty of room for feedback loops, the maps vary in the order of some of their factors.

In MN 18, as we have already seen in Chapter Three, the map is this:

contact→ feeling→ perception→ thinking→ being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification

In DN 21, the map reads like this:

the perceptions & categories of objectification→ thinking→ desire→ dear-&-not-dear→ envy & stinginess→ rivalry & hostility In Sn 4:11, the map falls into two parts, which can be diagrammed like this:

perception→ the categories of objectification perception→ name & form→ contact→ appealing & unappealing→ desire→ dear-&-not-dear→ stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes These maps teach several important lessons about the conditions determining the

Buddha’s

strategy

in

replacing

objectification

with

the

framework

of

appropriate attention. The first lesson lies in their common feature: They all cite perception—the

act

of

labeling

thoughts, feelings, and

sensations—as the

primary culprit. This means that any attempt to dismantle objectification will replaced

with

that

of

appropriate

this

approach

was

to

show

how

require dismantling perception. However, the fact that perception is listed on two

levels—as

perception

in

general

and

as

the

particular

perceptions

of

objectification—reflects the two tiers in the Buddha’s strategy for overcoming attachment to perceptions: using the perceptions of appropriate attention to dismantle the perceptions of objectification, and then turning the perceptions of appropriate attention on themselves—as actions—to dismantle attachment to themselves as well, leaving no attachment to any perceptions at all.

The two tiers in this strategy are reflected in one of the main differences among these maps, a difference we have already noted in Chapter One: In DN 21, thinking

results

from

the

perceptions

and

categories

of

objectification,

whereas in MN 18 it precedes them. The apparent explanation for this difference is that in MN 18 the term

objectification covers only thought dealing in the categories of becoming and inappropriate attention. This meaning of the term is useful in the first tier of the strategy—corresponding to the standard definition of right view [§33]—where the perceptions of appropriate attention are used to undercut

the

perceptions

objectification

includes

the

attention as well. This is the meaning of the term useful in the level of the strategy—corresponding to the more advanced definition of right view in SN 12:15 [§172]—where even the categories of appropriate attention are dismantled and dropped.

The maps also indicate how the framework of skillful and unskillful action underlies

both

tiers

of

this

strategy. In

fact, the

maps

themselves

are

an

expression of this framework. All three portray perceptions not in terms of their content or relationship to underlying entities, but in terms of their function as actions: the roles they play in a causal chain of activities. This portrayal helps not only to depersonalize the process of perception-fabrication—setting aside the issue of any possible self involved in the process—but also to set aside the issue of whether these perceptions provide true information about the world “out there” or “in here.” The act of setting these issues aside is crucial to the Buddha’s strategy, for as long as the mind still sees perception as a means for attaining truth, it can stir up the passion needed to keep fabricating perceptions for that purpose [§38]. But when perception can be viewed simply as an unskillful action leading to unnecessary stress, a sense of disenchantment for the process of perception-fabrication develops, undermining the passion fueling that process.

This allows the process simply to stop. In terms of kamma, this strategy is the kamma that puts an end to kamma [§31], leading through disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation to release.

The detailed steps in this strategy are portrayed in the discourses where the Buddha goes beyond simply describing the drawbacks of the ten undeclared issues and discusses the viewpoint from which any view based on them can be transcended. To begin with, there is the analysis offered at the end of DN 1 [§184], in which he states that the vacillation and agitation inherent in asserting any of the possible views concerning the eternity and infinity of the cosmos is a product of craving. Craving, in turn, is based on contact at the six sense media.

of

inappropriate

attention. In

DN

21, however,

categories

framing

the

questions

of

appropriate

This analysis places the act of holding these views into the map of dependent co-arising [§19, §41], a teaching that itemizes in the most extended form the details of the first three noble truths, tracing the origination of suffering and stress to ignorance of the four noble truths. When—through the ending of ignorance—one

discerns

the

origination, ending, allure, drawbacks

of, and

emancipation from the six sense media, one discerns the release that is higher than any of these conditioned things.

The advantage of this strategy, as we will see below, is that dependent coarising is a mode of perception that avoids the dichotomies of existence/nonexistence, self/not-self underlying the categories of objectification. More than that: This

mode

of

analysis

not

only

avoids

these

dichotomies; it

also

deconstructs them. In focusing attention on levels of feeling and perception prior to objectification, it fosters an ability to view objectification not as a source of true or false information about realities but simply as a process of mental events and actions leading to stress. This causes any passion fueling the process to fade away.

AN 10:93 [§182] extends this strategy from the cosmological issues mentioned in DN 1 to include all ten of the undeclared issues. To take the first view as an example:

“As for the venerable one who says, ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,’ his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant.

Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress.”

In response to the retort that the act of holding to this analysis too would entail adhering to and submitting to stress, An›thapi˚˜ika the householder replies,

“Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stressful. Whatever is stressful is not me, is not what I am, is not my self.

Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be.”

In other words, this form of analysis is superior to other views in that it contains a perspective that can be used to effect not only their transcendence, but also its own. Having reduced every other view to an instance of clinging, it has placed

those

views

into

the

context

of

dependent

co-arising, which

gives

guidance as to how that clinging can be abandoned. Then, in the second tier of the strategy, the terms of this analysis can be turned on themselves, viewing them too as processes. This undercuts any clinging to them and leads to the higher escape: total release.

This point is reflected in the fact that, in the cessation mode of dependent coarising, all perceptions (as a sub-factor of fabrications and name-&-form) cease, and not just unskillful ones. In fact, all experience of the six senses ceases as well [§50]. This, however, does not mean that awakening is the end of all sensory experience. Ud 3:10 (Chapter One) indicates that after experiencing the bliss of release, one can emerge from that state and perceive the world of the six senses once more. But, as the image of the flayed cow in MN 146 [§77] indicates, one’s relationship to the senses has now changed. One experiences the senses as if disjoined from

them—a point

seconded

by

§201. As

for

perceptions

and

classifications, now that one has fully understood them, one can continue using them without being subject to them [§196]. In the words of MN 18 [§50], one is no longer assailed by them. Freed from their limitations, one’s awareness has no restrictions at all [§201].

2) The questions of inappropriate attention, marked with a triple asterisk in the

above list, appear in three different discourses. The broad outlines of their treatment in the Canon parallel that of the ten undeclared issues. In other words, the discourses listing them discuss the drawbacks of holding any view based on these questions, the pragmatic reasons for putting them aside, and the strategy for overcoming any interest in these questions by viewing them in terms of dependent co-arising and the four noble truths. However, a few of the details in the treatment differ in this case, the most important being that the questions of inappropriate attention go deeper than the ten undeclared issues, for they deal directly with the terms and perceptions that underlie all possible positions taken on the ten undeclared issues.

MN

2—which we

discussed in Chapter Three—first states the pragmatic reasons for putting these questions aside, using a phrase commonly applied to the ten undeclared issues: Any answers to these questions form “a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.” It then adds, “Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-themill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from stress.” The discussion then offers a practical alternative to these questions by directing the meditator to attend instead to identifying stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation as they are directly experienced. In other words, a first step in the practice is to put aside the questions of inappropriate attention and to replace them with an alternative set of perceptions based on the framework of the four noble truths.

The other two references to these questions, SN 12:20 [§164] and MN 38 [§165], point to

a later stage in the practice: Once the meditator has seen dependent co-arising, he/she will no longer be tempted to chase after these questions. In other words, it’s not the case that these questions are put aside as irrelevancies simply for the duration of the practice, after which one may return to them as one likes. The experience of the practice removes any and all interest in pursuing them ever again.

This point is supported by a passage in MN 140, in which the Buddha described various “conceivings” stilled in a sage at peace: “I am” … “I am this”

… “I shall be” … “I shall not be” … “I shall be possessed of form” … “I shall not be possessed of form” … “I shall be percipient” … “I shall not be percipient” …

“I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.” These are obviously answers to some of the questions of inappropriate attention: “Am I?” “Am I not?” “What am I?” “Shall I be?” “What shall I be?” Once these questions are put aside for good, the corresponding currents of conceiving no longer flow.

Thus

these

four

passages, taken

together, describe

three

stages in the

practice: consciously abandoning the questions of inappropriate attention so as to focus on the four noble truths; contemplating the four noble truths until one sees events in terms of dependent co-arising; and finally, as a result, no longer being

tempted

to

pursue

the

questions

of

inappropriate

attention. These

passages, however, don’t go

into

any

detail about how the

application of

dependent co-arising connects the second to the third stage in this progression.

For that, we need to look at how the Buddha treats the questions in the next category.

3) Questions applied to dependent co-arising.

The passages in this category—all

marked with a single asterisk in the above list—fall into two sub-categories.

a) Those in the primary sub-category [§§166-173] present dependent coarising as an alternative mode of perception that avoids many of the questions springing

from

the

either/or

dichotomies

posited

by

the

perceptions

and

categories

of

becoming,

such

as

existence/non-existence,

self/other,

or

agent/object: Does everything exist? Does everything not exist? Are pleasure and pain self-made? Other-made? Both? Neither? Is the one who acts the same as the one who experiences the act? Is the one who acts different from the one who experiences the act? Is the one who experiences feeling the same as the feeling, or something different? In every case where the Buddha is presented with these questions, he puts them aside and advises his listeners to look at experience in terms of dependent co-arising as a way of avoiding the entanglements of trying to answer these questions.

Among the either/or questions avoided by dependent co-arising, perhaps the most interesting dichotomy is given in SN 12:48 [§171]—Is everything a Oneness?

Is

everything

a plurality?—for

the

Buddha has

frequently

and

erroneously been depicted as saying Yes to both questions. On the one hand, in medieval India, Mah›y›na scholastic philosophers criticized what they saw as the pluralistic world-view of the

Buddha’s “Hınay›na” teachings, whereas they

themselves adhered to the belief that, on what they called the ultimate level of truth, everything is a Oneness. On the other hand, at present, many people assume

that

the

Buddha taught

dependent

co-arising

as

an

expression

of

universal interconnectedness, which they further interpret as a teaching on universal Oneness. Although the Buddha did recognize that there are states of meditation

yielding

an

experience

of

non-duality—with

the

highest

such

experience the non-duality of consciousness (AN 10:29)—he noted that even these experiences are conditioned and subject to change. He did not interpret them

as

conveying or constituting

metaphysical truths. Instead, he

taught

dependent co-arising as a way to avoid taking a position on the objectifying question of whether everything is a Oneness or a plurality, focusing instead directly on the processes of how stress is brought into being and how it can be brought to an end.

For this is precisely how dependent co-arising avoids all of these objectifying dichotomies and modes of thinking: It regards experience simply in terms of processes—events arising and passing away in dependence on other events. No reference is made to the existence or non-existence of any agents creating these events, observers

experiencing

them, thinkers

thinking

about

them, or

an

outside world or cosmos underlying them. Thus, instead of viewing events in light of the perceptions and categories of becoming—self-identity and worldviews—dependent co-arising perceives them in the Buddha’s categorical mode, simply as actions and results in a complex causal sequence.

The pragmatic reasons for adopting this mode of perception are explicit in the formula of dependent co-arising itself: Ignorance—lack of skill in applying the teaching

of

dependent

co-arising—leads to

aspects; knowledge—skill

in

applying

this

suffering and stress to an end.

b) The

difficulty

of developing and maintaining this mode of perception without slipping back into the perceptions of becoming is indicated by the passages in the second sub-category

[§170, §§174-175],

where

the

Buddha

declares invalid all questions that attempt to confirm or deny the existence of an agent, owner, or underlying substance framing the factors of dependent coarising. In each of these cases, he is fending off attempts to place dependent coarising within the framework of becoming; and in each case he reiterates that the only framework worth focusing on concerns the relationships among the factors of dependent co-arising in and of themselves.

This is why the Buddha so often stresses the need to develop the perception of not-self, for it counteracts any habitual tendency that—by assuming an agent causing the events, or a subject experiencing them—would interfere with the act of viewing experience in terms of dependent co-arising. At the same time—and this is where the effectiveness of dependent co-arising as a strategy is most explicitly explained—he reduces questions of “self” to the perception of “self,”

thus placing it within the sequence of dependent co-arising, rather than framing that sequence. As a perception, “self” functions as a sub-factor under fabrication and name-&-form. As a topic of inappropriate questions, it also functions as the sub-factor of attention under name-&-form. When expanded into a theory about the existence or non-existence of a self, the perception of self functions as an object or mode of clinging. Because all of these factors lead to suffering, the Buddha’s strategy of placing “self” in this context and applying the perception of “not-self” to every object of clinging induces a sense of dispassion toward all forms of self-identification.

To

counteract

questions

about

a “world” or

“cosmos”

lying

behind

dependent co-arising, the Buddha employs a similar strategy, even though he does not advocate the use of a parallel “non-world” perception. He first reduces suffering

and stress in

all their

teaching—brings

all

aspects

of

the world/cosmos to a set of psychological factors, the six sense media, which function both as a factor of dependent co-arising and as old kamma [§32, §159; also SN 35:115]. Thus the world, instead of lying behind or around the sequence of dependent

co-arising, is reduced to

a factor within

the sequence. Then the

Buddha shows how the world, thus perceived, ends with the ending of craving.

By reducing the world to the means by which the perception of “world” is formed, and

showing

how

such

a world—instead

of

being

substantial—is

synonymous with suffering, he induces a perception of distaste for being reborn in any world at all.

“And what is the perception of distaste for every world? There is the case where a monk abandoning any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to any world, refrains from them and does not get involved. This is called the perception of distaste for every world.” — AN 10:60

SN 12:15 [§172] gives a more detailed picture of how this perception of distaste

is

developed. There

the

meditator

is

encouraged

to

observe

the

origination and cessation of the world—the six sense media—as it actually occurs. To do this, one needs to have put aside notions of agent and experiencer in order to see these events in and of themselves, and not as a potential world of food for the self. As the mind remains in this mode of perception, watching the repeated origination of the world, the concept of “non-existence” with regard to the world simply does not occur. As it watches the repeated cessation of the world, the concept of “existence” with regard to the world also doesn’t occur. In other words, the mind has not mounted a full rejection of these concepts with regard to the world. It has simply entered a mode of perception where they are irrelevant and so do not arise. The only perception retaining any relevancy is that of stress arising, stress passing away. This perception then leads through disenchantment—distaste for any desire to continue feeding on this stress—to dispassion, and through dispassion to release.

When release is gained, it tends to be expressed in terms of the factors of dependent co-arising as the end of becoming and birth.

“Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.” — SN 56:11

“Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this-ness [an idiomatic expression meaning, ‘this world’].” — SN 22:59

Although this passage from SN 56:11 still contains the term “my,” and although

arahants

frequently

use

the

terms

“I” and

“mine”

in

everyday

discourse, there is no longer the conceit, “I am.” This is an important distinction.

While “I” and “my” are useful designations for functioning in the realm of the six senses, when awakening is reached there is no longer any desire to turn them into

an “I am” framing

that realm. This is because one of the prominent descriptions for release is that it is free from hunger (nicch›ta) of every sort. With no hunger, there is no need to assume an agent to find food or a subject needing to be fed. Thus the questions of inappropriate attention—particularly “Am I? Am I not? What am I?”—no longer address a felt need. This is why an awakened person no longer runs after them.

The question remains, though—at least for those contemplating whether awakening is a desirable goal to pursue—as to how to describe such a person.

We have already seen, under the ten undeclared issues, some of the pragmatic reasons for why the Buddha refuses to answer questions about the existence of an awakened person after death, reasons that these questions hold in common with the other undeclared issues. But it turns out that there are additional reasons, peculiar to these questions, for putting them aside. This is why the discourses occasionally give them separate treatment.

4) The tetralemma on the Tath›gata after death.

Several passages in the Canon

treat this list of four questions separately from their more frequent context in the list of ten undeclared issues. Two such passages—DN 29 [§185] and SN 16:12— give the basic list of pragmatic reasons for putting these four questions aside. But a few

passages [§§186-189]

hint

at

other

reasons for

not

answering

these

questions, stating simply, with little further explanation, that these questions would not occur to one who has gained awakening. This is because such a person knows the aggregates and their cessation as they have come to be—i.e., as they appear to experience without being objectified into states of becoming— and so has abandoned any passion or fondness for the aggregates, becoming, clinging, and craving.

It’s possible to view this list of reasons as an extension of the stronger list of pragmatic reasons for putting these questions aside. In other words, these questions wouldn’t occur to a person who has abandoned unskillful mental states, because such a person has seen that these questions—and the terms in which they are framed—serve no skillful purpose. But it’s also possible to read these reasons as indicating that such questions don’t occur to a person who has actually become a Tath›gata because the four alternatives don’t do justice to that attainment. In fact, DN 15 [§195] affirms that this too is the case, and states explicitly why this is so: In gaining release, the arahant has gained a sense of exactly how far expression, designation, and description—i.e., language—can go.

Having gained this knowledge, the arahant is released from those limitations.

This

point

is

further

supported

by

passages

[§§197-198]

stating

that

the

experience of this attainment lies beyond even the range of the word, “all”; and still further supported by passages [§§190-191] stating that the Tath›gata is freed from anything by which one might describe him—or, what amounts to the same thing—that the means by which a Tath›gata might be described have been abandoned and totally cease [§§190-194, §202].

These points are related to the way in which the Canon defines and classifies a “being.”

Then Ven. R›dha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, R›dha: When one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception…

fabrications… consciousness, R›dha: When one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’” — SN 23:2 “If one stays obsessed with form, that’s what one is measured/limited by. Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“If one stays obsessed with feeling… perception… fabrications…

consciousness, that’s what one is measured/limited by. Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with form, monk, that’s not what one is measured/limited by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with feeling… perception…

fabrications… consciousness, that’s not what one is measured/limited by.

Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.” — SN 22:36

Thus an arahant, in abandoning passion, craving, and obsession for the aggregates, can no longer be classified as a being. Free from this classification, he/she cannot be defined, and so cannot be described in any of the four ways proposed by the tetralemma.

This is where the questions of the tetralemma differ radically from the other six undeclared issues. Questions about beings and the cosmos, whether pragmatic or not, are still meaningful and potentially answerable because their terms can be defined [§159; §199]. But because the Tath›gata cannot be defined, the four questions of the tetralemma are meaningless and so cannot be answered at all.

This point is so important that the Buddha and his disciples expand on it through cross-questioning. In SN 22:85 [§193], where Ven. Yamaka has insisted that the Tath›gata after death does not exist, Ven. S›riputta takes him to task and subjects him to a questionnaire, asking how he would identify the Tath›gata in the present life. After running through a long list of the various ways one might identify the Tath›gata with regard to the aggregates, and getting Yamaka to admit that none of them apply to the Tath›gata, Ven. S›riputta then gets him to admit that if he can’t pin down—define—what the Tath›gata is in the present life, there is no way he can legitimately say that the Tath›gata doesn’t exist after death. This aggressive cross-questioning, however, does more than convince Yamaka that his previous answer was wrong. It actually leads him to break through to the Dhamma, i.e., to gain stream-entry. Ven. S›riputta thus asks him, “Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are asked, ‘A monk, an arahant, with no more fermentations: What is he with the breakup of the body, after death?’”

“Thus asked, my friend, I would answer, ‘Form is inconstant…

Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”

This answer gains Ven. S›riputta’s approval, in that it limits itself to what can be defined and described.

SN 44:2 [§192] contains the same questionnaire, given by the Buddha to Ven.

Anur›dha, who had insisted that the Tath›gata after death could be described in a way outside of the four alternatives of the tetralemma. The conclusion here, however, is somewhat different. After getting Anur›dha to admit that he could not describe the Tath›gata in the present life, much less after death, the Buddha ends simply by saying that all he teaches is stress and the end of stress. This, in effect, returns to one of his reasons for not answering any of the ten undeclared issues: They are irrelevant to his program as a teacher in showing people how to gain release.

SN 44:1 and MN 72 [§§190-191] employ another type of cross-questioning— the exploration of an analogy—to give a sense of why the Tath›gata after death cannot be described. In SN 44:1, the bhikkhunı Khem› gets King Pasenadi, who presumably employed many expert accountants and mathematicians to keep track of his palace inventories, to admit that even he had no mathematician capable of calculating the number of sand grains in the river Ganges or the number of buckets of water in the ocean. In the same way, she then tells him, the Tath›gata—freed from the classifications of the aggregates—is “deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean.”

The same phrase is mentioned in MN 72, but the analogy explored through cross-questioning is a different one: When a fire has gone out, in which direction has it gone? East? West? North? Or south? Just as these questions cannot be answered because none of the possible directions applies to an extinguished fire, the Buddha says, one cannot say that the arahant after death reappears, doesn’t reappear, both, or neither, because none of these alternatives apply. Although the image of the extinguished fire, to a modern mind, might give a very different impression from that of the ocean—the nothingness of the extinguished fire vs.

the vastness of the ocean—in the Buddha’s time the two images were more congruent. The

Buddha’s

questioner

in

this

passage, Vacchagotta, was

a

brahman. The brahmans in his time held a view that fire, when extinguished, is not annihilated. Instead, it goes into a diffuse state, latent and omnipresent throughout all the elements of the cosmos—even in water. The Buddha himself did not adopt all the particulars of this view, but when talking to Vacchagotta he used some of its implications to suggest to Vacchagotta’s mind that the arahant after death is so boundless that he/she cannot be confined to the range of what can be described.

This covers the four main contexts in which the Canon lists the questions the Buddha put aside. As for the few questions falling outside of these contexts, it’s easy to see in each case that they can be equated with or related to questions falling within them.

When we survey the main contexts in which the Buddha discusses questions to

be

put

aside, we

gain further

insight

into

the

way

in which questions

deserving appropriate attention differ from those derived from the categories and

perceptions

of

blatant

objectification

(i.e., objectification

on

the

level

described in MN 18, rather than the subtler and more inclusive level described in DN 21). We have noted above that these two classes of questions differ in the perceptions they employ. Even more importantly, they differ in the framework they provide for those perceptions, a point illustrated by §170 and §§174-175. In blatant

objectification, perceptions

existence/non-existence, taken

as

meaning is assigned to the processes of the six senses. Thus the meaning of these processes is determined by measuring them against the framework of realities assumed to underlie them.

In the questions of appropriate attention, however, the roles are reversed.

The

processes of dependent co-arising—events arising and passing away in dependence on other events—form the framework for such perceptions as self and cosmos. In this framework, these perceptions are measured, not so much for their truth-value in representing assumed realities, as for their role as mental events in either engendering stress or putting it to an end. When questioned from this perspective, issues of agent/object, existence/non-existence can be comprehended as elements of becoming, and thus as inherently perpetuating stress. When dismantled and viewed simply as instances of stress arising and passing away, their terms become totally irrelevant—even antithetical—to the project of putting an end to stress.

As we noted above, all the various maps showing how objectification leads to conflict assign a central role to perception. Thus, by rendering irrelevant the reality

usually

assigned

to

the

perceptions

of

blatant

objectification, the

perceptions of dependent co-arising effectively dismantle the power of that level of objectification over the mind. In this way, these perceptions are not simply an alternative to the perceptions of blatant objectification. They act as the cure for blatant objectification. And because they can then be turned on any attachment even to appropriate attention, they cure objectification on both levels of subtlety to which the term applies. This helps to explain why, in §19, the Buddha’s breakthrough to the deathless came from cross-questioning himself using the terms

of

dependent co-arising, for

he

wasn’t

simply

replacing

one

set

of

perceptions with another. He was using these perceptions to free himself from attachment to perception of every sort.

Thus the

distinction between the

framework

of inappropriate

attention,

expressed in terms of blatant objectification, and the framework of appropriate attention, expressed in terms of dependent co-arising, is that questions framed in terms of the former generally tend to keep one trapped in the framework, leading to continued conflict and stress, whereas questions framed in terms of the latter ultimately lead to a knowing (añña) free not only from stress, but also from mental frameworks of every sort. This knowing is so liberating that even after one emerges from it and returns to the world of the six senses, one is able to use mental frameworks without ever being bound by them. Because the pragmatic effects of appropriate attention and inappropriate attention differ so of

self/other, self/world, agent/object,

realities, form

the

framework

in

which

radically, it should come as no surprise that the distinction between these two frameworks is apparently the primary consideration at work when the Buddha decides whether to put a question aside. However, our analysis has shown that at least two other considerations might also be at work. The first derives from the fact we noted in Chapter Three, that some questions appropriate for one level of right view have to be put aside when developing a higher level of right view. The second consideration derives from the general limitations of linguistic description when trying to discuss a person who has no desire or obsessions by which he/she could be defined. Thus—when issues of etiquette are not at stake—these three considerations seem to be the primary factors at play when the Buddha is deciding whether to answer a question or put it aside:

• the distinction between blatant objectification and appropriate attention; • the level of right view appropriate for the listener; • the limitations of language.

This summary can be supported by examining pairs of questions that, on the surface, seem quite similar, but to which the Buddha responded in different ways: answering in one case, and putting aside in another. In some instances, the questions are explicitly stated; in others, they lie implicit behind declarative statements. For us, the important point lies in trying to discern the patterns in the Buddha’s choice of a response, to see why one question was considered skillful and its similar pairing was not. And the three considerations summarized above provide a convenient framework for discerning these patterns and the reasons behind them.

• First, some instances in which the distinction between questions that are not answered

and

those

that

are, is

based

on

the

difference

between

blatant

objectification and appropriate attention:

In DN 11 [§161], the Buddha chides a monk for asking, “Where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder?” and then tells him that the question should be phrased like this: “Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?” The four properties listed here are equivalent to the physical cosmos as a whole. Thus the first question is concerned with the physical extent of the cosmos “out there.” The second question, however, treats the properties as an instance of name and form, a factor conditioned by consciousness directly experienced “right here” in the context of dependent co-arising. The answer then tells of a type of consciousness that provides no footing for the experience of name

and

form: consciousness

without

around. Aside

from

a passage

in

MN

consciousness is not experienced through the six sense media (the cosmos as defined in [§159]), the Buddha offers no further explanation of it, a fact to which we will return below. But his treatment of this point in DN 11 helps to illustrate a point made in §§156-158, that the physical end of the cosmos is not to be reached by traveling, but the end of the experience of the cosmos is to be found within surface, without

end, luminous

all

49 [§205], which

states

that

this

this body—i.e., by viewing the cosmos as an instance of name and form in the context of dependent co-arising.

In SN 5:10 [§203], Sister Vajir› puts aside four questions posed by M›ra: “By whom was this being created? Where is the being’s maker? Where has the being originated? Where does the being cease?” Her reasoning is that it is wrong to assume a “being.” However, as we have noted above, when the Buddha is asked by Ven. R›dha in SN 23:2 [§199], “To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?” the Buddha answers, “Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form [or any of the remaining aggregates], R›dha: When one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’” The distinction here is that M›ra treats the concept of “a being” from the perspective of blatant objectification, whereas the Buddha’s answer shows that it can be more usefully defined—and its origination understood—in terms that would fit into dependent co-arising.

In fact, Sister Vajir›, after rejecting M›ra’s questions, makes the same point in discussing how the assumption of a being arises—through the presence of the aggregates—and how it is found to be empty when the aggregates are taken apart—i.e., when all craving and clinging for them is removed [§199].

In MN 72 [§190], the Buddha refuses to tell Vacchagotta whether, after death, the arahant reappears, doesn’t reappear, both, or neither. However—as we saw above, in SN 56:11 and SN 22:59—he describes part of the realization of full awakening as, “this is the last birth… birth is ended… there is now no further becoming.” [See also §18, §68, §79, §112, §§138-139, §§141-142, §195, §200.] In the first case, Vacchagotta’s question is phrased in terms of blatant objectification— looking for the existence, non-existence, etc., of the arahant, conceived to be a being—whereas the realizations of awakening are phrased in terms borrowed from dependent co-arising.

• As for an example of a question answered on one level of right view, only to be put aside on another:

The

topic

of

kamma is

treated

differently

on

the

preliminary

and

transcendent levels of right view. The standard description of the Buddha’s second knowledge on the night of his awakening, phrased in terms of the preliminary

level, indicates

that

beings

experience

pleasure

and

pain

in

dependence on their own actions.

“I saw—by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human—beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with actions: ‘These beings—who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings—who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.’” — MN 19

This point is seconded in the analytical answer the Buddha gives in MN 136 [§66]:

“Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind— an action that is to be experienced as pleasure, one experiences pleasure.

Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be experienced as pain, one experiences pain. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be experienced as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, one experiences neitherpleasure-nor-pain.”

In fact, the principle that beings experience the results of their actions is so important that the Buddha recommends that all people contemplate it on a daily basis:

“It’s not the case only for me that I am the owner of actions, heir to actions, born of actions, related through actions, and have actions as my arbitrator; that—whatever I do, for good or for evil—to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings—past & future, passing away & re-arising—all beings are the owners of actions, heir to actions, born of actions, related through actions, and have actions as their arbitrator.

Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.” — AN 5:57

As we noted in our discussion of MN 136 in Chapter Three, the assumption that one will receive the results of one’s own actions is essential for developing skillful mental states and abandoning unskillful ones. This assumption underlies the preliminary level of right view.

However, in

SN

12:17 [§166], the

Buddha declares

that

knowledge

of

dependent co-arising helps to avoid the eternalistic leanings of the view that pain is self-made, and the annihilationistic leanings of the view that pain is othermade. (See Appendix Three.) In SN 12:18 [§167] he makes a similar statement about views concerning the self-made or other-made origins of both pleasure and pain. It’s important to note, though, that he explains the meaning of self-made and other-made differently in the two discourses. In SN 12:17, self-made means that the agent is the same person as the experiencer: “With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pleasure & pain

are

self-made.” Other-made

in

this

discourse

means

that

the

agent

is

something or someone else aside from the one who experiences: “With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling.” In SN 12:18, however, self-made refers to an identity, not between the agent and the experiencer, but between the feeling and the experiencer of the feeling, whereas other-made means that feeling is one thing, and the experiencer something else.

In addition to refusing to say that pleasure and pain are self-made or othermade, the Buddha in SN 12:17 and 12:18 also refuses to say that they are both.

Had these questions followed the pattern of the tetralemma, he would have then gone on to refuse to say, without qualification, that pleasure and pain are neither self-made nor other-made. However, he qualifies this alternative, denying that they are neither self-made nor other-made in the sense of being spontaneously arisen—i.e., arising without a cause—but affirming that they can be described as neither self-made nor other-made in the sense that they are dependently coarisen. Thus the alternative of being spontaneously arisen does not count as a question put aside, for that alternative is decisively rejected in favor of explaining pleasure and pain in other terms.

The question of pleasure and pain’s being self-made, other-made, or both, however, is definitely put aside. And regardless of how the terms are defined, the important point is that the ideas underlying the terms self-made and othermade parallel the two issues in the ten undeclared issues that refer to the identity or difference between the soul and the body. Thus they are a form of blatant objectification, which is put aside through right view as defined in terms of the four noble truths and dependent co-arising.

This means that the difference between these passages and those above is that they deal in the different assumptions required to develop different levels of skill on the path. MN 19, MN 136, and AN 5:57 deal with the mental framework of truths beneficial and timely as one embarks on the path of skillful action; SN 12:17 and 12:18, with the mental framework of truths beneficial and timely as one works to avoid objectification. Note that this does not mean that SN 12:17 and 12:18 deal in absolute or ultimate truths, whereas MN 19, MN 136, and AN 5:57 deal only in conventional truths. It’s just that the two levels of right view are appropriate for different levels of skill, both of which—although their underlying assumptions may be different—lead ultimately to the same goal, upon which both are dropped.

• And as for

limitations of language:

As we noted above, the Buddha in MN 72 [§190] refuses to tell Vacchagotta whether, after death, the arahant reappears, doesn’t reappear, both, or neither.

In MN 140, however, he states:

“Furthermore, a sage at peace doesn’t take birth, doesn’t age, doesn’t die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would take birth. Not taking birth, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?”

And in SN 44:9 [§204], he states:

“Just as a fire burns with clinging/sustenance and not without clinging/sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has clinging/sustenance and not of one without clinging/sustenance.”

Unlike the passages from SN 22:59 and SN 56:11, these passages do not deal purely in the framework of dependent co-arising. Thus the difference between blatant objectification and dependent co-arising cannot account for the difference between the Buddha’s response-strategy in MN 72 on the one hand, and in MN some

examples of

the

ambiguities that

arise

due

to

the

140 and SN 44:9 on the other, for all the questions involved treat the arahant as a person, a being.

A similar ambiguity marks some of the discussions of whether anything is left in the experience of total unbinding. AN 4:173 [§208], for example, declares that the act of asking whether, with the cessation of the six sense media, there is anything left, nothing left, both, or neither, is a form of objectification. This is apparently due to the fact that the questions of inappropriate attention—a form of objectification—deal not only

in terms of self/other, and existence/nonexistence, but also in terms of past, present, and future [§25]. The cessation of the six sense media, however, lies outside of time, so to deal in terms of anything or nothing else leftover afterward would be to impose a sense of time on what lies outside of time. This is why AN 4:173—seconding the discussion in MN 18 [§50]—states that the possibility of objectification as an action ceases with the cessation of the six sense media; and goes further to say that the range of what can be talked about in terms of objectification ceases with the cessation of the six sense media as well.

Nevertheless, other passages seem to imply either something or nothing existing in the experience of unbinding. For example, as we have noted above, DN 11 [§161] and MN 49 [§205] refer to a type of consciousness—“without surface, without end, luminous all around”—that, to the unawakened mind, sounds like a something. Ud 8:1 [§206] also refers to what seems to be a something—the existence of a dimension that constitutes the end of stress, a dimension that SN 35:117 [§198] says should be experienced—whereas Ud 8:2 [§207] suggests more of a nothing: “It’s hard to see the unaffected, for the truth is not easily seen. Craving is pierced in one who knows; for one who sees, there is nothing.” Even DN 11’s discussion of consciousness without surface deals in ambiguous terms: “Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short… name

&

form

are

all

brought

to

an

end. With

the

cessation

of

consciousness, each is here brought to an end.” The repeated here in this passage would seem to refer to consciousness without surface, but the phrase “the cessation of consciousness” creates an ambiguity. Is this phrase referring to the cessation of consciousness without surface as well, or solely to the cessation of the consciousness-aggregate? Was the Buddha being sloppy in his phrasing here, or deliberately ambiguous?

If we reflect on the fact, mentioned several times in this book, that his teaching is meant not only to be true but also beneficial and timely, that its coherence

lies not

in

the

consistent application of first principles but in the consistent focus of its teleology; if we also reflect on the Buddha’s occasional use of blatant objectification in explaining his teachings; and if we reflect on his general attitude toward language—that it cannot encompass the goal, but can be used strategically as part of the practice leading to the goal—then the Buddha’s ambiguities in his descriptions of the arahant after death and his descriptions of unbinding would appear to be deliberate. In these various dialogues, he is dealing with people who come to him with different levels of understanding. He teaches them not a general picture of reality—which would be a useless form of objectification—but tools of understanding, forms of right view, that will help them generate the desire to develop right effort leading to the goal of total release. As their questions touch on the goal, they are bound to find different aspects of it intriguing or puzzling—not that unbinding is multifaceted; simply that a mind of multifarious cravings, clingings, and sufferings can become curious about it in multiple ways.

So when the Buddha refuses to say whether the arahant reappears or not, he is emphasizing the fact that, in taking on no identity, the awakened person is boundless. When he says that the arahant is not reborn, he is emphasizing the fact that, when there is freedom from birth, there is freedom from suffering and stress. When he treats unbinding as a something—a dimension, a consciousness without

surface—he

is making

the

point

that

unbinding

is not

a form

of

annihilation; when

he

treats

it

as

a nothing, he

is

making

the

point

that

consciousness

without

surface, unlike

even

the

infinitude

of

consciousness

experienced in jh›na, has no object at all. When he leaves unexplained this paradox of something

and nothing, or

the

question of how consciousness

without surface relates to the cessation of consciousness, his apparent intent is not to get his listeners to abandon all effort at thought. Instead, it’s to pique their curiosity, to stir within them a desire to develop right view and to use that right view as part of the complete path leading to a direct, personal experience of the goal. That’s where they’ll untangle the paradoxes for themselves.

This point is supported by a fact already noted: that the Buddha’s most effective use of the strategy of putting a question aside is not when he simply remains silent, but when he follows up with an alternative way of viewing experience, an alternative mode of perception, that is more beneficial in leading to release.

After all, there are dangers in simply trying to force the mind not to think, for that

approach

can

easily

lead

to

the

dead-end

state

without

perception

mentioned in DN 1 [§184]. And there are no instances in the discourses where a listener gains release simply on learning that awakening or an awakened one cannot properly be described. The closest examples are those of Ven. Yamaka [§193] and Upasıva [§202], but even in their cases they learn more specifically what has to be abandoned before reaching the point where language—including even the subtle objectification of right view—breaks down.

As we have noted with regard to SN 12:15 [§172], language is transcended not simply by trying to block it out, but by focusing on the issue of stress arising and passing away to the point where even such basic terms as existence and nonexistence simply don’t come to mind.

This is why the Buddha said that he taught only stress and the ending of stress, for if his listeners focus full attention on these questions, that takes care of everything else.

READINGS

AGNOSTICISM

§ 152. “Monks, there are some contemplatives & brahmans who, being asked questions regarding this or that, resort to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling, on four grounds…. There is the case of a certain contemplative or brahman who does not discern as it actually is that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful.’ The thought occurs to him, ‘I don’t discern as it actually is that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful.” If I… were to declare that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful,” desire, passion, aversion, or irritation would occur to me; that would be a falsehood for me. Whatever would be a falsehood for me would be a distress for me. Whatever would be a distress for me would be an obstacle for me.’ So, out of fear of falsehood, a loathing for falsehood, he does not declare that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful.’ Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling: ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’

[The second case is virtually identical with the first, substituting ‘clinging’ for ‘falsehood.’]

[The third case:] “There is the case of a certain contemplative or brahman who does not discern as it actually is that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful’…. ‘If I, not discerning as it actually is that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful,” were to declare that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful”— There are contemplatives & brahmans who are pundits, subtle, skilled in debate, who prowl about like hair-splitting marksmen, as it were, shooting (philosophical) view-standpoints to pieces with their dialectic. They might crossquestion me, press me for reasons, rebuke me. I might not be able to stand my ground; that would be a distress for me… an obstacle for me.’ So, out of a fear for questioning, a loathing for questioning… he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling….

[The fourth case:] “There is the case of a certain contemplative or brahman who is dull & exceedingly stupid. Out of dullness & exceeding stupidity, he— being asked questions regarding this or that—resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-like wriggling: ‘If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. If you asked me if there isn’t another world… both is & isn’t… neither is nor isn’t… if there are beings who transmigrate… if there aren’t… both are & aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tath›gata exists after death… doesn’t… both… neither… I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’” — DN 1 § 153. “Well then—knowing in what way, seeing in what way, does one without delay put an end to fermentations? There is the case where an ordinary uninstructed person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not wellversed or disciplined in their Dhamma—assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now, what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an ordinary uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving…. That feeling….

That contact… That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

It’s by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to fermentations.

[The same analysis is then applied to a wide range of views about the existence & non-existence of the self, down to:] “He doesn’t assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form, or feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling, or perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception, or fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications, or consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness, nor does he have the [eternalist] view, ‘This self is the same as the cosmos. This I will be after death, constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change,’ nor does he have the [annihilationist] view, ‘I would not be, neither would there be what is mine. I will not be, neither will there be what is mine,’ but he is doubtful & uncertain, having come to no conclusion with regard to the true Dhamma. That doubt, uncertainty, & coming-to-no-conclusion is a fabrication. [Italics added.] “What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an ordinary uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving…. That feeling…. That contact…. That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It’s by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to fermentations.” — SN 22:81

INCONCEIVABLES: KAMMA

& THE WORLD

§ 154. “There are these four inconceivables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

“The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha] is an inconceivable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

“The jh›na-range of a person in jh›na [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jh›na]….

“The [precise working out of the] results of kamma….

“Conjecture about [the origin, extent, etc., of] the cosmos is an inconceivable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

“These are the four inconceivables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.” —

AN 4:77

§ 155. “From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—not the water in the four great oceans.”

“Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

“This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—not the water in the four great oceans.

“Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

“Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter…

loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

“Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries— enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.” — SN 15:3 § 156. Then two brahman cosmologists went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to the Blessed One, “Master Gotama, PÒra˚a Kassapa—all-knowing, all-seeing— claims exhaustive knowledge & vision: ‘Whether I am standing or walking, awake or asleep, continual, unflagging knowledge & vision is established within me.’ He says, ‘I dwell with infinite knowledge, knowing & seeing the finite cosmos.’ Yet Niga˚˛ha N›˛aputta—all-knowing, all-seeing—also claims exhaustive knowledge & vision: ‘Whether I am standing or walking, awake or asleep, continual, unflagging knowledge & vision is established within me.’ He says, ‘I dwell with infinite knowledge, knowing & seeing the infinite cosmos.’ Of these two speakers of knowledge, these two who contradict each other, which is telling the truth, and which is lying?”

“Enough, brahmans. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma.

Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.”

“Yes, sir,” the brahmans responded to the Blessed One, and the Blessed One said, “Suppose that there were four men standing at the four directions, endowed with supreme speed & stride. Like that of a strong archer—welltrained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharp-shooter—shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palm tree: Such would be the speed with which they were endowed. As far as the east sea is from the west: Such would be the stride with which they were endowed. Then the man standing at the eastern direction would say, ‘I, by walking, will reach the end of the cosmos.’ He—with a onehundred year life, a one-hundred year span—would spend one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos he would die along the way. [Similarly with the men standing at the western, southern, & northern directions.] Why is that? I tell you, it isn’t through that sort of traveling that the end of the cosmos is known, seen, or reached. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos.

“These five strings of sensuality are, in the Vinaya of the noble ones, called the cosmos. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear…

aromas cognizable via the nose… flavors cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These are the five strings of sensuality that, in the Vinaya of the noble ones, are called the cosmos.

“There is the case where a monk—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jh›na: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This is called a monk who, coming to the end of the cosmos, remains at the end of the cosmos.

Others say of him, ‘He is encompassed in the cosmos; he has not escaped from the cosmos.’ And I too say of him, ‘He is encompassed in the cosmos; he has not escaped from the cosmos.’

[Similarly with the second, third, & fourth jh›nas, and with the attainment of the dimensions of the infinitude of space, the infinitude of consciousness, nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception [§150].] “Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his fermentations are completely ended. This is called a monk who, coming to the end of the cosmos, remains at the end of the cosmos, having crossed over attachment in the cosmos.” — AN 9:38 [See also §79] § 157. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near S›vatthı, in Jeta’s Grove, An›thapi˚˜ika’s monastery. Then Rohitassa, the son of a deva, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta’s Grove, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he stood to one side. As he was standing there he said to the Blessed One:

“Is it possible, lord, by traveling, to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”

“I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.”

“How amazing, lord! How astounding!—how well that has been said by the Blessed One: ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’ Once I was a seer named Rohitassa, a student of Bhoja, a powerful sky-walker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer—well-trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharp-shooter—shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palm tree. My stride stretched as far as the east sea is from the west.

To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there came the desire: ‘I will go traveling to the end of the cosmos.’ I—with a one-hundred year life, a onehundred year span—spent one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos I died along the way. So it’s amazing, lord; it’s astounding—how well that has been said by the Blessed One: ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’”

[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] “I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” — AN 4:45

§ 158. [Ven. finanda:] “Concerning the brief statement made by the Blessed One, after which he entered his dwelling without expounding the detailed meaning—i.e., ‘I don’t say that the end of the cosmos is to be known, seen, & reached by traveling. But neither do I say that there is a making an end of stress without having reached the end of the cosmos’—I understand the detailed meaning of this statement to be this: