Contemporary Views

CHAPTER FOUR

Contemporary Views

Now that the Buddha had completed his first major accomplishment—awakening to the end of suffering and stress—he was about to embark on the remaining two: teaching his contemporaries the path to awakening, and establishing the Dhamma and Vinaya so that the True Dhamma would last a long time. To understand the challenges he faced in accomplishing these tasks, it would be good to pause here for a brief sketch of what the Pāli Canon has to report about the philosophical and religious views current at his time.

A survey of these views is also useful in that it helps to clear up two common misunderstandings. The first relates to the fact that many of the wrong views taught by the Buddha’s contemporaries are at present mistakenly attributed to the Buddha himself. These include the belief that past kamma can be burned away through non-reactivity; that past kamma fully determines one’s present experience; that there is a self; that there is no self; that, to avoid clinging, one should take no position on the question of what is skillful or not. To realize that these views are not Dhamma helps to clarify what the Buddha’s Dhamma actually is.

Second, this survey shows that, contrary to a belief widespread in the West, the Buddha’s teachings on kamma and rebirth were a genuine novelty in his time. His contemporaries disagreed sharply as to whether kamma was predetermined, whether it played any role in shaping the course of life, or even if it existed at all. Similarly, they disagreed as to whether life was followed by rebirth or annihilation. Even among thinkers who accepted both kamma and rebirth, there was controversy over whether rebirth was influenced by kamma. So the idea that the Buddha adopted his teachings on kamma and rebirth uncritically from his culture is clearly wrong.

In some instances, the Canon reports the Buddha’s grounds for criticizing his opponents’ views. In others, it simply notes what those opposing views are, an example being the following four views, reported to the Buddha by King Ajātasattu. These were taught by a loose confederation of teachers collectively known as Ājīvakas. Although each Ājīvaka teacher had his own separate sect, they all had in common the belief that human action was powerless, and that there were no genuine standards for labeling an action as right or wrong. Of the views taught by his various contemporaries, the Buddha would single these out as the most harmful of the doctrines taught at his time: the “impure Dhamma” cited by Brahmā Sahampati in the previous chapter.

King Ajātasattu: “Pūraṇa Kassapa said to me, ‘Great king, in acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood—one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.’…

“Makkhali Gosāla 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 effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, & nature, they are sensitive to pleasure & pain in the six great classes of birth.

“‘Though one might think, “Through this morality, 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 are measured out. The wandering-on is 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 and wandered on, the wise & the foolish alike will put an end to pain.’…

“Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, ‘Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise & the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’…

“Pakudha Kaccāyana said to me, ‘Great king, there are these seven substances—unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar—that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure & pain. Which seven? The earth-substance, the liquid-substance, the fire-substance, the wind-substance, pleasure, pain, & the soul as the seventh.…

“‘And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off (another person’s) head, there is no one taking anyone’s life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.’” — DN 2

Among the sectarian guilds of the time, the group that receives the most attention in the Pāli Canon is that of the Nigaṇṭhas, the precursors of the modern Jains. Unlike the above teachers, the Nigaṇṭhas taught kamma and its power to determine rebirth. However, their teachings deviated from the Buddha’s on two crucial points: 1) For them, kamma was primarily physical, rather than mental; and 2) past kamma totally determined the present, leaving no room for present actions to shape the present at all. Both of these views, from the Buddha’s point of view, stood in the way of awakening. This is why—to show that the similarity between his teachings and that of the Nigaṇṭhas was only superficial—he actually sought out Nigaṇṭhas to refute their views.

“Monks, there are some contemplatives & brahmans who teach in this way, who have this view: ‘Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.’ Such is the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas.

“Going to Nigaṇṭhas who teach in this way, I have asked them, ‘Is it true, friend Nigaṇṭhas, that you teach in this way, that you have this view: “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted”?’

“Having been asked this by me, the Nigaṇṭhas admitted it: ‘Yes.’

“So I said to them, ‘But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful qualities and the attainment of skillful qualities in the here-&-now?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘So, friends, it seems that you don’t know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist… you don’t know what is the abandoning of unskillful qualities and the attainment of skillful qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, it’s not proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted. …

“When this was said, the Nigaṇṭhas said to me, ‘Friend, the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta [the leader of the Nigaṇṭhas] is all-knowing, all-seeing, and claims total knowledge & vision thus: “Whether I am walking or standing, sleeping or awake, knowledge & vision are continuously & continually established in me.” He has told us, “Nigaṇṭhas, there are evil actions that you have done in the past. Exhaust them with these painful austerities. When in the present you are restrained in body, restrained in speech, and restrained in mind, that is the non-doing of evil action for the future. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.” We approve of that (teaching), prefer it, and are gratified by it.’

“When this was said, I said to the Nigaṇṭhas, ‘Friend Nigaṇṭhas, there are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. That being the case, what kind of conviction do you have for your teacher with regard to the past? What kind of liking? What kind of unbroken tradition? What kind of reasoning by analogy? What kind of agreement through pondering views?’ But when I said this, I did not see that the Nigaṇṭhas had any legitimate defense of their teaching.

“So I asked them further, ‘Friend Nigaṇṭhas, what do you think? When there is fierce striving, fierce exertion, do you feel fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment? And when there is no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, do you feel no fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment?’

“‘Yes, friend…’

“‘… Then it’s not proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.”

“‘If it were the case that when there was fierce striving, fierce exertion, you felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment; and when there was no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, you still felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment, then—that being the case—it would be proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.” But because when there is fierce striving, fierce exertion, you feel fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment; and when there was no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, you feel no fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment, then—that being the case—it is not proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.”’ But when I said this, I did not see that the Nigaṇṭhas had any legitimate defense of their teaching.” — MN 101

Upāli the householder [a follower of the Nigaṇṭhas]: “What does the trivial mental rod [mental action] count for in comparison with the gross bodily rod [bodily action]? On the contrary, the bodily rod is the most greatly blameworthy for the doing of evil kamma, for the production of evil kamma, not so much the verbal rod, not so much the mental rod.”

“If, householder, you will confer by taking a stand on the truth, we might have some discussion here.”

“Lord, I will confer by taking a stand on the truth. Let us have some discussion here.”

“What do you think, householder? There might be the case where a Nigaṇṭha is diseased, pained, severely ill, refusing cold water, and taking warm water. He, not getting cold water, would die. Where would the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta describe his reappearance?”

“Lord, there are the devas called Attached-in-Mind. He reappears there. Why is that? He is bound in mind when he dies.”

“Householder, householder, pay attention, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn’t consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after. And yet you made this statement: ‘Lord, I will confer by taking a stand on the truth. Let us have some discussion here.’”

“Lord, even though the Blessed One says that, still the bodily rod is the most greatly blameworthy for the doing of evil kamma, for the production of evil kamma, not so much the verbal rod, not so much the mental rod.”

“What do you think, householder? There might be the case where a Nigaṇṭha is restrained with the fourfold restraint: constrained by all constraints, yoked to all constraints, cleansed by all constraints, attained to all constraints. As he walks back & forth, he brings many small beings to destruction. What (kammic) result would the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta describe for him?”

“What is unintended, lord, the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta does not describe as greatly blameworthy.”

“But if he intends it?”

“Greatly blameworthy, lord.”

“And under what does Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta classify intention?”

“Under the mental rod, lord.”

“Householder, householder, pay attention, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn’t consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after. And yet you made this statement: ‘Lord, I will confer by taking a stand on the truth. Let us have some discussion here.’”…

“Actually, lord, I was gratified and won over by the Blessed One’s very first simile. But wanting to hear these very artful ways of handling questions from the Blessed One, I thought I should treat him as an opponent. 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. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge from this day forward, for life.”

“Make a careful scrutiny, householder. It is good for well known people like you to be careful scrutinizers.”

“That, lord, has me to an ever greater extent gratified & pleased with the Blessed One, that he says to me, ‘Make a careful scrutiny, householder. It is good for well known people like you to be careful scrutinizers.’ For other sectarians, on gaining me as a disciple, would carry a banner all around Nāḷandā, (announcing,) ‘Upāli the householder has entered into discipleship under us.’ Yet on the contrary, the Blessed One says to me, ‘Make a careful scrutiny, householder. It is good for well known people like you to be careful scrutinizers.’ For a second time, lord, I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge from this day forward, for life.”

“Householder, your family compound has long been like a waterhole for the Nigaṇṭhas, and you should consider that almsfood should be given to them when they come to it.”

“That, lord, has me to an ever greater extent gratified & pleased with the Blessed One, that he says to me, ‘Householder, your family compound has long been like a waterhole for the Nigaṇṭhas, and you should consider that almsfood should be given to them when they come to it.’ I have heard it said, lord, that ‘Gotama the contemplative says, “A gift should be given only to me and not to others. A gift should be given only to my disciples and not to the disciples of others. What is given only to me bears great fruit, not what is given to others. What is given only to my disciples bears great fruit, not what is given to the disciples of others.”’ Yet on the contrary, the Blessed One encourages me to give gifts to the Nigaṇṭhas. But at any rate, lord, I will know the time for that. For a third time, lord, I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge from this day forward, for life.”

Then the Blessed One gave a graduated talk to Upāli the householder, i.e., a talk on giving, a talk on virtue, a talk on heaven; he proclaimed the drawbacks of, degradation in, & defilement in sensuality, and the rewards of renunciation. Then—when he knew that Upāli the householder was of ready mind, malleable mind, unhindered mind, exultant mind, confident mind—he proclaimed to him the distinctive teaching of the Buddhas: stress, origination, cessation, path. Just as a white cloth with stains removed would rightly take dye, in the same way, there arose for Upāli the householder the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye as he was sitting right there: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” Then—having seen the Dhamma, having reached the Dhamma, known the Dhamma, gained a footing in the Dhamma, having crossed over & beyond doubt, having had no more perplexity—Upāli the householder gained fearlessness and was independent of others with regard to the Teacher’s message. — MN 56

The following passage shows that even though the Nigaṇṭhas taught a doctrine of action, the fact that they viewed the present as totally predetermined by the past meant that even one’s actions in the present had to be predetermined. This meant further that, in the Buddha’s eyes, they, like the Ājīvakas, taught a doctrine that denies the power of action. This passage, where he makes this point, is also interesting as an introduction to his pedagogy, telling what he felt a responsible teacher owed to his students: the protection that comes from having a solid basis for deciding what should and shouldn’t be done. (For more on the Buddha’s pedagogy, see Chapter 10 and Chapter 13.)

“Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that—when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people—even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction.…

“Having approached the contemplatives & brahmans who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief… uncelibate… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.’ When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold to such teachings, such views.

“Having approached the contemplatives & brahmans who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief… uncelibate… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’ When one falls back on a supreme being’s act of creation as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold to such teachings, such views.

“Having approached the contemplatives & brahmans who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all without cause, without condition,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… whatever a person experiences… is all without cause, without condition?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings without cause, without condition. A person is a thief… uncelibate… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views without cause, without condition.’ When one falls back on lack of cause and lack of condition as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my third righteous refutation of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold to such teachings, such views.

“These are the three sectarian guilds that—when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people—even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in inaction.” — AN 3:62

The dominant religious group of the Buddha’s time was the brahmanical caste, a hereditary priesthood that vied with the noble warriors for the status as the highest caste in Indian society. The caste system in India had not yet hardened into the rigid divisions that it was to assume in later centuries, and the Canon portrays the brahmans as a very heterogeneous group. It mentions the highest brahmanical goal—union with Brahmā—only to dismiss it as inferior to unbinding (MN 83; MN 97; AN 10:29). But rather than reporting any of the Buddha’s discussions with the brahmans over the merits of union with Brahmā, the Canon—as we will see below, MN 49—devotes a sutta to depicting an encounter in which he shows his superiority to a great Brahmā. It also devotes one of its most humorous passages (DN 11) to portraying the Great Brahmā as a pompous and ignorant hypocrite. Most of the Buddha’s disagreements with brahmans focus instead on two of their claims that touch on the issue of kamma.

First is their claim that their rituals, chants, and prayers can override the results of everyday intentional actions—a claim that the Buddha rejects out of hand.

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Nāḷandā in the Pāvārika Mango Grove. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman 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: “The brahmans of the Western lands, lord—those who carry water pots, wear garlands of water plants, purify with water, & worship fire—can take (the spirit of) a dead person, lift it out, instruct it, & send it to heaven. But the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened, can arrange it so that all the world, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, a heavenly world.”

“Very well, then, headman, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think?… Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!’ What do you think? Would that boulder—because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people—rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?”

“No, lord.”

“So it is with any man who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart—(saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world!’—still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.

“Now what do you think?… Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, whereas the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!’ What do you think? Would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?”

“No, lord.”

“So it is with any man who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart—(saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell!’—still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.” — SN 42:6

The second brahmanical claim that the Buddha refuted was that simply by birth, rather than by their actions, brahmans were superior to all others, a status that would extend into future lifetimes as well. Because the inherent racism of their belief was a blanket denial of the power of action, the Buddha debated it in a thoroughgoing manner.

Then the brahman student Assalāyana went with a large group of brahmans to the Blessed One and, on arrival, 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: “Master Gotama, the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to that?”

“But, Assalāyana, the brahmans’ brahman-women are plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and nursing (their children). And yet the brahmans, being born through the birth canal, say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”…

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is it only a noble warrior who—taking life, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, telling lies, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell, and not a brahman? Is it only a merchant…? Is it only a worker who—taking life, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, telling lies, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell, and not a brahman?”

“No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior… Even a brahman… Even a merchant… Even a worker… (Members of) all four castes—if they take life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, tell lies, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are greedy, bear thoughts of ill will, & hold wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.”

“So what strength is there, Assalāyana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā’?”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is it only a brahman who—refraining from taking life, from stealing, from sexual misconduct, from telling lies, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter, not greedy, bearing no thoughts of ill-will, & holding to right view—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, a heavenly world, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior… Even a brahman… Even a merchant… Even a worker… (Members of) all four castes—if they refrain from taking life, from stealing, from sexual misconduct, from telling lies, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter, are not greedy, bear no thoughts of ill-will, & hold to right view—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.”

“So what strength is there, Assalāyana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā’?”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is it only a brahman who is capable of developing in any direction a heart of goodwill—free from animosity, free from ill will—and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior… Even a brahman… Even a merchant… Even a worker… (Members of) all four castes are capable of developing in any direction a heart of goodwill—free from animosity, free from ill will.”

“So what strength is there, Assalāyana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā’?”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is it only a brahman who is capable of taking a loofah & bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust & dirt, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior… Even a brahman… Even a merchant… Even a worker… (Members of) all four castes are capable of taking a loofah & bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust & dirt.”

“So what strength is there, Assalāyana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā’?”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”…

“What do you think, Assalāyana? There is the case where there might be two brahman-student brothers, born of the same mother: one learned & initiated [in the brahmanical mantras], the other not learned & uninitiated. Which of the two would the brahmans serve first at a funeral feast, a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?”

“The brahman student who was learned & initiated, Master Gotama.… For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is not learned & uninitiated?”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? There is the case where there might be two brahman-student brothers, born of the same mother: one learned & initiated (but) unvirtuous & of evil character, the other not learned & uninitiated, (but) virtuous & of fine character. Which of the two would the brahmans serve first at a funeral feast, a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?”

“The brahman student who was not learned & uninitiated, (but) virtuous & of fine character, Master Gotama.… For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is unvirtuous & of evil character?”

“First, Assalāyana, you went by birth. Then, having gone by birth, you went by mantras. Then, having gone by mantras, putting them both aside, you have come around to the purity of the four castes that I prescribe [i.e., that people are purified by action, not by their caste].”

When this was said, the brahman student Assalāyana sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words. — MN 93

In opposition to the brahmans, the Buddha stated repeatedly that a person deserves to be called a brahman—someone truly worthy of respect—not on the basis of birth, but on the basis of what he or she has accomplished.

Sunīta the Outcaste:

Into a lowly family I was born,

poor, with next to no food.

My work was degrading:

I gathered the spoiled,

the withered flowers from shrines

and threw them away.

People found me disgusting,

despised me, disparaged me.

Lowering my heart,

I showed reverence to many.

In addition to the differing views on the nature and power of action, the Canon also makes frequent reference to a list of ten viewpoints that summarized the hot philosophical issues of the day: on the nature of the world, the soul, and the post-mortem fate of the spiritually perfected person. The Buddha was distinctive in that he refused to take a stand on any of these issues, on the grounds that they were not conducive to awakening.

“The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.

“The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.

“The cosmos is finite…”

…“The cosmos is infinite…”

…“The soul & the body are the same…”

…“The soul is one thing and the body another…”

…“After death a Tathāgata exists…”

…“After death a Tathāgata does not exist…”

…“After death a Tathāgata both does & does not exist…”

…“After death a Tathāgata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.” — AN 10:93

There were also other questions about the world that the Buddha refused to take a stand on.

Then a brahman cosmologist went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, 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, “Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?”

“‘Everything exists’ is the senior form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”

“‘Everything does not exist’ is the second form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a Oneness?”

“‘Everything is a Oneness’ is the third form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a plurality?”

“‘Everything is a plurality’ is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. [And so on , through the sequence of dependent co-arising.]” — SN 12:48

The fact that the Buddha didn’t take a stand on any of these issues, however, did not mean that he praised all those who refused to engage in debate. As we have seen, he did debate others on topics that were central to the issue of putting an end to stress. And he was particularly critical of those who refused to take a stand on the question of which kinds of action were skillful and which were not, as this question was the central issue that any responsible teacher should address.

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman doesn’t discern as it has come to be that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful.’ The thought occurs to him: ‘I don’t discern as it has come to be that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful.” If I—not discerning as it has come to be that “This is skillful,” not discerning as it has come to be that “This is unskillful”—were to declare that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful”: That would be a falsehood on my part. Whatever would be a falsehood on my part 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-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 and third cases concern contemplatives or brahmans who don’t declare what is skillful or unskillful out of fear of clinging or fear of interrogation by “contemplatives & brahmans who are pundits, subtle, masters of debate. Like hair-splitting marksmen, they prowl about, shooting (philosophical) standpoints to pieces, as it were, with their dialectic.”]

“As for the fourth… There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is dull & exceedingly stupid. Out of dullness & exceeding stupidity, he—being asked questions regarding this or that—resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-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 wander on… if there aren’t… both are & aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tathāgata exists after death… doesn’t exist after death… both exists & doesn’t exist after death… neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death, 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.’” — DN 1

Another series of questions that the Buddha refused to answer concerned the existence or non-existence of the self.

“Now, what are the ideas unfit for attention that he [the uninstructed person] attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen effluent of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen effluent of sensuality increases; the unarisen effluent of becoming arises in him, and the arisen effluent of becoming increases; the unarisen effluent of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen effluent of ignorance increases.…

“This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘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?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’

“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view, ‘I have a self’ arises in him as true & established, or the view, ‘I have no self’… or the view, ‘It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self… or the view, ‘It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self’… or the view, ‘It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self’ arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: ‘This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.’ This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“The well instructed disciple of the noble ones—who has regard for noble ones, is well versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well versed & disciplined in their Dhamma—discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn’t attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas fit for attention.…

“He attends appropriately, ‘This is stress’… ‘This is the origination of stress’… ‘This is the cessation of stress’… ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.’ As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: self-identification view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices.” — MN 2

For the purpose of putting an end to suffering, the Buddha did encourage his students—as we will see—to stop their identification with the five clinging-aggregates. And one of the strategies he recommended was to apply the perception of not-self to them. Some writers have suggested that the “self” negated in this way referred specifically to the brahmanical notion of an infinite self at one with the cosmos and its creator; others have proposed, conversely, that it referred specifically to a notion of a separate, individual self. However, the self-views that the Buddha found among his contemporaries—including the brahmans—encompassed self-views of all kinds, universal as well as individual, finite as well as infinite.

“To what extent, Ānanda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form & finite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form & finite.’ Or, delineating a self possessed of form & infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form & infinite.’ Or, delineating a self formless & finite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless & finite.’ Or, delineating a self formless & infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless & infinite.’

“Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form & finite, either delineates it as possessed of form & finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will (naturally) become possessed of form & finite [in the future/after death/when falling asleep], or the thought occurs to him that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that speculation about a self possessed of form & finite obsesses him.”

[Similarly with the other three ways of delineating a self, yielding altogether twelve types of self-theory.] — DN 15

Here it’s useful to note that an examination of the Upaniṣads—brahmanical texts that appear to be contemporary with the Buddha—shows that there was no single view about the self held by all brahmans, and that no particular self-view qualifies as “the” brahmanical view. In fact, of the twelve possibilities listed in the above passage, the major Upaniṣads contain self-views that fall under eight, and possibly nine, of the categories.

1) Already possessed of form and finite: Bṛhad-āraṇyaka II.5.1; Maitrī VI.11

2) Naturally becoming possessed of form and finite: Bṛhad-āraṇyaka IV.3.19–21

3) Can be made possessed of form and finite: (none)

4) Already possessed of form and infinite: Bṛhad-āraṇyaka I.4.7–10; Bṛhad-āraṇyaka I.5.20; Chāndogya III.14.2-3; Muṇḍaka III.1.7

5) Naturally becoming possessed of form and infinite: Chāndogya VIII.3.4; Chāndogya VIII.12.2-3

6) Can be made possessed of form and infinite: Praśna IV.6–11; Subāla III; Kaivalya VI

7) Already formless and finite: Kaṭha I.3.1–4 (?—the description here suggests, but does not explicitly state, that the self is formless)

8) Naturally becoming formless and finite: (none)

9) Can be made formless and finite: (none)

10) Already formless and infinite: Bṛhad-āraṇyaka III.8.8–11

11) Naturally becoming formless and infinite: Praśna IV.6–11

12) Can be made formless and infinite: Kaṭha I.3.13–15; Subāla III; Subāla IX.15; Paiṅgala III.6

So there were many self-views at the time that the Buddha had to refute to help his followers not identify with suffering and its causes.

The Buddha saw that it would be necessary to refute these and many other forms of wrong view because of what he had learned in the second knowledge on the night of his awakening: that clinging to them would result in unskillful actions, leading to an unfortunate rebirth. Thus, in refuting them, he was not simply scoring points. His attacks on wrong views were intended as an act of kindness. When those who held to those views could be induced to abandon them—and to act, instead, in line with right view—they could reach a dimension beyond views, the ending of all suffering and stress, which would be for their long-term welfare and happiness.

“With regard to this, the Tathāgata discerns that ‘These standpoints, thus seized, thus grasped at, lead to such & such a destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond.’ That the Tathāgata discerns. And he discerns what is higher than that. And yet, discerning that, he does not grasp at it. And as he is not grasping at it, unbinding [nibbuti] is experienced right within. Knowing, as they have come to be, the origination, ending, allure, & drawbacks of feelings, along with the escape from feelings, the Tathāgata, monks—through lack of clinging/sustenance—is released.…

“[Those who hold to their view standpoints] all experience [their approval of their view standpoints] through repeated contact at the six sense media. For them, from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“But when a monk discerns the origination, ending, allure, drawbacks of, & emancipation from the six sense media, he discerns what is higher than all of this.” — DN 1

So, for the sake of leading others to what is higher than all of this, the Buddha left his seclusion and began to teach.