由尼柯耶論喬達摩成佛之道

Today I would like to discuss certain problems relating to the path whichGotama followed to become Tathāgata.[1]

The first problem is whether Gotama practised the system of 4 jhānas ornot. Some scholars think that Gotama did not practise this system of meditation.Such a view is really untenable. The Nikāyas do not know of any tradition thatstates that Gotama did not follow this system of meditation. On the contrary,the Nikāyas consistently and unanimously hold that not only Gotama but also hisdisciples followed the system of 4 jhānas. So we may take it for granted thatGotama practised the 4 jhānas.

There are 2 different versions of the 4 jhānas in the Nikāyas. One versionis attributed to the Parama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbānavādins(Parama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbāna is called PDN hereafter), or the advocates of theSupreme Nibbāna amidst the perceptibles. These 2 versions are almost identical.The only notable difference is that the PDN-vādin version includes the followingsentence which is missing from the version attributed to Gotama: “Now the attāhas attained the PDN”. One may think that this difference is due to thelater-day editing due to the following reasons: the non-mention of the term “attā” presupposes the realisation of the truth of “anattā”. But Gotama was thenin the initial stages of his spiritual journey. He had yet no experience aboutthe non-existence of “attā”. So the version attributed to Gotama should haveincluded the term “attā”.

Moreover, all the contemporary śramaṇas believed in the permanent ortemporary existence of “attā”. This state of things also supports the idea thatGotama had included the term “attā” in his account of the 4 jhānas.

Again it is reasonable to think that the term PDN was also included in hisversion. In PDN the feelings are absent, but thefaculty of perception remains intact. Except the feelings and the resultant“I-awareness”, all the other perceptibles can be experienced. This state was notaccepted by the Buddha as the Supreme Nibbāna. The state ofsaññā-vedayita-nirodha, which is free not only from all feelings but also fromalmost all perceptions was accepted by the Buddha as the Nibbāna in this world.But Gotama had not yet experienced this state. As Gotama had not yet anyknowledge of nibbāna which was truer and higher than the PDN, there is no reasonwhy Gotama would drop this term from his account of the 4 jhānas.

Yet this difference between the 2 versions may not be due to editing at alater period. There are deeper reasons to think Gotama did not accept the viewthat the attā attains the PDN. Consequently the version attributed to Gotamaconforms to the actual experience that he had in meditation. This point will bediscussed later.

The next problem I want to discuss is about the spiritual experience oneattains after the attainment of the first jhāna. In course of our discussion itwould become clear that both the versions speak of the same spiritualexperience. For the sake of convenience we would discuss this problem mainlywith reference to the PDN-vāda as given in the Brahmajāla-sutta.

The relevant passage in the Brahmajāla-sutta runs as follows:

This is what the Pāli passage actually means. But so far as I have seen,this passage has always been wrongly translated in morethan one places and the message was distorted. Here I will discuss only one ofthe mistakes committed by the previous translators which is of utmost importancefor our study. They have translated the last part of the account as follows: “Heattains and abides in the first jhāna. Now the attā has attained the PDN”.

One can immediately see how the translators have changed the meaning of thepassage. The forms of “vivicca” and “upasampajja” are gerund and in Pāli theseforms are called “pubba-kiriyā”, which means “past action”. So these actions ofseparation (vivicca) and attainment (upasampajja) belong exclusively to the pastand are no way connected with the present. But the scholars arbitrarilyinterprets “upasampajja” in the present tense (attains) while retaining thecorrect meaning of “vivicca” (having separated). Moreover, the implications ofsuch an arbitrary translation, as it will be shown, are absolutely unacceptable.This translation implies that the meditator is abiding in the first jhāna, andthat the first jhāna is the same as the PDN. Both these implications arecontradicted by meditative experiences and should be rejected. First, there isno first jhāna over and above the mental elements characterising this mentalstate. The first jhāna is a mere name to indicate all these elements. Secondly,the term first jhāna stands for a series of mental elements and one cannot abidein all these elements at the same time. Thirdly, this series contains manyagitative elements and so it cannot be identical with the nibbāna in this world,which indicates ideal mental calmness.

The text also does not state that the meditator abides in the first jhāna.It simply states that he abides (viharati). We have also to note that theattainment of the first jhāna has been described as a completed past action (upasampajja = having attained), a pubba-kiriyā. On the other hand, theexpression “viharati” (abides) indicates a present action. The act of “abiding”cannot mean abiding in the first jhāna.The attainment of nibbāna, on the other hand, has beendescribed through the verbal expression “patto hoti”. The experience of nibbāna,though already attained (patto), is still continuing in the present (hoti). Sothe attainment of nibbāna refers to a present situation and as such it should beconnected with the present action of abiding (viharati).

It follows from the conclusions reached above that we have now to find outwhat is the mental state where one can abide and why was this mental stateidentified with the PDN. To solve these two problems we have to pay closeattention to the characteristics that constitute the so-called first jhāna.

The first jhāna formula merely tells us that the mental state is separatedfrom kāma and akusala-dhammas, accompanied by initial and sustained judgementaldeliberations (vitakka and vicāra), born of separation (vivekajam) andcharacterised by pīti and sukha (joy and happiness). Here kāma means desirableobjects to which one is attached. It does not mean desire. For in the text weread that when a person loses kāma, he becomes sad. Nobody becomes sad by losingdesire. One becomes happy instead. And what is the meaning of “akusala-dhammas”? This term can be translated as “inexpedient mental elements”, i.e. the mentalelements which are unsuitable for attaining the spiritual goal. According to thePDN-vādin tradition these dhammas stand for soka (grief), parideva(lamentation), dukha (pain), domanassa (melancholy) and upāyāsā (despair). It isobvious that these akusala-dhammas belong to the category of the feeling ofdukkha.

Next the term “viveka” (separation) may be explained. Vivicca and vivekacome from the same root √ vic together with the same prefix “vi”. It isreasonable to conclude that these two terms refer to the separation from thesame elements viz kāma and akusala-dhammas. As a result of this separation themental elements constituting the first jhāna gradually come into existence. Thejhāna is, therefore, called “vivekajam”.

As to pīti and sukha we can say without going into a detaileddiscussion that pīti is joy which is more connected with the body than with themind. This joy affects the body strongly. Sukha is more mental than physical.But it is also connected with the body, for one experiences sukha through thebody.

This list of the mental characteristics of the first jhāna as given here isnot complete. There are other characteristics of this state which have beengiven in the Vatthupama-sutta of Majjhima Nikāya as follows:

Sukha in the Nikāyas is connected with calmness, and is different from whatis understood as sukha in ordinary life. The sutta omits a number of elements,one of which is adukkham-asukham. Immediately after sukha, the sutta mentionsthe arising of the element of mental concentration (samādhi). And thisprogression from one element to another came to an end with the arising of theelement of samādhi.

This passage is of utmost importance for our study and we should try tounderstand the message it conveys. The Vatthupama-sutta gives a description ofthe mental element constituting the first jhāna without using the blanket term“first jhāna”. This shows that the “first jhāna” is a mere name; there is nofirst jhāna as distinct from the mental traits enumerated.

Moreover, the account of the first jhāna is only relatively true.“Upakilesa” of the Vatthupama-sutta covers the desire for the desirable objects(kāma) and the akusala-dhammas of the Brahmajāla-sutta account of the firstjhāna. The suttas state that after the meditator has become separated from kāmaand akusala-dhammas (i.e. from upakilesa) the mental elements constituting the first jhānacome into existence. When the suttas speak of the separation from kāma andakusala-dhammas, it does not mean that the meditator has completely given upkāma etc. He has become free from these elements to the extent it is necessaryfor the arising of the mental elements constituting the first jhāna. One has tobe very careful while reading Nikāyas which are often using non-relativeexpressions to express relative facts.

Physical calmness (passaddhi) arises after pīti. Actually pīti is a veryagitative element. But it is not as agitative as the feelings belonging to thecategory of dukkha which the meditator has just given up to a great extent. Socompared to dukkha, pīti does not agitate the body so much. Consequently afterthe arising of pīti he feels physical calmness (passaddhi).

Another point we have to note is that the giving up of kāma andakusala-dhammas or that of the upakilesas is an intentional act on the part ofthe meditator. The arising of pasāda, pāmojja, etc. is not intended by themeditator; it is happening automatically. The process starts due to the relativeabsence of kāma and akusala-dhammas. Thus if one is able to give up kāma andakusala-dhammas to some extent in meditation, the mental elements enumeratedabove will naturally rise one after another. This natural progression ofelements comes to an end with the arising of the element of “samādhi” (mentalconcentration). The statement that the mental elements are arising one afteranother actually means that the meditator is becoming conscious of them oneafter another. When he is conscious of one element, he is not conscious of theother elements. So when the element of samādhi comes into existence, there is nomental element that naturally rises after samādhi and replaces it. So themeditator is able to remain conscious of it for some time. This situation isindicated by the statement “he abides” (viharati). The meditator abides in“samādhi”. Now the meditator is only aware of the concentratedstate of mind. He is no longer aware of such feelings as dukkha, sukha, pīti,etc. So the thoughts of all feelings are absent from the mind of the meditator.According to the Nikāya tradition the thoughts of “I-awareness” must co-existwith the thoughts of feelings. If there is no thoughts of feelings, there cannotbe an awareness of “I” So while in samādhi one is not only free from theconsciousness of any feeling but also free from the ego-consciousness, or “I”.

When one abides in samādhi, the awareness of the mental concentration isthere, but there is no awareness of “I”. So such thoughts as “I am aware ofthat” does not arise. Thus there is knowledge of an action but not of an actor.

If the meditator himself should later give an accurate description of thisexperience in samādhi, he could do it only by dropping the term attā from hisdescription. It is so because there is no awareness of “I” in samādhi, whereas“I” is the essential characteristic of an attā. So it is quite possible thateven before the attainment of bodhi Gotama dropped the term “attā” from hisdescription of the 4 jhānas. As the existence of “attā” in the state of samādhiis denied, the question of an attā attaining the PDN does not arise at all. Whywas the abiding in samādhi accepted as the attainment of the PDN? The experienceof samādhi is free from all thoughts of feelings, and of ego-consciousness also.In this state the meditator experiences a great degree of calmness, even thoughthe faculty of perception remains intact. This state was identified with thePDN. Gotama had not yet experienced any state which was calmer than samādhi; sohe might have accepted this identification of samādhi with the PDN, provided theattā was not brought into association with this experience.

The abiding in the “first jhāna” is unreal, but the abiding in samādhi isreal. This abiding, as pointed out before, is indicated by the expression“viharati” (he abides). The verbal root √ hṛ with the prefix “vi-” in earlyBuddhist tradition shows the point at which amovement, whether physical or mental, comes to an end, and the person abidesthere. In meditation also the meditator experiences one mental element afteranother. This series of experiences comes to an end when he experiences samādhiand he abides there (viharati). This is also another reason for which Iconcluded that “abiding” means abiding in samādhi. The mental state in samādhiis the same as the mental state of one who experiences PDN. Therefore, in thedescription of the first jhāna the acts of abiding and attaining the PDN havebeen referred to as current situations.

It is also apparent from what I have discussed so far that the Buddha”steachings about anattā or about actions without an actor are initially based onhis experience of the mental state in samādhi. Later these conclusions werefurther confirmed when Gotama attained the āśrave-kṣaya-jñāna or bodhi.

Moreover, the Brahamajāla-sutta speaks of experiencing the PDN not onlyafter the attainment of the first jhāna but also after the attainment of theother three jhānas. This shows that in all these cases the meditator wasexperiencing the same mental state which is free from the thoughts of allfeelings and the awareness of “I”. This means that in every case he was abidingin samādhi.

It may be noted in this connection that the Abhidharma texts mentionsamādhi as the last element in the series of mental elements constituting allthe four jhānas. There is no doubt that Gotama also experienced the same mentalstate, for he also says that he abides (viharati) after attaining the firstjhāna, though he most probably did not use the expression: “Now the attā hasattained the PDN”.

But Gotama could abide in this peaceful mental state only for a very shorttime. Why? He has experienced the state of samādhi due to the force of naturalprogression of mental elements that ends in samādhi. This progression has notbeen willed by the meditator. The agitative elements have neither been destroyednor suppressed by him. When the progression of elements comes to an end with thearising of samādhi, the agitative elements again start becoming active. The mostagitative elements in the first jhāna are the vitakka and vicāra. So hiscontinuous awareness of the mental concentration (samādhi) is disturbed, and hisattention is drawn towards these two elements. Consequently he loses hisawareness of the peacefulness of PDN. He wants to get back the state of nibbāniccalmness. He therefore tries to get rid of these two elements by adverselycriticising them again and again. The meditator loses his liking for theelements adversely criticised and generates aversion for them, and inconsequence gets rid of them.

When the vitakka and vicāra lost their influence on the mind of Gotama, aprogression of a new series of mental elements followed, which was given thename of “second jhāna”. We need not discuss all the mental elements constitutingthe second jhāna. We can simply say that this progression of elements also endsin samādhi, in which Gotama abided. So again he experienced the same mentalstate which was free from all feelings, and consequently from the awareness of“I”. Again Gotama could not abide in samādhi, for pīti, the most agitativeelement in this mental state, creates distraction and he could no longer beaware of the mental concentration. He lost nibbāna-like calmness. So he got ridof pīti through adverse criticism of pīti, and became aware of another series ofmental elements the conventional name for which was the “third jhāna”.

The samādhi in which Gotama was abiding after the attainment of the thirdjhāna was disturbed by the element of sukha (happiness). Sukha is the strongestagitative element in this mental state. This feeling (sukha) is called the“ābhoga” of mind. The word “ābhoga” comes from the verbal root √ bhuj, whichmeans in this case “to bend”. The feeling “sukha” bends the attention of themeditator towards itself, so that the meditator cannot abide in samādhi anymore.

Thus he lost the nibbānic calmness again. So he next got rid of sukha byadversely criticising it, and naturally another progressionof elements followed which likewise ended in samādhi, and he attained the fourthjhāna. He abided in samādhi.

The feeling in the fourth jhāna is called adukkham-asukham. It isnon-agitative in itself. So once the meditator is in samādhi, there is noelement in this mental state that can disturb the concentrated state of mind. Sosamādhi after the fourth jhāna is called stable and immovable. The mind insamādhi is free from “I-consciousness”, so it is free from subjective elements.Moreover, as the mind in this state is not influenced by any feeling and“I-consciousness”, it is characterised by a deep calmness and perfectmindfulness. The pre-Buddhist śramaṇas paid attention to the calmness only, fornibbāna was calmness itself. But they did not pay attention to the freedom fromthe ego-consciousness and subjective elements. And only when a person's mind isfree from subjective elements is it possible for him to gain truly objectiveknowledge, i.e. the knowledge of an object as it truly is. The knowledge whichis given the name of “bodhi” is also an objective knowledge.

Another interesting feature of this mental state is that the meditator inthis state -- which is free from all subjective elements -- gains the trueknowledge of it by simply paying attention to it; it is not necessary for him togo through any logical thinking. Such a knowledge is indicated by the term“yathābhūta” (如實).

This mental state does not change of itself. Moreover, this is a state ofmental concentration without any object to concentrate upon. So Gotama was ableto direct his attention to different subjects of enquiry to gain objectiveknowledge of them. He first directed his attention to his own past lives. Andimmediately he could see innumerable past lives with various details. Next hepaid attention to the past lives of others and could know about their sorrowsand happiness in different past lives due to various types of kammas (skt.karma). He found there is no end to this progression of one life to another, noend to the experiences of sadness andappiness. So he wanted to find a way out of this situation. Thereafter he hadthe direct knowledges of the existence of the āsavas (skt. āśrava), the originof the āsavas, the destruction of the āsavas, and the path to their destruction.In the earliest available tradition these knowledges came to be collectivelycalled as the āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna, the wisdom regarding the destruction of theāśravas. This wisdom came to be known as “bodhi” at a comparatively later time.

After “bodhi” he got the knowledge that he would have no more any futurebirth, he had already done what had to be done. In the earlier suttas thisknowledge is merely called the “third knowledge”. But later in the Sekha-suttathis knowledge is called “bodhijam”, born of bodhi. The objective knowledge ofdifferent things has to be gained separately. One cannot get the objectiveknowledge of all things at the same time. In the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta we readabout many items about which the Buddha had objective knowledge. But only theobjective knowledge about āsavas or duhkha came to be known as “bodhi”.

The objective knowledge of the āśrava was held to be specially important,for the āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna is directly connected with the end of the cycle ofbirths and deaths. There are three types of āsavas: 1) kāmāsava, or thedefilements connected with desire for the five types of sensual objects, 2)bhavāsava, or the defilements connected with individual existence, and 3)avijjāsava, or the defilements connected with the basic ignorance. So once theāśravas are destroyed, the meditator becomes free from all future existences.

This state is, however, not the experience of nibbāna. The realisation of“bodhi” is not the same as the realisation of nibbāna, for the nibbāna standsfor the utmost calmness which in the state of bodhi cannot be experienced. Thisis so because in the state of bodhi both the faculty of perception and theentire range of perceptibles remain intact. And any act of perception is painfulandhas been compared to a boil and other painful things. It disturbs the abiding insamādhi. So to experience the undisturbed calmness he next followed anothersystem of meditation, the ārupya-samāpattis (the attainment of formlessness) inorder to reduce the faculty and field of perception. First he freed his mindfrom the forms through the adverse criticism of forms. The space becomes limiteddue to forms. With the disappearance of forms he experiences the unlimitedspace. We would not discuss the different states of formless meditation. Anyway,he gradually reached the state of neither-perception-nor-not-perception. Even inthis state the Buddha had the awareness of some perception. This state wasagitative compared to the nibbāna. So Buddha got rid of even that perception andattained the state of the saññā-vedayita-nirodha, the cessation of perceptionand feeling. The cessation the tradition speaks of is not complete cessation.For if there is a total cessation of perception, the meditator would not be ableto know that he was in that mental state. It is, however, true that he got ridof all feelings, and consequently he was free from the awareness of “I” and“mine.” The perception in this state is so weak that it does not disturbmeditator's sense of calmness. The state is the closest possible approximationto the actual nibbāna, the unconditioned. This is the nibbāna which themeditator can experience while in this world.

The absence of the element of “I” either in the state of samādhi after theattainment of the rūpajhāna, or in the state of the cessation of perception andfeeling after the samāpatti of the neither-perception-nor-not-perception,convinced the Buddha of the non-existence of the attā in both the realms of theconditioned and the unconditioned. On the basis of what we have discussed so farit is clear that the main tenets which the Buddha taught flows from hismeditative experiences. After the attainment of the saññā-vedayita-nirodha,Gotama declared himself to be the Tathāgatā.

I would now like to discuss a problem which might be of someimportance. Why did Gotama choose to realise the nibbāna in this world after theattainment of the “bodhi”?

After the realisation of “bodhi” Gotama was certain that he wouldultimately merge into nibbāna and go out of the vortex of saṃsāra. All he had todo had already been done. Moreover, as Gotama had seen through the illusorynature of “I” and “mine”, he could not have any personal desire for nibbāna. Sowhy did he further strive for nibbāna? Under such circumstances the only answerthat suggests itself is his unconditional compassion for others. Out ofcompassion for others he realised the nibbāna, so that he could help othersbetter. According to the Dvedhāvitakka-sutta Gotama developed non-judgemental,spontaneous compassion even before the attainment of the first jhāna.

We may thus accept that he acted out of compassion. But this does notexplain why he had to realise nibbāna in order to help the suffering people. Hecould have helped by preaching śīla and teaching others the path to therealisation of bodhi. And to do this it was not necessary to attain nibbāna. Sowhy did he experience nibbāna in this world? In those days the teachers preachedonly what they experienced. This is evident from the teachers of theParama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbāna-vāda, the different formless attainments(ārūpya-samā-patti). Even the teachers of the Ucchedavāda spoke from their ownexperiences. None of them preached the nibbāna, the Unconditioned. But itappears that the Unconditioned as an ideal was well known and the Tathāgatā wasthe accepted epithet of the knower of the Unconditioned, the nibbāna. Withoutexperiencing the nibbāna the truth was not completely mastered. The trueobjective knowledge of the different elements -- physical or mental -- provedthat the conditioned was devoid of attā. On the other hand, the attainment ofthe cessation of perception and feeling showed him that there was no attā evenin the Unconditioned. It was only after this experience that he was in aposition to preach the truth of anattā and talk about the nibbāna.It is only after the realisation of the nibbāna that one is able to mergedirectly into the nibbāna after the dissolution of the body. The nibbāna was thehighest spiritual goal to be attained in this life and marked the unrivalledexcellence of a śramaṇa. The teachings of such a person would be eagerly soughtafter and followed by the people. It is for this reason the Gotama experiencedthe nibbāna even after the realisation of the bodhi.

(A speech at Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, on June 5, 2001. Translated and collated by Miss FANG Yirong)