Disapproval, naturally, is to be expected, particularly in the quarter where it has been expressed. A parallel may be found in the medical profession, where a doctor with an unorthodox but effective remedy meets the greatest opposition from the Medical Association rather than from the patients who have benefitted from his unorthodoxy. But we can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

I could, naturally, soften or omit the passages complained of, but I don't particularly want to. The Notes have been written with the purpose of clearing away a mass of dead matter which is choking the Suttas, and some reference to it is necessary. Furthermore, if this is to be effective, shock-treatment is sometimes best: mere hints that all is not quite in order can only too easily be ignored.[a] It is possible that a reader who is not familiar with English idiom might suppose that when I say that the 'rot sets in with the Abhidhamma Pitaka' (CITTA) I am saying that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is rot (in the colloquial sense of rubbish). This, of course, is not my intention, and if it seems likely that many people are going to misunderstand this, the word 'decay' could be substituted without loss of meaning but with loss of strength. The 'vicious' doctrine I cannot help -- it is vicious --, but I don't suppose that anyone will think that I mean to say that it has taken to drink and debauchery.

I think that you have misunderstood the nature of the objection that is raised to my interpretation of sankhárá. The traditional interpretation says that sankhárá in the paticcasamuppáda formulation are cetaná and not anything else. The Suttas say that sankhárá in the p.s. are káya-, vací-, and citta-sankhára, and they also define these as the in-and-out-breaths, thinking-and-pondering, and perception and feeling, respectively.[b] The traditional interpretation ignores this definition, and takes these three terms as bodily, verbal, and mental action, respectively; and for this they can find a justification if they are prepared to equate the cittasankhára of the p.s. with the mano-sankhára that is sometimes found in the Suttas but not in the p.s. context. For this see A NOTE ON P.S. §16.

Furthermore, if you will refer to A NOTE ON P.S. §6 you will see that upon occasion, the sankhárá of the p.s. do mean cetaná. But though all cetaná (intentions) are sankhárá (determinations), the reverse is not true. And in particular, the in-and-out breaths are called káyasankhárá because (in the terms of the Cúlavedalla Sutta -- M. 44: i,301) they are káyiká (bodily) and are káyapatibaddhá ('bound up with the body'), and not because they are cetaná. Similar considerations apply to vací- and citta-sankhárá. Please refer to the last sentence of A NOTE ON P.S. §5. But this argument does not, at this stage, raise the question whether or not the in-and-out breaths are cetaná.

[As a matter of fact they are cetaná, in the sense that (as you rightly say) breathing is a conscious act (though not necessarily a deliberate act, an act of awareness), and all consciousness is intentional (i.e. involves volition, understood, however, in a subtle sense -- in the Notes the word volition is not used in this subtle sense, which I call intention; but see CETANÁ, fourth paragraph, and NÁMA, second paragraph). While in sleep we breathe, and while in sleep we are conscious; for we can be woken out of sleep by a noise. If we did not in some sense hear the noise, we should not awaken, and if we hear it we must be conscious: a noise cannot provoke consciousness, it can only disturb it.

[In the Suttas, consciousness does not cease until saññávedayitanirodha, 'cessation of perception and feeling', which is above all the jhánas and all the arúpa attainments. Breathing, on the other hand, stops in the fourth jhána, where there is still consciousness. (This means that, from the point of view of the individual concerned -- which is the only point of view that matters -- the body ceases in fourth jhána and above. One cannot take one's body with one into the arúpa or 'immaterial' attainments.) If you are in any doubt about whether breathing involves intention or volition, put your hand firmly over your nose and mouth so that you are unable to breathe. You will soon discover a growing 'will-to-breathe' that will oblige you to remove your hand before ninety seconds are up. This will is there all the time, but it is not normally noticed so long as we can breathe freely. If the heart is obstructed, on the other hand, we feel pain, but it cannot be described as a 'will-to-heartbeat'.]

In addition to the foregoing, you may refer to §15 of A NOTE ON P.S. and particularly the two sentences starting 'Sankhárapaccayá viññánam....' Here the discussion is drawing finer distinctions, and it is most improbable that the Venerable Objector has made anything of it at all. §19 shows that though the breathing is káyasankhára because it is bound up with the body, it is sankhára also as cetaná inasmuch as it is experience (all experience is intentional), and is thus entitled to a place in the paticcasamuppáda as sankhára on two separate counts.

Confusion is possible if we ask 'As experience, what kind of intention is breathing?'; for the answer is that it is káyasañcetaná, 'body-intention', along with all other intentional bodily actions (such as walking). And, referring again to §16, you will see that káyasañcetaná is káyasankhára. Thus breathing is twice káyasankhára. But the word káyasankhára, 'body-determination', is a grammatical compound that can be resolved in two distinct ways: (i) as 'what determines the body', and (ii) as 'a determination that is bodily'. In the first it is the breaths (as bound up with the body -- the body depends on the breathing), and in the second it is any determination (specified by the Sutta of §16 as intention) involving the body (breathing, walking, etc.).

Vacísankhára, 'speech-determination', also has this double sense: in the first it is 'what determines speech', which is thinking-and-pondering; and in the second it is 'a determination (as intention) that is verbal', as (for example) swearing. But thinking-and-pondering is not speech-determination in the second sense: as intentional action (sañcetaná) it is obviously mind-determination. But, with 'mind-determination', only the English is ambiguous, not the Pali: for the first sense of 'mind-determination' we have cittasankhára, and for the second sense we have manosankhára.

The traditional interpretation takes advantage of this verbal ambiguity -- ignoring the citta/mano discrepancy -- to define sankhárá in the p.s. as exclusively cetaná. (I think, perhaps, if you want to see the distinction clearly, you might take 'thinking-and-pondering' as a test-case. Thinking-and-pondering is said in the Cúlavedalla Sutta (which gives the first sense of vacísankhára) to be speech-determination, for the following reason: 'First having thought and pondered, then one breaks into speech.' Ask yourself 'Is thinking-and-pondering speech-determination also in the sense of being verbal action?'.) Now, it seems, it is I who am accused of confusing these two senses (in the reverse direction, of course). This can only be made by someone who takes for granted the traditional interpretation of p.s. -- if the interpretation is not pre-judged, purely verbal considerations as well as those of consistency support the Notes.

The discussion, as you see, is rather involved, and there is a temptation to cut the Gordian knot by ignoring these distinctions. Unless one is capable of following the intricacies of the situation, and is actually prepared to do so, a certain amount of good will is necessary if the interpretation of the Notes is to be accepted. Unfortunately there seems to be little reason to suppose that the Venerable Objector possesses either the capacity or the good will. But I do not see that any purpose would be served by setting out the argument in greater detail: as I remark in §7, the note is not a polemic, and if the reader is not already dissatisfied with the traditional interpretation no amount of argument will convince him.

The Venerable One who remarked that there are many mistakes in the Notes is perfectly correct: there are many mistakes in the Notes -- from the traditional point of view. But if he thinks I am not aware of them he is doing me an injustice.

The question whether it is right to write against books like the Patthána seems to be largely rhetorical. I regret that I find it necessary to disagree with the Patthána, but since I do I am prepared to state my disagreement in writing. It is, if I may say so without presumption, to the greater glory of the Suttas; but I don't suppose the Venerable One would see it quite in this light.

I am glad to hear that there are some laymen who are finding the Notes worth studying. By all means let them send questions about points needing further elucidation. The more sharply the questions can be framed the better it is, not only for me but also for the questioner, who will perhaps find out what it is precisely that he is asking -- and may thus discover that he has answered his own question.

Your letter shows only too clearly what I knew all along, namely that the Notes will get a more intelligent hearing from laymen than from monks. This ought not to be so, but it is so. At the very least, criticism from monks should amount to something more than simply pointing out that the Notes deviate from the accepted view. Surely, if they have given any thought to the Suttas at all, they must see that the accepted view might perhaps not be altogether infallible -- especially in view of the poor results in terms of ariyapuggalas produced. Like the one above about the Patthána, it is a rhetorical question, or so I fear.




[L. 77]   18 December 1963

Yes, yet another letter from me!

As a concession to the Venerable Objector, I have altered the offending 'rot' to 'decay', which is perhaps less of an irritant. For my part, I have no wish to irritate anybody at all. On the other hand, if it seems necessary to do so in order that some definite benefit may result elsewhere, then I don't shrink from it. (It is not I who set out to irritate so-and-so, but so-and-so who allows himself to be irritated at what I write; and that is his responsibility.) In any case, I am not prepared to be blackmailed or threatened into silence by pontifical tantrums, though I am prepared to be silent if I think no good will come of speaking. The question is, are people seriously interested in the Notes, or merely nikang[1] interested? In any case, we are not obliged to decide immediately, and we can afford to wait until we see if there are further objections to printing. (It seems rather a pity, now, that I was not able to cut the stencils on the Venerable Objector's own typewriter -- a very interesting situation might have arisen.[2])




[L. 78]   24 December 1963

I am sorry that you should have had a slight attack of alarm and despondency after hearing two opinions of bhikkhus on the Notes. In order that you should know quite clearly 'what the world is coming to' I translate a Sutta from the Anguttara (see PATICCASAMUPPÁDA).[1] It is quite natural, of course, that you should have doubts from time to time about the validity of the Notes, particularly when they are attacked from an 'official' quarter: you are bound to take them largely on trust, and it is always a comfort, when one is feeling a little tired, to be on the side of established opinion. As Kierkegaard says,

The spirit of dialectical fearlessness is not so easily acquired; and the sense of isolation which remains despite the conviction of right, the sadness of the parting from admired and trustworthy [or trusted?] authorities, is the line of demarcation which marks the threshold of its acquirement. (CUP, pp. 15-6)

Possibly you will notice, at times, some doubt and hesitation on my part about the wisdom of publishing the Notes. This, you must understand, is entirely concerned with the question of how the Notes will be received by other people: about the correctness of the Notes, in essentials at least (I cannot guarantee every detail), I have no doubt at all, and there is some heavy artillery in reserve if the situation requires it. I am actually in a double isolation: first, as not knowing of anyone in Ceylon who can confirm the Notes, and secondly, as being quite out of touch with people generally. It is on account of the second that I feel hesitant and must seek the advice of others and see what people do actually have to say about the Notes.

As you say, specialists in the Abhidhamma books will not like criticism of them. Such specialists are those I referred to a long time ago[2] as 'people with a vested interest in the Dhamma': having acquired a specialized knowledge of some branch of the scriptures as a whole, they depend upon this to maintain them in a position of esteem or material advantage. Dhamma Sunday-school teachers, for example, will not be pleased (they teach the cittavíthi to ten-year-olds, which is sheer cruelty to children, apart from anything else).

The elephant season is starting here; they have been trumpeting all day in the middle distance. Perhaps they will come closer tonight.

P.S. The difficulty with the Venerable Objector is that we have to live with him, whereas you don't. We are obliged to pay him respect on account of his seniority, and this is quite as it should be; but it tends to be accepted as a homage to his superior wisdom, which is a debatable inference. The consequence is, however, that if his wisdom is questioned, even by implication, it is immediately interpreted as disrespect.

Next section

Back to Clearing the Path - Contents

Back to Ñánavíra Thera Dhamma Page

Footnotes:

[76.a] Question: Is this likely to antagonize anyone who might otherwise be sympathetic? Knowing Abhidhamma Pitaka enthusiasts, I think not. Will it raise organized hostility? Not, I think, unless it is translated. If it does is this necessarily a bad thing? I don't know enough to give a definite answer, but it does not seem to be self-evident. [Back to text]

[76.b] There is no Sutta where it is actually stated that the káya-, vací-, and cittasankhára of the p.s. are the same káya-, vací-, and citta-sankhára as those thus defined. But there is no a priori reason why they should not be. [Back to text]















Editorial notes:

[77.1] nikang: The Sinhalese word nikang means both 'simply', 'for no reason' ('I simply came to see') and 'nothing' ('there is nothing in the pot'; 'something for nothing'). Many times, as in this letter, the meanings of nikang are combined to convey a slightly derogatory connotation. [Back to text]

[77.2] typewriter: The stencils were cut on a typewriter belonging to the 'Colombo Thera' who, later, was the recipient of L. 1, 93a, and 93b. [Back to text]

[78.1] a Sutta from the Anguttara: Pañcaka Nipáta, Yodhájíva Vagga, 9: iii,105-08:

     1. There are, monks, these five future fearful things, not arisen at present but which will arise in the future; you should be on watch for them, and being on watch for them you should strive to eliminate them. What are the five?

     2. There will be, monks, monks in time to come who will be undeveloped in body,[a] virtue, mind,[b] and understanding. They, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, will give ordination to others and will be unable to direct them in higher virtue, higher mind, higher understanding; and these, too, will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. And they, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, will give ordination to others and will be unable to direct them in higher virtue, higher mind, higher understanding; and these, too, will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. Thus, monks, with the decay of the Teaching there will be decay of the discipline[c] and with decay of the discipline there will be decay of the Teaching.

This, monks, is the first future fearful thing, not arisen at present....

     3. Again, monks, there will be monks in time to come who will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. They, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, will give support[d] to others and will be unable to direct them in higher virtue, higher mind, higher understanding; and these, too, will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. And they, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, will give support to others and will be unable to direct them in higher virtue, higher mind, higher understanding; and these, too, will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. Thus, monks, with the decay of the Teaching there will be decay of the discipline, and with decay of the discipline there will be decay of the Teaching.

This, monks, is the second future fearful thing, not arisen at present....

     4. Again, monks, there will be monks in time to come who will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. They, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing the advanced teaching[e] and engaging in cross questioning,[f] falling into a dark teaching[g] will not awaken.[h] Thus, monks, with the decay of the Teaching there will be decay of the discipline, and with decay of the discipline there will be decay of the Teaching.

This, monks, is the third future fearful thing, not arisen at present....

     5. Again, monks, there will be monks in time to come who will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. They, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when those discourses uttered by the Tathágata are preached, profound, profound in meaning, beyond the world, concerned with voidness -- they will not listen to them, they will not give ear to them, they will not present a comprehending mind to them, and they will not consider those teachings worth grasping and learning; but when those discourses made by poets are preached, poetic, elegantly tuned, elegantly phrased, alien,[i] uttered by disciples -- to them they will present a comprehending mind, and those teachings they will consider worth grasping and learning. Thus, monks, with the decay of the Teaching there will be decay of the discipline, and with decay of the discipline there will be decay of the Teaching.

This, monks, is the fourth future fearful thing, not arisen at present....

     6. Again, monks, there will be monks in time to come who will be undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding. They, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, the elder monks[j] will become luxurious and lax, and, falling from former ways[1] and laying aside the task of solitude, they will not make the effort to attain what they have not attained, to reach what they have not reached, to realize what they have not realized. And those who come after will follow their example and will become luxurious and lax, and, falling from former ways and laying aside the task of solitude, they too will not make the effort to attain what they have not attained, to reach what they have not reached, to realize what they have not realized. Thus, monks, with the decay of the Teaching there will be decay of the discipline, and with decay of the discipline there will be decay of the Teaching.

This, monks, is the fifth future fearful thing, not arisen at present....

     7. These, monks, are the five future fearful things, not arisen at present but which will arise in the future; you should be on watch for them, and being on watch for them you should strive to eliminate them. [Back to text]

[78.2] long time ago: L. 39. [Back to text]















Footnotes to editorial notes:

[78.1.a] Abhávitakáya. This does not mean lacking in physical training, but not being able to remain unmoved in the face of pleasurable feelings. [Back]

[78.1.b] Abhávitacitta. Not being able to remain unmoved in the face of painful feelings. It also means unpractised in mental concentration, samádhi. The two things go hand in hand. [Back]

[78.1.c] Dhammasandosá vinayasandoso. Sandosa = decay or rot -- 'the rot sets in'. [Back]

[78.1.d] 'Support' is nissaya. Para. 2 deals with the upajjháya or 'preceptor', and para. 3 with the ácariya or 'teacher'. [Back]

[78.1.e] Abhidhamma. This does not mean the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but simply the essential Dhamma. [Back]

[78.1.f] Vedallakathá. When one monk asks questions on the Dhamma and another gives the answers. [Back]

[78.1.g] Kanha dhamma, in contrast to the 'bright teaching' that does lead to awakening. [Back]

[78.1.h] Na bujjhissanti. Will not reach bodhi or enlightenment. [Back]

[78.1.i] Báhiraka. Outside (the Dhamma). This refers to the puthujjana. [Back]

[78.1.j] Therá bhikkhú. [Back]

[78.1.1] 'Falling from former ways' is wrong: okkamane pubbangamá means 'going first in falling', i.e. taking the initiative in low practices. [Back]