Marshland Flowers
Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
Published on 16-22 April 2007 Issue
Having humbly offered marshland flowers to the Master of gods and men (sasta deva manushyanam), the god of gods (Devadideva) the yogi of yogis, I humbly begin this series on Buddhism. Nepal is the land where the Buddha was born and it was the first country outside India where Buddhism spread. A vast number of Sakyas had become Buddhists at the time of the Buddha himself. However, leaving aside the Himalayan ethnic minority, the vast majority of the Nepalese people, including those who are supposed to be Buddhists by birth, know very little about both the Buddha and Buddhism. To the vast majority of non-Buddhist Nepalese, the Buddha-legend is based on myths coming from non-Buddhist cultures. So the Buddha becomes an incarnation of Visnu and that's about all that is known about the Buddha. In this age and era when Buddhism is spreading like wild fire across the seven seas and becoming the talk of the intellectuals across the world, Nepalese intellectuals fumble and mumble about the Buddha being born in Lumbini before their knowledge about Buddhism dries up, whilst the more orthodox try to cull up what other famous Hindu yogis had said about the Buddha – most of which are purely fabricated story, historically unsound and alien to any form of Buddhism around the world.
So, putting the horse before the cart, who or what is the Buddha or a Buddha according to the Buddhists themselves? This story goes three asankhya kalpas ago. When there was a powerful yogi with all the siddhi and riddhis called Bhikchhu Sumedha. It is said that even though he was already a powerful yogi with siddhi – riddhis, he resolved to make the aspiration (pranidhan) to become a Buddha, in front of the Buddha Dipankara, some three asankhya kalpas ago. And that was the starting of the making of a Buddha. This point is based on the words of the Buddha Sakyamuni himself as recorded in the Jatak which is one of the Scriptural texts found in the Tripitaka. The Jatakas are collection of the stories of Sakyamuni's former lives as told by himself.
Then Bhikchhu Sumedha practiced sadhanas for three asankhya kalpas under many Buddhas like Kashyapa etc. until finally he became a Buddha. Whether we regard this story as mere myth or real, it is the Buddhist version and speaks abundantly about the Buddhist culture related to who or what a Buddha is. Even if it be considered as only a myth it is the Buddhist myth as opposed to non – Buddhist myths about the Buddha. But myth or not it does tell us a lot about who or what a Buddha is to the Buddhists and about Buddhism. This story says that a Buddha is a sentient being who is the acme of spiritual development, as he was already a powerful yogi when he began his journey to Buddhahood. Thus he is the king of all yogis. Also he is not some kind of a God or incarnation of a God, but rather a human being who started on the long journey to become a Buddha. In the process, the Jatakas tell us he was born many times as Devas like Indra etc, many times as humans etc. This opens up the Buddhist concept that there is not much difference between the Gods and men and animals in terms of cycle of existence, because the continuity of the same mental continuum can be a deva at one time and a human at another time. So devas in Buddhism are not eternally fixed devas but can die and be born as humans etc. depending upon the karma they have accumulated. This means karma is not fixed thing bestowed upon men by some super gods but rather the actions one's own self has perpetrated and the result one's own self has to experience and is changeable by one's ownself. So a Buddha is not a God come down to help mankind but a person that has reached the acme of spiritual development. That is why he called himself "Sasta deva manushyanam" which means the Spiritual Guru or Master of Devas and humans. Being born as a human, he was a human but having become a Buddha he was no more a mere human, but the Sasta/Guru/Master of humans and Devas in terms of spiritual development. He himself clearly said in the Drona Sutra of the Anguttara Nikaya that he was not a Deva, not a yakchhya, not a Gandharva and not a human as well. The Buddha is certainly not a God or an emanation of any God by any Buddhist account but then if he is not a human too what is he? He is a Buddha. What is the meaning of the word Buddha and how is a Buddha different from being a human?
Published on 22-29 April 2007 Issue
He was born a human of a human mother and father. Suddhodhan and Mayadevi were not gods and goddesses or even their avatar. They were humans. But in Buddhism as I have already mentioned humans are not some eternally stuck beings whose lot is to be humans for ever. It is those very humans who became gods and goddesses according to the actions they have performed (karma); and gods and goddesses become humans and animals according to their karma performed in the past and present. So devas are not eternal gods and goddesses, who have no connection with humans. So how was he not a human? Humans are those who are still engrossed in emotional defilements, and still lost in ignorance. Ignorance here does not mean ignorance of worldly knowledge – whatever they be – but ignorance of the way the world really exists, ignorance of ones own true nature (swarup). Since a Buddha is neither entangled in emotional defilements nor is he ignorant of the true nature of all that exists including himself, he cannot be said to be a human, although his physical endowments continue to be that of a human. His level of mind is no more the same as the level of mind of any human or gods and goddesses for that matter.
In fact the mind of a Buddha is no more like any sentient beings in the entire universe called Trisahasra mahasahasra loka dhatu in Buddhist culture. That's why the Buddha himself told the Bramin Drona to understand him as a Buddha as he was not a Deva, yakchhya, gandharva or human. A Buddha is the result of the spiritual practice of three immeasurable kalpas (tri asankhya kalpa), thus according to the Lalitvistar, the Mahasangik record of the Buddha's life, he was the eldest of all sentient beings (including Gods and Bramah of the highest Deva lokas) at the point of birth itself. This is the meaning of Bramah, Visnu and Mahesh coming to greet him at his birth as is shown in the sculpture in Lumbini and in many paubha paintings.
Because of the immeasurable merit he accumulated during the three immeasurable kalpas of practice he was born with the 32 lakchhyanas (physical characteristics) and 80 anubyanjanas (sub – characteristics). These are found only amongst those who will become a Chakravarti King or a Buddha. These two are concepts which existed in the sub-continent even before the time of Sakyamuni because we find the Brahmin Puskarswati sending his Brahmin disciple Ambatha to check whether Gautam was really a Buddha and had those characteristics or not. Ambatha was rude to the Buddha, he appears to be a snobbish Brahmin but when the learned Brahmin Puskarswati heard that Gautam indeed had those characteristics, he asked Ambatha "How did you behave with him?" When Ambatha told him how he behaved, it is said Puskarswati gave him a swat on the face and went himself to apologize for his disciple's rude behaviour. But it must be made cleat that these 32 lakchhyanas and anubyanjanas are not the same attributed to Krishna. These are a more ancient version of the 32 lakchhyanas. Some of the major part of which are a golden colored skin, a swirl of white hair between the eye brows, and a mound on top of the skull which gives the impression that he has tied his hair in a tuft on the crown. That tuft – like mound on top of all Buddha – statues is actually not a tuft of hair tied up in a bun above the crown as most non – Buddhist Nepalese think but rather a peculiar bump of the skull found only in the Buddha or a Chakravarti Kings, called the usnisa. These are characteristics not found in any non – Buddhist devas or yogis, although some of them are common. According to the Ambatha sutta, Digha Nikaya, these characteristics were well known to the Brahmins of the time of the Buddha and mentioned in their texts too. But, this knowledge seems to have become lost in the Brahmanical systems in later centuries after the Buddha, because we find in later Hindu texts, that the Buddha is made into an avatar of Visnu and Krishna whose very name means black is also said to have the 32 lakchhyanas. Even the Brahmins of the Buddha's time knew that a Buddha is as rare as the Udumbara flower. A flower said to bloom only when a Buddha attains full enlightenment and that was very rare. A Buddha arises only when the teachings of a Buddha before him has been totally lost. As there can be no two lions in the same forest so there can be no two Buddhas at the same time or two different teachings of two different Buddhas at the same time. So a new Buddha arises only after the sasana (dispensation) of the one before him has totally vanished. Right now the dispensation of Sakya Muni Buddha still exists and is going strong and so no other Buddha can arise. Maitreya Buddha will arise only after the dispensation of Sakya Muni has totally vanished.
Taking this metaphor (which should not be stretched too far like all other metaphors) we can say that the Buddha and only the Buddha could possible validate whether or not another person he has taught has experienced the same Bodhi or not. I am sure there can be no two thoughts about this much. This is exactly what the Buddha did when he declared hundreds of his disciples as arhats or srotapannas or sagridagami or bodhisattvas who had attained Darsan marga or higher up the ladder.
These new words bring us closer to what the Buddhists call enlightenment but we shall deal with them a little later after having dealt with the "Unbroken – enlightened lineage" issue first. So the Buddha historically validated different levels of enlightenment amongst his disciples; and this is recorded in Theravad, Sarvastivad, and Mahayan literature. Now that means these first generation disciples were enlightened to various degrees according to the Buddha himself. So, more than anybody else these disciples would be the authentic authorities on what was the Buddha's Bodhi. Now these disciples authenticated the degrees of enlightenment of their disciples who were the second generation. As these first generations had experienced themselves the Bodhi of the Buddha to various degrees, they would know better than anybody else which of their disciples had reached/attained/experienced various degrees of the Buddha's Bodhi. I do not think there can be two minds about it. Only a scientist can test whether a new student has the knowledge he himself has and definitely not a non – scientist. Likewise only Masters of Buddha's unbroken lineage can gauge whether the practitioners of the next generation have attained the Buddha's Bodhi to some degree or not and not other non – Buddhists. For this validation to remain authentic and pure, the lineage should be unbroken generation to generation from the time of the Buddha through the first generation, second generation, third generation etc etc. till the present time. Even if in one generation, there was no one who was validated as enlightened, the lineage is broken as far as enlightenment is concerned; even if it continues. That then is an unbroken lineage but not an enlightened unbroken lineage. There are other kinds of lineages like the pandit lineage of scholars, who have transmitted unbroken, the knowledge of the Buddha's teaching from generation to generation up to date. But that is not an unbroken enlightened lineage but and unbroken pandit lineage. The pandit lineage can not validate authentically the experience of someone as valid Buddhist enlightenment or not. It can only infer based on scriptures. In the Buddhism of today, as a whole both the lineages exist unbroken and alive. It is the Masters of these lineages who are the authentic disseminators of the Buddha's teachings and not others no matter how brilliant or profound their explanations of the Buddha's teachings are.
Published on 7-13 May 2007 Issue
Actually since such lineage Masters of both types of lineage exist in abundance in both the Mahayana and Sravakayana tradition, many of them being holders of both lineages, there's no need for others who do not belong to such authentic lineages to explain or even teach Buddhism based on one's own personal ideas. The Buddha's teaching is still alive and dynamic. It is not a thing of the past history which can be explained according to one's preferences and conditionings. So this is the meaning of unbroken enlightened lineage and unbroken pandit lineage. Within Buddhism, there is also an unbroken Bhikchhu lineage from the time of the Buddha till today. Some Masters hold all the three unbroken lineages. They are enlightened Masters authenticated by their Masters who themselves were authenticated by their Masters thus going backwards to the Buddha himself, but at the same time are also pandits, taught by pandits of an unbroken lineage who were themselves taught by such pandits going back to Sakya Muni himself and they were also Bhikchhus, made by Bhikchhus by older generations, who themselves were made by Bhikchhus by older generations going back right upto Sakya Muni himself. These are not unrecorded facts; but well recorded. In Mahayana, which consists of two Major streams :- 1. Paramitayana 2. Vajrayana, the names of the unbroken lineage Masters from Masters of present day back to Nalanda, Bikramashila etc etc are well recorded and available even today. And everybody knows that these great Mahavihars were like huge universities whose lineage goes back to the Buddha. People from as far away as China, Korea, Central Asia, Greece, Egypt came to study in these learning houses which were virtually Mahaviharas (Great monastic complexes). And those Mahayana lineages of those Mahavihars were unbroken and continue to remain alive and vibrant up till this day. The meaning of the sutras and sastras of Buddhism should be according to the Masters of such lineages and not otherwise. There have been many interpreters of the Buddha's teachings in the Indian subcontinent who never studied under any of the authentic lineage masters. Needless to say people are free to interpret as they deem fit the teachings of the Buddha but such interpretations should not be mistaken as authentic Buddhism.
Published on 14-20 May 2007 Issue
While dealing with various interpretation or more aptly misinterpretation of Buddhism made by non-buddhist yogis and the like it seems apt to point out some of the more common ones before continuing with the lineage issue. One of the oft repeated concept is that the Buddha actually taught, the same thing as the Vedanta of the Vedic system but his disciples did not understand him. Now a lot of non-buddhists believe with ease such blatant fallacies. First of all, as we have seen, the Buddha himself validated the scholastic and experiential understanding of all his immediate disciples and their lineages still exist unbroken. So to say that the Buddha's disciples who walked the breadth of North India with him and studied with him for forty years or more and were validated by the Buddha himself, that they fully understood what he taught, did not understand him while non-buddhist swamis and yogis really understood him and that too after two thousand five hundred years afterwards is indeed a bit far fetched to say the least. No rational person could possibly agree with such flagrant distortion of reality.
A corollary to the above misconception is that the Buddha actually taught what was in the Vedas but his disciples either did not understand his teaching or distorted them. An aspect of the above mentioned misconception has already been shown as totally absurd. But there is another aspect which needs to be dealt with. As the Buddha's immediate disciples had experienced in their own mental continuum what the Buddha meant, there could not possibly have been any distortion. And as the living enlightened lineages continue to date, which means that each generation experienced in their mental continuum, the exact meaning of the Buddha's teachings, to claim that the Buddhists distorted the Buddha's teachings and that's why it has become so different from the Vedic teachings, is the height of naivety.
And this brings us to another similar misconception about Buddhism. Most Hindu scholars, or otherwise, would like to believe that the Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. This misunderstanding is rampant amongst educated Hindus and is a correlate of the story fabricated in the 16th century and later in the Shiva Purana and its likes, that the Buddha was an incarnation of Visnu. First of all Hinduism as it is known today did not exist at the time of the Buddha, so there can be no question about Buddhism being a branch of Hinduism. In fact, according to historical records and anthropological studies, what we call Hinduism is 75% derived from Buddhism and is the offspring of the impact of Buddhism on the Brahmanic system. What existed in the Buddha's time was a form of Brahmanism, that was quite different from what is known as Hinduism today. From ancient times there were two streams of spiritual quest in the Indian sub-continent. One was Sramanism and the other was Vedic Brahmanism. These two streams did interact with each other as is seen clearly in the Upanishads of the Brahmanic systems and the sutras of the Buddhists and Jains who were both members of the sramanic system. It should be kept in mind that both the Buddha and Mahavir called themselves Mahasramans, which is a clear indication that they did not subscribe to the Brahmanic systems. In one of the most famous mantras of Buddhism 'ye dharma hetu prabaha hetustathagato hyevadat tesancha yo nirodho evam badi mahasramana, Aswajit, the famous Brahmin disciple of the Buddha called the Buddha Mahasramana. Sramanism was probably older than the Vedic Brahmanism, that, according to many historians came into India when the Indo-Aryans transmigrated into the Indian sub-continent, from Central Asia. But there are many who do not agree to this view. However, Sramanism is definitely an indigenous spiritual tradition of the Indian subcontinent, and there is no two thoughts about this.
We see the transactions between the Sramans and Brahmins in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad 3.6.1 where we find Gargi (who is often vaunted as the daughter of Nepal) challenging the Brahmin Yagyavalkya. We know that Gargi was a Sraman by the fact that she stuck a twig of the rose-apple (Jambu tree) as a sign of challenge. And also the style of questioning of Gargi is a shade different from the questions put forth by the many other Brahmins in that same text. The Brihadaranyak is thought to be at least 2-3 hundred years older than the Buddha if not older. So Sramanism was an equally old (if not older) stream of spiritual system as Brahmanism and the Buddha has clearly called himself Mahasraman. This would clearly imply that Buddhism is definitely not an off-shoot of Brahmanism, what to speak of Hinduism which is a product of Brahmanism's interaction with Buddhism and thus something that developed in the Indian sub-continent after the Buddha. We could give scholastic quotes to validate this but it's not necessary in an article like this. Vedic Brahmanism metamorphosed drastically due to the catalytic influence of Buddhism and others and became the multifarious system under the generic name of Hinduism.
Published on 21-27 May 2007 Issue
But of course, we cannot say that Buddhism was not influenced by Vedic Brahmanism and later Hinduism at all. That would be too naïve. However, in the give and take which is inevitable in any culture within a space of time (and Buddhism covered 75% of India and 75% Asia for sixteen or so hundred years), it was Hinduism which took mostly from Buddhism and not the other way around.
Another interrelated myth is that it was Sankaracharya who defeated the Buddhists all over India and that is how Buddhism vanished from India or as the former President of India Dr. Radhakrishnan Sarvapulli put it, Hinduism embraced Buddhism and in the process killed it. Again these are myths running wild amongst Hindus of the Indian sub-continent; but they do not have any historical validity. This notion is given further credence to Nepalese, including Buddhist Newars by the Newari legend that Sankaracharya came to Nepal and defeated all the Buddhists, converted the kings and beheaded the Bhikchhus. First of all the Adi Sankaracharya was around the 7th century and great Mahavihars like Nalanda and Bikramashila were still running strong till the 12th /13th century when the Muslims over ran India and destroyed them. Secondly there were still Mahasiddhas like Naropa, Tilopa and many others till the Muslim invasion. So, Buddhism was still running strong five century after Adi Sankaracharya. And furthermore, the stories of Sankaracharya as written by Ananda Giri and Madhava etc. do not contain any element which mentions that he debated with the Buddhists all over India and defeated them. In fact those stories show Sankaracharya debating mostly with other non-advaita Hindus and rarely with the Buddhist. So, the misconception that Sankaracharya went up and down India defeating all the Buddhists and this is how Buddhism vanished from India seems to be baseless and fabricated by uneducated Non-Buddhists. Thirdly, the Sankaracharya that came to Nepal seems to be of the 11th-12th century or later and not the Adi Sankaracharya. He seems to have entered Nepal when Buddhism was beginning to decline in Nepal as a result of its having declined in India due to the Islamic invasion which literally destroyed Buddhism in India. So he did not find any match for his debates and was able to convert many people in Kathmandu. He may possibly be the same Harinanda who was defeated by the Great Tibetan Guru Sakya Pandit. However this is not conclusive. But the stories do say he died in Tibet. However he did not die before he created havoc amongst the Buddhists of Kathmandu Valley, who still do not seem to have recovered from the shock. Big learning houses like Nalanda, Bikramashila etc were raised to the ground and the monks beheaded and the books in the libraries burnt to cinders by the Islamic invaders like Bakhtiar, Khilji etc. It is said in the diary of Khilji's general that, the books of the library of Nalanda took six months for the cinders to settle down and nine months for the smoke to settle down. So much destruction took place all over the Indian subcontinent. It said one of the reasons why the Buddhist monasteries were specially picked out by the Islamic invaders is that they mistook the monks in uniform monk dress as uniformed army men and the books in the library as books on warfare et al. This happened in the 12th/13th century, almost 5 centuries after Sankaracharya. Till then Buddhism was still flourishing strong in the Indian subcontinent.
Published on 28 May - June 3 2007 Issue
Yes the Adi Sankaracharya refuted the Buddhist tenets in his commentaries of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra; but the Buddhists have also equally refuted the concepts of Sankara. Debate and refutation was both ways till the Islamic Invasion. It was only after Buddhism was literally raised to the ground by the Islamic Invaders that present day Hinduism, which is a metamorphosed form of Vedic Hinduism, began to raise its head. Till then 75% of Indian subcontinent and 75% Asia was Buddhist. From the time of the Buddha and specially from the 1st/2nd century till the 11th/12th century, when the Vajrayana form of Buddhism was in sway, Buddhist art, philosophy and logic developed to its fullest potential. It can certainly be said that, that was the golden period of Indian culture as a whole and Indian Buddhism specifically. This was also the period when, as a result of interaction with Buddhism, Hinduism also developed to its cream. It should be remembered that Sankaracharya who is considered as the cream of Hinduism by an overwhelming majority of the Hindus, was a product of the 6/7th century and many ancient Hindus like Bhaskaracharya etc even called him pracchanna Bauddha (crypto Buddhist). Why did these Hindu pillars call Sankaracharya a crypto-Buddhist? This is not because he, his philosophy or tenets were like the Buddhists'. No, far from it, he has attempted to refute the Buddhist tenets. It is because he has used the Buddhist logical modus operandii to refute all his opponents which included the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. This clearly shows how even Sankara was influenced by Buddhism. The great Buddhist Nyaiyayik (logician) Dharmakirti literally changed the logical system of the Indian subcontinent with his Buddhist logical tenets.
Another big confusion is that the Buddhist Tantra was a result of the influence of Hindu Tantra on Buddhism. But the famous Indian Iconographist Benoytosh Bhattacharya has amply proven that it is the other way around. Hindu Tantra developed after Buddhist Tantra (Vajrayana) reached its acme in the Indian subcontinent. One of the oldest Hindu Tantric literature the Pichu Tantra also called the Rudrayamala and the Brahmayamala very clearly states that Vasistha went to Mahachina (Tibet) to study the tantric methods with Shiva-rupi Buddha. Now till the 12th century, Tibetans came down to the hot plains of India to study the tenets of Vajrayana in the great learning houses like Nalanda/Bikramashila etc. Now this means this oldest Hindu Tantra was written after the 12th century and not before that. It was written after Vajrayana vanished from India after the Islamic Invasion. Although Hindu Tantra developed as a result of the influence of Vajrayana on the entire subcontinent, the two are only apparently similar. A deeper probe into both of them exposes a tremendous difference not only of the paradigms on which each is based but also on the principles on which each is based, the path followed by each and the final goal of each.
The entire Hindu Tantric systems are themselves diverse; some based on Shakti, others on Shiva and some on Visnu. The objective of most of them is to unite with the deity and finally attain Brahma, Parasamvit or Sambhava states. Excepting the dualistic tantras, they are all varieties of advaita Vedanta where other names substitute the Brahma of the Vedanta. Most of them are geared towards the realization of the Eternal unchanging self called the Atma in the entire Hinduistic system. Now the whole of Buddhist Tantra is geared to the realization of emptiness (sunyata) which is a subtle form of Anatma.
Published on 4-10 June 2007 Issue
Hinduistic Tantra is based on the experience of an eternally existing, unchanging entity called the true Self or true Atman, whereas the entire Buddhist Tantra is based on the experience that from the very beginning there is no eternally existing, unchanging Self. Both experience is a non-dual experience. In the Hindu system one merges non-dually with the eternal, unchanging Self and that is the non-dual experience. In Buddhist Tantra one sees through that there is no eternal, unchanging Self as opposed to the changing world. So there is no two, i.e. advaya. Many scholars have been confused by similar words like advaita/advaya and many others used in both the systems and believe that they are two versions of the same thing. Nothing could be further away from the truth. There are also many differences in the path; but that would require detailed technical nitty gritties which is not the purpose of this article. So we shall stop here about these points. All forms of Mahayana Buddhism within which Vajrayana lies, uses Sanskrit as its lingua franca. Since Hinduism and Hindu Tantra also uses Sanskrit, and because Buddhism and Hinduism developed first and foremost within the cultural milieu of the Indian subcontinent, it is not surprising that similar words are used in both system. For example, words like mantra, dhyana, Samadhi are common to both but do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing and one must not be fooled by the use of such common words to conclude that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same. One famous Nepalese Brahmin scholar saw that the word Bhairava is used in the mantra of Bignantak and used that as a proof that the Buddhist worship Bhairava and thus they are the same. In the Buddhist context the word only means wrathful and not any particular deity as is the case in Hinduism. The two tantric systems of the Indian subcontinent are as different from each other as Theravada is from Vaisnavism. Only the name Tantra is the same but even the exact definition of tantra in each of the system is drastically different. So these are some of the myths about Buddhism rampant amongst non-buddhists of Nepal which needed to be exploded.
These rampant confusions exist amongst the non – buddhists of the Indian subcontinent because, it has been over nine centuries since Buddhism was erased from the memory of the Indian subcontinent. It is common place for absurd rumors to spread like wild fire in the absence of authentic information.
The people of the Indian subcontinent came to believe that Buddhism had died out completely and did not exist at all; so each was free to interpret it according to one's own predilictions. But in reality Buddhism continued to survive in full fledge in other lands where it was taken by the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent themselves. Buddhism is still alive and dynamic in Central Asia, Mongolia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Bhutan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, the Cis – Himalayan regions of Nepal and India, and in the Kathmandu Valley. But remarkably enough blinded by their own cultural preconceptions, biases and prejudices even the non – buddhists of the Kathmandu Valley who could not but rub shoulders with it constantly, were completely oblivious about its reality and continued to subscribe to the rumors made up by their Indian Gurus. This is indeed one of the world's best epitome of how blind spots control the human mind, that in Nepal where Buddhism never died, the non – buddhist populace virtually know nil about authentic Buddhism.
Published on 11-17 June 2007 Issue
Now let’s go back to the unbroken enlightened lineages. Within Buddhism from very ancient times, and in fact according to the Buddhist notion, even in the times of former Buddhas there were three distinct highways. They are called :-1. The Sravakyana 2. The Pratyek buddhayana 3. The Bodhisatvayana also sometimes called the Samyak sambodhiyana. The goals, that is the enlightened state of each of them, though similar are not exactly the same. Thus the enlightenment of the Sravakyana is called Sravak Bodhi which is the enlightenment of the Arhat, and this is not according to Buddhism itself the same as the Pratyek bodhi which is the enlightenment of a pratyek Buddha and both of the above are not exactly the same as the Samyagsambodhi of a Samyak sambuddha. Now here within the Buddhist tradition itself we find three different enlightenments and this is something we have found that most non-buddhist teachers were totally unaware of. Here we shall take issue with all those who believe or claim that the enlightenment taught by the Buddha is the same enlightenment as taught by other non-Buddhist Masters including those who claim to be Buddhists or teach Buddhism but do not stem from any authentic Buddhist lineages. If Buddhism itself says there are 3 different enlightenments which may be similar but not exactly the same, how can others claim that non-buddhist enlightenment and the enlightenment of the Buddha are the same? It is not even clear which of the three Bodhis they are talking about when they claim that their enlightenment is the same as the enlightenment of the Buddha. Not only that much, according to the Theravadin sutta, Samyukta Nikaya (which is a form of Sravakayan) the two agrasravakas (foremost disciples of the Buddha, Maudgalyayana and Sariputra) had penetrated Dhammadhatu (in Sanskrit Dharmadhatu) which even the other Arhats had not penetrated. So to claim that whatever other non-buddhist Masters call enlightenment (Bodhi) is the same enlightenment as the Buddha and his disciples is to display gross ignorance about what Buddhism is all about. The goal of Sravakyana is Sravak bodhi which is the same as to say to become an Arhat. An Arhat is someone whose kleshas (emotional defilements) have become totally extinguished. Unless a person has became totally free from all klesha to claim that she/he is an Arhat is like a fox claiming that she/he is a lion. There are two different types of Arhats, those who become Arhats through samatha and vipassana practice and those who become Arhats through what is called Sukkha Vipassana/Vipassyana which means practicing Vipassana after attaining only the first dhyana. The former have pratiharya (miraculous powers) whilst the latter usually have less of it. Now these Arhats are neither Buddhas nor is their Bodhi (enlightenment) considered as Samyak Sambodhi, i.e. the enlightenment of the Buddha, what to speak of the enlightenment of non-buddhist systems. Likewise there is the enlightenment of the Pratyek-Buddhas called Pratyek bodhi which is neither the same as the Arhats' nor that of a Buddha.
Published on 18-24 June 2007 Issue
Pratyekbuddhas arise only in the gaps between the teachings of two Buddhas. They do not appear at other times. For example, when the dispensation of Sakya Muni has become completely extinct, there will be a gap between the extinction and the coming of Maitreya Buddha. It is during this period that Pratyek Buddhas will arise. They are those who have already practiced in many lives with other Buddhas and they will practice based on their memories of the teachings of the Buddhas under whom they practiced before, when the Buddhas teaching have become completely extinct. It is said that at the moment when they attain Pratyek bodhi, no matter what their get-up was they will miraculously be transformed into full fledged Bhikchhus along with the Bhikcchu dress. These Pratyek Buddhas do not teach like Arhats or Buddhas. They are loners or live in groups of Pratyek Buddhas and only answer questions asked but do not formally teach. Needless to say, there are no Pratyek Buddhas now at this period when the dispensation of Sakyamuni is still alive. Nor has anyone heard any particular person miraculously turning into a Bhikchhu with all its regalia at the point of his enlightenment. And this is correct, because Pratyek Buddhas will not arise until Shakyamuni's sasan (dispensation) has completely died out. Now let us talk about Samyak Sambodhi which is the enlightenment of a Buddha. First of all a bodhisattva (i.e. a being destined to be a Buddha in the future) begins his career by making the resolve in front of a living Buddha, that he too has determined to become a Buddha like himself to be able to free immeasurable sentient beings from sorrow. Then his career begins. The career or path of the Bodhisattva is practicing the six paramitas (sometimes also called the ten paramitas). These six paramitas are practiced from three to four asankhya kalpas during which period the Bodhisattva crosses through the five paths called the pancha marga. Various lineages like Theravada, Mahasangikas, Sarvastivadins have different categorizations in order to explain the path of the Bodhisattvas; but they are not really different in essence. Here, however, we shall use the explanation of Mahayana-Vajrayana which is similar to that of the Sarvastivadins. It is only these who make the resolve to become a Buddha in front of a living Buddha and practice the six or ten paramitas for 3 to 4 Asankhya Kalpas, who become a Buddha as a culmination of their path and not others. No other person, no matter how intelligent and how great a meditator can and should be called a Buddha. To become a Buddha one must cross the pancha marga (the five paths) and these may take a longer or shorter time but there are no short cuts to Buddhahood – as some have misconceived. Perhaps an explanation of the pancha marga (five paths) will clarify the above statement; but let us finish with the unbroken enlightened lineage issue first.
Published on 25 June - July 1 Issue
Thus there are three distinct 'yanas' i.e. vehicles of which there are no unbroken lineages of the Pratyek Buddhas. The remaining two, the Sravakayana and the Bodhisattvayana were both taught by the Shakyamuni and their unbroken lineages continue till today. The teachings and lineages related to Sravak Bodhi continued to grow after the Parinirvana of the Shasta, and in later centuries developed into 18 distinct lineages called Nikayas. Some scholars say that they developed into 24 lineages. These were the Sravakayana lineages whose methods produced Arhats. Arhathood was the final stage of these lineages and not everybody was called an Arhat the moment he experienced some extraordinary state of mind. In fact, people go through four stages of enlightenment in which they become progressively free from Klesha until they become completely free of all klesha (emotional defilements). It is only those who have become completely free of all klesha, whose klesha have been completely destroyed, that are called Arhats, what to speak of Buddhas. In the Sravakayana it is the progressive experience of nirvandhatu (Pali: nibbandhatu) that is called enlightenment. And the first glimpse of nibbandhatu cuts off three major klesha and is called srotappatti. It means he has entered the stream (srota) which will carry him towards Arhathood. And he has become enlightened but not fully enlightened. There are two more stages of enlightenment before he becomes a fully enlightened Arhat. Many non-buddhist systems in the bazaar call the experience of thoughtless awareness, as enlightenment and some go even further and call people who experience such thoughtless pure awareness by itself as Buddhas. Needless to say, that is not even what the srotappanna experiences what to speak of an Arhat or even further a Buddha? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this point in the spiritual market especially in Nepal. So let's make this point clear once and for all. No form of Buddhism, Sravakayana or Bodhisattvayana claims that the experience of pure awareness by itself / Pure thoughtless Awareness / Watcher as the enlightened state. So people who experience only such states are not ever considered as enlightened let alone Arhats or Buddhas. Experiencing such states is relatively easy and quick. That does not make methods which produce such mind-states or awareness as the quick, short path. The path to Arhathood or Buddhahood is a slow and gradual path. The Buddha himself has said that extinguishing the klesha (emotional defilement) is a slow and gradual process and therefore becoming an Arhat or Buddha is a slow and gradual process. People who experience only the pure awareness by itself do not become permanently free of any klesha even after experiencing such a state which I have said is relatively easy to experience for anybody who has a mind. So let me recapitulate once again, just experiencing a thoughtless pure awareness by itself is not any kind of enlightened state nor is the ability to remain in that state an enlightened state. We shall speak in more detail about this point when we talk about the Buddhist enlightenment.
Published on 2-8 July Issue
Of the eighteen to twenty four Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada (which developed out of the Vibhajyyavadin which itself developed out of the Sthabirvadins) remains today. However, it is still alive, dynamic and going strong. It has many lineages and there are still enlightened masters in Laos, Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka. And these masters are both householders (upasakas / upasikas) and monks and nuns (Bhikchhus / Bhikchhunis). However, the Bhikchhuni lineage of the Theravada tradition has been broken. But China still have an unbroken Bhikchhuni sanga of the Mahasangika Nikayas. For anybody to become even a srotappanna, what to speak of an Arhat, one must study and practice under such lineage masters and be confirmed by such a Master. This is how the Buddhist system works from the time of the Shasta (Master) himself. It was the Buddha himself who declared and thus stamped the authenticity of the Srotappanna, Sakridagami, Anagami and Arhats of his time. In fact, there is a story that some Bhikchhus who had reached the very high state of Anagami (those who will not return to human forms) claimed that they had reached Arhathood; but when the Buddha was told about this, he called them and told them they had not become Arhats yet. This story implies that only Arhats and Buddhas can know whether a person has become an Arhat or not and that the individual himself cannot possibly know it and can easily be fooled. This is the raison d'etre for an unbroken enlightened lineage. All forms of Buddhism and specially lineages of the Mahayana place great importance and value to the purity of such an authentic unbroken enlightened lineage.
No yogi / yoginis or practitioner is accepted as a Genuine Master (Guru) no matter how intelligent he may be, no matter how hard he may have practiced, no matter how many years he has spent in retreat, no matter how scholarly he is, no matter how much of an orator he may be, until and unless he is authenticated by a master or masters of such authentic unbroken enlightened lineages. This is the Buddhist culture in all Buddhist countries where the unbroken enlightened lineages have not died out. This issue is crucial not only to understand what is genuine, authentic Buddhism but also for the existence of authentic Buddhism itself. So, forget about non-buddhists who have never practiced any form of genuine Buddhist practices of either the Sravakayana or the Bodhisattvayana even by reading genuine, authentic books of Buddhism; even those who have studied and practiced for long periods under authentic masters do not dare pretend to be Masters until and unless, older Masters authenticate them as Masters.
Published on 9 -15 July 2007 Issue
A very good example is that of the famous scholar of Zen Buddism Professor Dr. D. T. Suzuki. He was a good practitioner of Zen Buddhism, and had attained a very high level. He wrote many books on Zen Buddhism which was crucial in popularizing Zen Buddhism in the west. When he died not a few masters said that he was already enlightened. But because he had never sat for the dharma – battles (The Zen system of interview) with any of the older Masters, he never received the title of Roshi / Zenji / Osho etc. which are the authentication of his enlightenment from any of the Masters; he himself never called himself an Osho or Zenji or Roshi which are all Japanese words. Zenji means Zen Master, Roshi means old venerable Master which is given to a disciple whether he be a lay person or a monk, when he completes the training and the Master is satisfied that he has attained the final Satori (enlightenment). This entitles him to teach. In the Rinzai school of Zen the person has to complete the course by answering a series of three or four hundred koans. Koans are questions which point directly to the nature of mind and dharma and the student has to show that he has experienced directly what is being pointed out by the question. In essence they are not questions but fingers pointing to the dharmata of all dharmas (phenomena). We shall talk more about this later when we describe the Zen lineages. For now, no one is entitled to call himself Roshi unless he has completed this course and been validated by his own Master and at least 3-4 other masters. The word Osho is also a Japanese word which is given to a Master who is a monk. It is made up of two Chinese ideographs which is pronounced as Hwa Shang in Chinese, and in Japanese the pronunciation varies with the particular lineage. The Zen and Pureland Schools pronounce those two ideographs as Osho, while the Tendai school pronounces those same ideographs as Kasho and in the Shingon School (Japanese Vajrayana) it is pronounced as Wajo; and they originate from the Sanskrit Upadhyaya (Pali Upajjaya) which means 'Master' in the sense of teacher. A layman cannot be an Osho / Upadhyaya. The meaning of Osho does not mean ‘to be one with or disappear in the ocean’ or one who has attained Bhagvatta upon whom the sky showers flowers or Ocean of wisdom as some non-buddhists with very little knowledge of Buddhism have posited; but means the teacher who is an old monk specially. Now going back to the example of Professor Dr. Suzuki, even though he was already enlightened, according to many Zen Masters, since he was never authenticated by any of the older Masters, he never called himself an Osho / Zenji / Roshi or Zen Master. Even though he wrote many books on Zen; he never took on students to guide them on the path. This is the spirit of genuine Buddhism. It is a true display of the authentic experience of anatma (Japanese Muga). And this is a genuine Buddhist culture, a culture based on modesty (Hri - apatrapya) and no-self (anatma).
Published on 16-22 July Issue
Another example from the Sravakayana tradition (Theravada) is of Achan Jha (Acharya Jha) of the Thai – Laos Mountain. He was renowned to be an Arhat but when a journalist approached him and asked him the question, he said "How can I be an Arhat?" This answer has a double entendre. One, he just clearly denied it and second he was also teaching the journalist that as long as there is an 'I' , there is no Arhat, when there is 'no – I' (anatma) there is no one to be an Arhat. This beautiful answer hits the heart of the entire Buddhist tradition.
Now let us go back to the lineage issues. Within Buddhism there always have been two major lineages – 1. The Sravakayana lineages and 2. The Bodhisattvayana lineages. Let us first talk about the Sravakayana lineages. From the time of Shakyamuni the Sravakayana lineages grew, expanded and branched out into 18 to 24 Nikayas. Each Nikaya had its tripitaka written in its own language. For example, the Shaila and Purva shaila Nikayas had their tripitakas in the Paisachi language, the Sarvastivadins had their tripitaka in the Sanskrit language and the Theravadins had their tripitaka in the Pali language. The Buddha himself is said to have discouraged his teachings being formalized in any one language. When a group of Brahmin disciples suggested to him to record all his teachings in the 'Chanda' (Vedic Sanskrit) he discouraged that and unequivocally reiterated that his teachings should be made accessible in all languages. That is why the tripitakas developed in so many languages. Of the 24 or so nikayas today only the Theravada is alive while the tripitakas of the Sarvastivadas exist in the Chinese language. While the Theravadin tripitaka remained in the Pali language which was a language developed out of the Saurseni family of Indian language for the express purpose of maintaining high philosophical standards, the Sanskrit pitaka of the Sarvastivadins and the Prakrit pitaka of the Mahasanghikas were further translated into Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese, Mongolian etc etc following the injunctions of the Buddha himself. The Mahayan Pitaka also was in Sanskrit and later in accordance with the inner intention of the Buddha, translated into Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese, Mongolian, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and various Central Asian languages. So of all the various Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada is alive today and still going strong. The Theravada Nikaya spread to Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Southern Vietnam. This system began when in the 3rd century King Asoka's son Bhikkhu Mahinda (Mahendra) took the Pitaka prevalent in Ujjain in the Pali language from Ujjain to Sri Lanka. Since then the lineage spread to Burma and Thailand. Although Burma was already Buddhist, the Sri Lankan Theravada reformed and gave it an impetus. The Bhikkhu lineages and the Samatha and Vipassana lineages of the Theravada School are still running strong and unbroken in these countries. Because a form of Sukkha Vipassana from Burma arrived in Nepal through the Venerable Sri Goenka, many Nepalese, including those who should know better, are a not a little confused about the Vipassana meditation.
Published on 23-29 July Issue
Most Nepalese who have heard of the word Vipassana and perhaps have attended the Vipassana Shibirs (retreats) of The Venerable Sri Goenkaji in Budhanilkantha are of the impression that that is the one and only way that the Buddha taught (Ekayano Maggo). This notion is completely baseless. First of all there are many lineages of Vipassana existing even today in Burma itself whose methods are very different from the style of Vipassana taught by the Venerable Sri Goenkaji. It is certainly not the one and only true method that the Buddha taught. Two other methods of Vipassana taught in Burma is the lineage of Mahashi Sayadaw which is being taught in Sankhamula even today; and the lineage of Sun Lun Sayadaw. There are many other lineages existing in Burma which are all different from each other; but are all pure Vipassana methods. Then there are many other different lineages still existing, still going strong and still producing enlightened Masters in the Laos Mountains, Thailand and Sri Lanka. They are all true teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps we need to explain a few points here. All these methods are based on the teachings of the Buddha like the smrityupasthan Sutra (Pali: Satipathan Sutta). Let us take the Satipathan Sutta. In it the Buddha simply says look at the body (kaya), look at the feeling sensations (vedana), look at the mind (chitta) and look at the mental – factors (chaitta / chaitasik or dharma) with smriti – samprajanya (sati – sampajana) which means with mindfulness or mindful comprehension. Now let us look at one of them. The Buddha say look at the Vedana, when it arises and when it ceases and know that it has arisen (udaya) and it has ceased (vyaya). Now if you understand this, we can easily see that many methods could be used to see the arising and ceasing of Vedana and not just one way. For example, you could scan the body from top of the head to the tip of the toes and back again to the head to observe the Vedanas there and that is a correct way but definitely not the one and only way.
In the Therigatha, a Theravadin text and part of the Theravada tripitaka, an old woman attained Arhathood by simply going around and around the wall of the nunnery feeling the sensations on the hands as she used her hands to support herself on the wall. She did not look at her vedanas from the top of the head to the toes etc. The methods of Mahashi Sayadaw is to look at the sensations in the stomach region as one breaths. It is looking at vedana that arises and ceases in the stomach / belly area as one breathes; and the Shasta (Master) taught to look at the Vedana. So it is equally a valid method of Vipassana. The method of Sun Lun Sayadaw is to breathe heavily until strong sensations are produced all around the body and to look at it just as the Shasta (Master) prescribed. It is an equally valid method of Vipassana. But those are just two from Burma itself which have not yet made an impact in Nepalese Circle.
Published on 30 July - 5 August 2007 Issue
We Nepalese tend to be like frogs in a well and believe whatever is within my well in the one and only truth, full stop! This is a dangerous attitude as far as Buddhism is concerned. The Shasta himself said to Chanki in the Majjhima Nikaya that learned people should never say "This is the only truth" and close their mind to all other possibilities. Then there are many powerful Vipassana systems in Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka which are pure Theravada systems based on the Theravada pitaka and coming through long unbroken lineages. In fact, according to Nyan Ponika Thera, a German Theravadin Bhikkhu, the Burmese Sukkha Vipassana lineages all began from Jetavan Sayadaw about a hundred and fifty years ago. If this is true, none of the Burmese lineages are unbroken lineages.
But whether they are unbroken lineages or not they are based firmly on the unalloyed interpretation of the Buddha's teachings and are not mixed with other non-buddhist views however the Pandit lineages and the Bhikkhu lineages of Burma are unbroken. But if these Burmese Sukkha Vipassana are not unbroken lineages (as pointed out by Theravada scholars themselves), then many fine points will be missing. The marga is not matter of just looking at vedana or chitta etc only. There are many aspects of the marga which is handed down in an unbroken enlightened lineage like the nitty gritties of when to push, when to relax, when to recognize that the winds are being disturbed by meditation, what are the medicines for the wind – disturbances, what are the landmarks on the path and how to use them, the development of sraddha which is equally as important to become an Arhat or Bodhisattva etc etc. There are thousands of such things which will be missing in a broken lineage. The richness of meditation – lore, experiential – lore handed down through the unbroken enlightened lineages cannot be compensated for by reading books or conducting seminars. The experiential – richness of a Master cannot be compensated by any other means. The presence of an authentic Master itself acts like a catalyst for the transformation of the practitioner. There is a story in the Theravadin tradition itself (Anguttara Nikaya) that the Master told one of his attendant not to go to retreat during the three month monsoon period (varsabas); but disobeying him, the attendant nevertheless went for the retreat. After 3 months, he came back and told the Buddha that he had absolutely no experience in those three months of retreat. The Buddha told him, 'I told you not to go.' This episode tells us a few things.
1. The path is not merely sitting down and meditating even if the meditation is correct.
2. Without the backing of a genuine enlightened Master, even if you really sit hard in meditation, nothing authentic is going to happen.
3. This is a good warning for all those who think they can read books and practice on their own and avoid any contact and interaction with another living being who has deeper experience than himself. This avoidance or fear of interaction with another personality is itself a neurosis, which will keep him stuck wherever he is and is a sign of big ego.
Published on 6-12 August Issue
But from what I have known, the Laos and Sri Lankan and Thai lineages are unbroken. Even Sri Lankan Theravadin scholars have objected that the Burmese Sukkha Vipassana is the true teachings of the Buddha. But in spite of these Theravadin scholars' objections the Burmese Kalyanmitras spread their system throughout the world.
These are facts most Nepalese, including those who are supposed to be experts in Vipassana, are blissfully unaware of. The word Vipassana in the Theravadin scholastic system means to 'see' in a special way 'visesena passati' or to see it holistically from many angles 'vividena passati'. This is the same definition found within the Mahayana tradition. Various forms of Vipassyana (the Sanskrit version of the Pali Vipassana) exist in the Mahayana tradition too and are equally pure teachings of the Buddha. But we are jumping ahead and we shall deal with this matter when we come to the bodhisattvayana lineages.
Also within the Theravada system, the form of Vipassana which emphasizes looking at the sensations (vedana) is only one kind of Vipassana and it is certainly not more special than other forms of Vipassana which lay emphasis on looking at the body (kayanussati) or mind (chittanussati) or mental – factors (dhammanussati). Nor is vedananussati the one that Shasta emphasized as the root practice of all practice. There are no suttas in the Theravada tradition to validate that. In fact, it is stated that in the Visuddhimagga that the exercise of mindfulness of the body had never been practiced before the advent of the Buddha, nor does it come within the scope of any of the other religious systems. It is praised in various ways by the Buddha in different Suttas; for example, "there is one state, monks, which, being developed and repeatedly practiced conduces to great religious emotion, great benefit, great freedom from bondage, great mindfulness and self – possession, the attainment of knowledge and insight, the happy state in this visible life, the realization of the fruit of knowledge and release. What is that one state? Mindfulness of the body ………"
Again, "those who do not enjoy mindfulness of body do not enjoy deathlessness (amata); those who enjoy mindfulness of the body enjoy deathlessness. Those who have not enjoyed mindfulness of the body have not enjoyed deathlessness; those who have enjoyed mindfulness of the body have enjoyed deathlessness. Those who have neglected mindfulness of the body have neglected deathlessness; those who have not neglected mindfulness of the body have not neglected deathlessness." – (Anguttara Nikaya I 43-45) and Nagarjuna says that kayagatanusmriti is the most important meditation taught by the Shasta.
Published on 13-19 August Issue
Various Theravadin meditation techniques continue to proliferate in the various Theravadin countries. They maintain strong Samatha – Vipassana lineages. These Masters are not only monks, but also are, as the Buddha himself would have it, householders, both female and male. The nun (Bhikchhuni) system has been broken in the Theravadin system but, the Mahasangika Bhikchhuni system still exists unbroken in the Chinese system.
As we said earlier the Theravada is only one of 18 – 24 Nikayas (lineages) of the Sravakayana system. However, today only the Theravada lives on, the others vanished along with the rest of Buddhism from the Indian subcontinent. By the time of the Muslim invasion 11 – 12th century, Theravada had already left the Indian subcontinent and had been transplanted in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia. So, even if all other forms of Buddhism vanished from India, the Theravada Nikaya continued to flourish and proliferate in the South – East Asian countries. This was merely a historical fluke. Likewise, various forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana had entered China, Tibet, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Central Asia and the entire Cis – Himalayan belt from Kashmir to North Eastern Frontier of Arunachal before the Muslim Invasion and continued to thrive strongly in those countries just as the Theravada Nikaya of the Sravakayana continued to thrive in the countries it had reached before the Muslim Invasion. It is important to understand that we cannot compare the Theravada with the Mahayana because the Theravada is a lineage within Sravakayana and thus only one of the 18 – 24 Nikayas or lineages of Sravakayana, whereas the Mahayana is not one particular lineage but rather a conglomeration of a vast array of lineages. That is why Theravada is a more uniform and homogenous system as it is one lineage amongst the many lineages of Sravakayana. The Sravakayana is not uniform as there were at least 18 – 24 different lineages, all Sravakayana. But Mahayana is a counterpart of Sravakayana. Thus Mahayana like Sravakayana has many lineages within it. Because of that it appears to be more heterogeneous and diversified. Thus we cannot compare Mahayana and Theravada. We can compare Zen or Tien Tai and Theravada because they are single more homogenous lineages within the Mahayana and Sravakayana systems respectively. However, within the Theravada system there are many diverse lineages teaching different modes, styles and emphasis on the Samatha – Vipassana meditations of Buddhism. And this is rightly so, because in his forty or so years of dispensation, the Buddha certainly did not teach just one method or technique or style.
First of all the Buddha taught many types of people and naturally as a skillful doctor he would dispense teachings according to the needs and temperaments and capacities of the person. Famous and learned Brahmin Pandits came to him and he taught them, simple village folks came to him and he taught them, people with sharp intellects, people with great faith in him all came to him. Thus it is most natural that he taught many styles, modes, techniques. If he were to have taught just one straight forward method to all and sundry he would have been very unskillful to say the least. Secondly in the Theravadin suttas themselves, he has given many modes and styles of meditation: Samatha – Vipassana. In the Satipatthan Sutta he gave the methods of watching four different things to attain insight into the characteristics of all phenomena. In the Udayi Sutta, Anuttariya Vaggo of Anguttara Nikaya, he has given other methods of Vipassana like pabbhassar sangya, ratri sangya, diwa sangya etc etc. He has said that people can attain liberation through these methods also which means they are other forms of Vipassana different from Vedananussati and the others mentioned in the Satipatthan Sutta.
Published on 20-26 August Issue
As for styles, although the Buddha himself never conducted intensive group retreats, he often did tell his disciples to sit under a tree, or an abandoned house and spend their time meditating. But today, intensive group retreats have become common in both Mahayana systems like Zen Tien Tai, Vajrayana and Theravada. However, there are Theravadin Acharyas like Achan Jha of the Laos Forest Mountain tradition of Theravada who decry such intensive retreats as unnatural, not conducive to enlightenment and not taught by the Buddha. He emphasizes a more relaxed and natural, unforced style of gaining insight (Vipassana) into the nature of all dhammas.
Before I go into some of the various styles of meditation within Theravada itself I would like to elucidate a little on what the Buddha taught. Even though, as I said, he taught many varieties of teachings according to both the Theravada and the Mahayana traditions, they can all be subsumed into what is called the Tri Shikchhya; often translated as the Three Teachings or Three Trainings. The Tri Shikchhya are 1. Shila 2. Samadhi and 3. Pragya. Shila means living a life according to moral precepts. All Buddhist householders must take the 5 Shilas (Pancha Shila). There is also the taking of eight or ten Shilas during special ceremonies like uposatha (fasting) etc. Then there is the two hundred and fifty three Shilas taken by the Bhikchhus.
Shila is taken basically to purify the mind to some extent by not allowing the mind to remain in an emotionally defiled state. The purpose of Shila is to lighten the mind of emotional defilements (klesha) to some extent, and not to suppress the emotional defilements back into the subconscious mind. In Mahayana, the meaning of Shila is to help lighten self – oriented behaviours and the like. Shila should develop selfless behaviour. If following a rule is selfish in a context, then following that blindly is no more Shila but Shilabrataparamarsha i.e. grasping to Shila and rites and rituals no matter what the case. While Shila help in liberating the mind, Shilabrataparamarsha only bind the mind more and more.
Shilabrataparamarsha is to cling to ideas that following this ritual or that strictly sticking to precepts and rules will automatically liberate you, while Shila if followed properly can be liberating, if not properly understood and followed blindly can produce neurotic people who tend to be fundamentalists. The purpose of Shila is to open the mind to become more gentle and compassionate not to see other's faults and gloat over it. In modern psychotherapy those who pin – point others' faults or lack of Shila by that very act show that they are not free from that defilement but rather have repressed those defilements into their subconscious so well that it is projected onto others. That was not the purpose of the Buddha making these Shilas. If a mind has genuinely followed the Shila in the correct way, it opens up to the suffering and mistakes of others. It empathizes with the difficulties of being a human. Such a mind does not criticize others. But if in the name of Shila, one has only suppressed ones emotional defilements, then one tends to only see others as Shila breakers, one only sees others' faults and think one is pure. And this definitely was not the purpose why the Buddha considered Shila as one of the three Shikchya. Shila called Tsul Trim in the Tibetan tradition means 'cool'. It should cool the mind.
Published on 27 August - 2 September Issue
A cool mind is relaxed and open to the suffering of humans and aware of ones own human weakness. Such a mind cannot be critical but understanding and helpful. I would like to elucidate a story of Zen Master Bankei. There was one thieving monk in his monastery. This had been brought to his notice many times but besides telling the monk not to steal etc. he did not take any action to punish the thieving monk. This kept on going for quite a while until all the other monks in the monastery became fed up. One day they caught the monk red handed and took him to the Master. But again he did not seem to take any strict action. So all the monks got together and went to the Master and told him in no clear terms that either he kick out that thieving monk from the monastery or all the rest of them were going to leave the monastery. But to their utter surprise, the Master said "Ok if all the rest of you would like to leave you are free to leave." They were all shocked to say the least. After they recovered from the shock, they asked the Master, "How can you possibly drive all of the rest of monks like us who have adhered strictly to the Shila while taking the side of a thieving monk?" Osho Bankei coolly replied "You are all excellent monks who maintained your Bhikchhu Shila very well and can easily maintain them anywhere you go. So you all will be able to survive easily anywhere you go; but this poor kleptomaniac will not be able to adjust anywhere, so if I don't keep him who will keep him." This is the result of a mind that has opened to the suffering of others due to having maintained his Shila. Osho Bankei was able to empathize with the kleptomaniac monk, just like the Shasta (Master) empathized with Angulimala, who had already murdered nine hundred and ninety nine humans and strung their fingers in a garland. The Buddha's mind did not get heated up (perturbed) when he came to know about Angulimala, no, it remained calm and cool (Shila); but rather he empathized with the human – situation of Angulimala. As a result, Angulimala became an Arhat himself.
Shila is important because if followed properly it cools the mind. A cool mind is the stepping store to the next Shikchya called Samadhi. A mind beset by klesha (emotional defilements and neurotic tendencies) cannot attain Samadhi. That is why Shila is the corner – stone of all of Buddhism. Although all the three Shikchyas (trainings) are emphasized in all forms of Buddhism, it is often said that the Theravada system of South and South – East Asia is better known for its special emphasis on Shila, Tibet is better known for its special emphasis on Pragya while China is better known for its special emphasis on Samadhi. Chinese Buddhism has historically been well known for Samadhi till today, Tibetan Buddhism for the development of Pragya in all its three levels (Srutamayi, chintamayi and bhavanamayi) and the Theravadin tradition for laying great emphasis on Shila. This does not, of course, mean that there is no Shila or Samadhi in the Tibetan system or no Pragya and Shila in the Chinese system, no Pragya and Samadhi in the Theravada system. We are talking about the emphasis given to one of the three Shila in terms of the historical direction the system took.
In the Sravakayana systems, the emphasis is on the Shila and Theravada being a Sravakayana system; it is natural that the emphasis is on the Shila. Although there are Samatha (Samadhi) and Vipassana (Pragya) practices within the Theravadin system, the emphasis on Vipassana is a new dimension within Theravada which began approximately 150 years ago from Jetavana Sayadaw of Burma. Before that, Vipassana was limited within Theravada to only special Bhikkhus, whereas in Tibet Vipassyana (Tibetan: Lhag Thong) in the form of Mahamudra practices and Dzog chen practices were commonly given even to cow herders. In the Chinese systems and their satellite systems which flourished in Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc. too, Vipassyana was well known in various forms. The Chinese for Vipassyana / Vipassana is 'Kuan' and for Samatha is 'chi'. There seems to be a kind of misconception that Vipassana is taught only in the Theravadin system and that too only in Burma. This is based completely on lack of knowledge. As I said earlier, all the Tri Shikchya are in full form in all forms of Buddhism i.e. in Paramitayana and Vajrayana of Mahayana. This misconception began in Nepal because a form of Theravadin Vipassana arrived in Nepal in the late seventies and because it was presented in Nepali and Newari it became very popular very quickly; and the acharyas etc. of this particular system went around claiming that only their method is Vipassana and especially Mahayana does not have any Vipassana. But Samatha and Vipassyana of one form or the other have been taught and practiced in Tibet, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Central Asia and the Cis – Himalayan belts for centuries. As I said Samatha – Vipassyana is called Shiney – Lhagthong in Tibetan and Chi – Kuan in Chinese. And all the forms of meditation found within the Tibetan or Chinese Buddhism are one or the other forms of Samatha – Vipassyana.