« PreviousContinue »
have come to pass, and reveal themselves as such. He, with respect to them, remained in detachment, independent, unbound, loose, without mental barrier, knowing: "there is an escape beyond. From practising this, it just came to him."
This mental analysis is pursued through the four stages of Rūpa-jhāna and the five stages called Āruppa (§§ 265-76), plus trance.1 On emerging from the last, Sariputta is said to have judged that to be the limit-point of " escape ".
The Sutta, as are so many, is an obvious patchwork of editorial compiling, and dates without a reasonable doubt long after Sariputta had preceded his Master in leaving this world. We have first a stock formula of praise, spoken not once only of Sariputta (cf. Kindred Sayings, i, 87 f.; 242). Then, ex abrupto, this tradition of bis fortnight of systematic introspection. Then, ex abrupto, three more formulas of praise. And that is all. The Sutta, albeit put into the mouth of the Founder, is in no way a genuine discourse. It is a little "wreath" (Kranz) or album of Sāriputtiana handed down in probably the Sāvatthi traditional memorized records; or only put together (and badly) when the records were, after centuries, arranged in MSS. And there is sufficient in the Sariputta anthology and elsewhere to show that introspective meditation was held to have been a tendency in this disciple. For instance, his verses praise ajjhattarati :
Who loveth introspective work 2
But the intrusion of two words of anupada, and of vavatthita "determined "-which are not of the older idiom, suggest a later editing and show us that when this editing took place, the period of the compiling of the naïf crude analyses of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka was either at hand, or not far removed in time.
And that is not quite all there is to be said. Short as is the cataloguing of mental factors in the Sutta, as compared
1 The Dhs. does not include this, presumably because it involved cessation of that consciousness which it sets out to analyze. 2 Pss. of the Brethren, ver. 981.
with the overweighted specimens in the Dhammasangaṇi— sixteen factors as compared with about fifty-in that briefer catalogue two quite distinct lists are lumped together: five terms connected by "and . . . and . . . " and eleven terms without "and". In these lists contact" could only find its proper place as the very first of the whole sixteen terms.1 Such crude treatment possibly antedates by a little the editing of our present work. And further three in the list of eleven factors are among those so-called "or-whatever-others" (ye-va-panakā), which had somehow gone under when our book was edited, and are restored by the Commentarial tradition, when re-cast by Buddhaghosa, namely "desire, resolve, attention".
Buddhaghosa either did not know the Anupada-Sutta,1 or forgot to quote it. Yet to quote it is precisely what he would have done just here, when he was writing the Atthasālinī on the Dhammasangani. And his canonical erudition was remarkable. How did he come to overlook the Sutta?
This edition begins, as the first edition should have begun, with the real beginning of the Abhidhamma-Piṭaka, i.e. with the Mātikā or Table of Contents. It seems likely that this Table or Schema formed, in the earlier ages of the Order, the germ out of which the Third Piṭaka was evolved, and that the Vinaya allusions to "Vinaya, Dhamma, Mātikā and Mātikadharo (Vin. Texts, i, 273; ii, 285, 345) refer to it. Not only the Dhammasangani but the whole of the Paṭṭhāna is an elaboration of it, and the Atthasālinī discusses it at considerable length.
Next, a few words may here be said on certain renderings in this new edition.
Ten years after the first edition appeared Mr. S. Z. Aung
1 In my table of quotations from the canon, in my edition of the Visuddhi-Magga, I give a reference to this Sutta, but should more properly have omitted it. It is only to Sariputta as mahāpañño, and that can be cited from other Suttas (I cite two).
compiled with myself a translation of the mediaeval Abhidhamma manual A Compendium of Philosophy (Abhidhammatthasangaha). Ten years after that Mr. P. Maung Tin translated with me the Commentary on the present work The Expositor (Atthasālinī). In the intervals and after, the Pali Text Society had also brought out the remaining texts of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, the Visuddhi-Magga, and a translation by Mr. S. Z. Aung and myself of Points of Controversy (Kathāvatthu), of that Piṭaka. Other canonical translations and indexing have also helped our hitherto so imperfect knowledge. We are now really coming to know the contents of the canon in detail, and to be able to check the meaning of terms by a great variety of contexts, earlier and later, in which they occur. And the changing or the maintaining of several renderings in the present new edition are the result thus far of all this mill-grinding.
Not to bore the reader with apologetics, I will ask him to bear this in mind. And this no less, that very often the word changed or retained is simply the least misfitting that could be found. In a purely literary work, the context may determine the rendering. In Abhidhamma analyses this cannot be done so freely. Here, there is a minimum of context. We are dealing with skeletons.
Thanks to Mr. Aung, and in spite of etymology, I have found, in the letter of the doctrine, that "will" or "volition" (cetana) which had seemed present only in the spirit.
I have let Āsăvă stand, where I had invented" intoxicant", inasmuch as we have no word, weighty and vague like "sin", that conveys the double sense of drug-flux. Asăvă is easy for the English tongue-not harder than "armourer ".
And "form" stands where it did for rupa, with "[material]" added, when rūpa means matter. "Form is alone wide enough to cover rūpakkhandho, rūpāyatanam, and rūpāvacaram. What else can be done with a philosophy so curiously careless as is the Abhidhamma? For it takes an ancient dichotomy of rūpa and arupa, when the connexion
is "plurality of worlds", subdivides rūpa into kāmāvacara and rūpāvacara and retains the latter term for just that section only where the rupa is subtler, finer, more ethereal, less gross, than in the Kāma section; so much so that Rūpa-devas can only come to Kāma-devas (let alone humans) by assuming a grosser materiality! To call the more ethereal Brahmaworld "material", because Buddhists call it rūpāvacara, would be hopelessly misleading.
The elusive sankhārā puts on a new skirt and dances as synergies", an alternative rendering for "syntheses" and activities ".1 A certain dynamic connotation—“ something planned", wrote Buddhaghosa-and a certain compleximport are required by one of the oldest definitions we have of the term. This is the Sutta (unknown to me till I compiled the index volume in 1902-3) in the Khandha-Samyutta (S. iii, pp. 85 f.). And synergy in its novel plural dress is no worse than "energies ".
Whether we puzzle over sankhārā or the equally elusive citta = viññāṇa, one thing in the history of Buddhist psychology is made clear by the work of the last twenty and odd years: the method of introspection carried out in the Dhammasangaṇi fashioned the coffin of the clumsy khandha category. In that method we are given (a) the citta or psychic complex, (b) the unfolded adjuncts, or content, of dhammā. And this led in time to the simpler dual division of citta-cetasikā. We see this peeping out already in the later portion of this work. When the Compendium was written, the latter division had practically wiped out the Khandhas in Abhidhamma. The halo of ancient tradition floats over the old pentad still, but, as Mr. Mallock wrote long ago, these cyclical sunsets are die-hards," or words to that effect.
And nothing of it all matters very much. Many years have I spent over the work of these erudite children of a dead world the Abhidhammikas for there was work of clearing
1 Here Dr. Dr. Moritz Winternitz beguiled me by his "Betätigungen ". Prof. R. O. Franke has " Hervorbringungen ".
to be done. And the young science of psychology over here was none the worse for being shown that its roots went far back into the thought and the culture of India. Those little sons of the cloistered life knew nothing of the great world, not even so much of it as their missionary brethren, who were learning far more of man's varied mind than they. But they worked steadily and stodgily on. They trusted they were getting "free", yet who so bound as they by an ever-growing monkish tradition, and by the narrow confines of their segregated life?
The psychology of the near future has a very great and high work to do, even the expansion of science itself. But these Eastern roots lay in dark subsoil. These fathers of mental analysis had lost sight of the call of the Master to his first disciples and missionaries:-tell the earth of the good life, the life of the Path of being your "best". They had been trained in a later tradition built up over a negative attitude as to what "you" are. "You" are not body, it had been said, "you" are not mind. And the wrong conclusion was: "we' are not any real we; we are just only body and mind, nay, we are just only bodily and mental doings. Now let us pull apart what body and mind are, for so we may find out how to bring about a cessation of those causes by which this undesirable result of going on to become again may be made to cease."
It was not a healthy solution. Abhidhamma, for all the pious myth that hallows it, is not the message of the Founder; it is the work of the monkish world that grew up after him and for a while annexed the culture that was Indian. It had a work to do; its work is done; it is a valley of dry bones. If the dry bones can be made to live, it will be to tell the new world that the body and mind they tried to analyze are not the music these instruments can be made to express.
C. A. F. RHYS DAVIDS.