|
The
Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that
tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his
followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form
as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories
& relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he
makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a
particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time -- the
Samkhya, or classification school.
This
school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C.
philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which
all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who
carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic
and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the
hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the
Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around
the time of the Buddha.
Although
the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening
to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans,
and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's
teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been
proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines -- "I will
teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" -- would have them
prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the
list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the
classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here,
the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined &
inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate
Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought,
Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being
immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.
However,
instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its
very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in"
(immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience.
Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in
this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of
"root" -- the root of suffering experienced in the present -- and
find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the
trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is,
drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true awakening.
If
the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting
Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were
displeased -- one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the
Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but
instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as
ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later
able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain awakening on listening
to the discourse reported in AN III.126.
Although
at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there
has long been -- and still is -- a common tendency to create a
"Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the
Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function
as the ground of being from which the "All" -- the entirety of our
sensory & mental experience -- is said to spring and to which we return
when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of
scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most
often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse,
"perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal,
identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the
knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being
out of which all other experience comes.
Any
teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that
the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.
|