Pudgalavāda, Sammītiya (lectured by ven. Dhammarathana) 28th of April, 2011
LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarathana
(recording by Mon monk Nai Suriya) on 28th of April, 2011
LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarthana (recording from Mon monk Nai Suriya) on 5th of May, 2011
LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Iludewela Dhammarathana (recording from Mon monk Nai Suriya) on 12th of May, 2011
Pudgalavāda, Sammītiya (lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 28th of April, 2011
- They believe that there is a pudgala besides the five aggregates: rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra and viññāṇa. The problem is, while the five aggregates cannot move to next life, kamma should be able to transmigrate to next life. Apart from the five aggregates there is a pudgala. Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda rejected the pudgala because it is a concept of soul (attā, ātman).
- As the Buddha said:
‘‘Ekapuggalo, bhikkhave, loke uppajjamāno uppajjati bahujanahitāya bahujanasukhāya lokānukampāya atthāya hitāya sukhāya devamanussānaṃ. Katamo ekapuggalo? Tathāgato arahaṃ sammāsambuddho. Ayaṃ kho, bhikkhave, ekapuggalo loke uppajjamāno uppajjati bahujanahitāya bahujanasukhāya lokānukampāya atthāya hitāya sukhāya devamanussāna’’nti.
(Aṅguttara Nikāya – Ekanipātapāḷi – 13. Ekapuggalavaggo) or ‘Sa sattakkhattuṃparamaṃ, sandhāvitvāna puggalo;
Dukkhassantakaro hoti, sabbasaṃyojanakkhayā’’ti.
(Saṃyutta Nikāya – Nidānavaggapāḷi – 4. Anamataggasaṃyuttaṃ – 10. Puggalasuttaṃ)
- If a person can become Sotāpanna and as such is seven life Sotāpanna, how is the fact of being Sotāpanna maintained through the seven lives, how does it transmigrates to next lives? Therefore, it was thought that it is the pudgala, who keeps that trait.
‘‘Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhārahāro? Puggalo tissa vacanīyaṃ. Yvāyaṃ āyasmā evaṃnāmo evaṃgotto; ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhārahāro.”
Like the Sarvāstivādins, the Sammītiyas also differed in many doctrinal points from the Theravādins and other sects. These have been discussed in the Kathāvatthu and mentioned in treatises on sects written by Bhavya Vasumitra and Vinītadeva. The Pudgalavāda gave a rude shock to the other sectarian teachers. They regarded it as almost heretical, as a negation of the anātmavāda of the Buddha. And it was bitterly criticized by many writers like Vasubandhu and Śāntarakṣita. Sammītiya Vātsīputrīyās stated that the Buddha admitted that the existence of an impermanent soul is quite different from the Upaniṣadic concept of eternal and changeless concept of soul. According to the Upaniṣadic teaching the soul continues unchanged through all the existences of a being unless and until it attained full emancipation and merged in the paramātman or brāhman. Therefore, the Sammītiyas prefered to name their changing soul as pudgala, distinguishing it from the anattā doctrine of the Buddha.
- I (ven. Czech Saraṇa) mentioned, that pudgala is maybe avijjā. Like when we push a ball, it rolls after the pushing also. Thus when we try to meditate and we attain Sotāpanna it is like when we push the ball and the ball rolling itself is the Avijjā gradually disappearing throughout the seven lives. The Avijjā is maintained through the Saṃsāra. According to Sammītiyās the pudgala can do good deeds and bad deeds as well. The same way beings do kusala akusala, puñña pāpa through avijjā, thus they make kamma. An Arahant is free from avijjā and still does good deeds – but here no kamma is created, it is done through kiriya citta. The problem is, that according to the Sammītiyas the pudgala exists until the Parinibbāna, while avijjā actually exists until Arahanthood. I would say, that the pudgala a.k.a. avijjā continues to influence the person even after Arahanthood just until the Parinibbāna. But in this case it is only the remnants of the influence that had been caused before the attainment of Arahanthood. That is why one after becoming an Arahant still experiences the vipāka of kamma that he/she committed before Arahanthood and still has the five aggregates (pañcakkhandha) though he/she is not going to be born again after the final death (parinibbāna).
In Kathāvatthu the view of the Sammītiyās is given thus: The Pudgalavādins rely on the following words of the Buddha: »Atthi puggalo atta hitāya paṭipanno.« - “There is a person, who exerts for his own good.”
»Ekapuggalo, bhikkhave, loke uppajjamāno uppajjati bahujanahitāya bahujanasukhāya lokānukampāya atthāya hitāya sukhāya devamanussānaṃ.« - “There appears a person who is reborn for the good and happiness of many, for showing compassion to the world of beings.” Basing on such words of the Buddha, the Sammītiyās state “pudgala of the above mentioned passages is something positive.” This pudgala is neither mirage nor hearsay. It is neither the unconstituted reality like Nibbāna or ākāsa nor a constituent or rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa. It is not real in the highest sense, paramattha. It is not something apart from the constituents (khandhās) of a being. It is not possible to establish a relation between pudgala and the khandhās like that between the container and the contained.
Though it possesses all the characteristics of the khandhās it is neither of them, neither like them – caused and conditioned (sahetu sapaccaya), nor is it like Nibbāna, uncaused and unconditioned (ahetu apaccaya).
Pudgala is neither constituted (sankhāta, sanskṛta) nor unconstituted (asankhāta, asanskṛta). Though it is different from the constituents, it possesses certain characteristics of a constituted being, such as happiness and unhappiness.
It has certain aspects of the unconstituted inasmuch as it is not subject to birth, old age and death. It ceases only when the individual attains final emancipation (Nibbāna).
(lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 5th of May, 2011
In the Abhidhamma Kośa the differences between skhandha and pudgala are explained with the simile of fire and fuel. Fire exists as long as its fuel lasts. Thus the pudgala exists as long as there are the constituents. However, fire is different from fuel inasmuch as fire has the power of burning an object. Though the fire has the power of burning an object the fuel itself does not have such a power. On the other hand, the fire and fuel are coexistent. The fuel is a support for the fire just as one is not wholly different from the other, because fuel is not fuel is not wholly devoid of fiery element. In the same way pudgala stands in relation to the constituents of a being.
- There is a problem with my pudgala-avijjā theory, which is that if we take the avijjā, it disappears at the moment of arahanthood. However, pudgalavādins teach that pudgala disappears with attaining Parinibbāna, it is there after arahanthood. While skhandha can be fuel for fire or pudgala, in my theory it is avijjā which is the fuel and skhandha which are the fire – because with attainment of arahanthood the continuous process of creating new skandha (avijjā) is destroyed. The problem is, that if skhandha is the fuel, or the cause, then to attain Nibbāna we would have to kill the five skhandha, which would mean that we cannot attain saupadisesanibbānadhātu, the Nibbāna which is before death, without need of death. The Buddha taught, that to attain Nibbāna means to uproot the tree, that means to remove the cause for growing – which we can well describe with the simile with the fire and fuel. Thus I claim, that Pudgalavādins made a mistake thinking, that it is skhandha which is fuel, because it must be pudgala (avijjā) that is the fuel. If that is so, by eradicating avijjā we may attain Nibbāna even before death (because skhandha are the effect of previous avijjā).
The Sammītiyās quote the Bhārahāra Sutta and explain, that burden (bhāra) refers to the constituents (skhandha), while the carrier (hāra) is the pudgala, unloading the burden is affected by the cessation of attachment, desire and hatred. This pudgala bears a name, belongs to a family, is the enjoyer of happiness and unhappiness.
- If we do good deeds, the kamma goes to pudgala, not to skhandha. Thus it is pudgala which is hāra and skhandha which is bhāra. Unloading of the burden means, that pudgala should be unloaded, that happens with the cessation of desire. This proves, that my theory is correct and they have a flaw in their teaching. The pudgala is the cause, it is the fuel, and therefore first we must eradicate pudgala with which the skhandhas cease. However, they say, that skhandhas are fuel and pudgala is the fire, which is clearly contradictory to the statement, that first we should remove pudgala to attain Nibbāna. It seems that the main reason for the flaw in their theory is, that they believe, that there can be fire (which they compare to pudgala) without fuel (which they compare to skhandha). It is inconceivable, that there would be a fire without fuel. There is no fire in the world, which is without fuel.
In discussing the Bhārahāra Sutta, Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla state that the Buddha used the word pudgala as a mere concept (prajñapti). He did not state expressly, that it was non-existent. Nobody inquired of its real nature. He meant the aggregation of five constituents and to those collectively he referred as pudgala.
- I mentioned, that in Anguttara Nikāya in Dukanipātapāḷi, Paṭhamapaṇṇāsaka, Bālavagga, there is an important gāthā - »Dveme, bhikkhave, tathāgataṃ abbhācikkhanti. Katame dve? Yo ca neyyatthaṃ suttantaṃ nītattho suttantoti dīpeti, yo ca nītatthaṃ suttantaṃ neyyattho suttantoti dīpeti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve tathāgataṃ abbhācikkhantī’’ti.« - There are two ways to blame the Buddha, to explain his ultimate truth (nītattha) as conventional truth (neyyattha) and otherwise.
This pudgala is not subject to origin and decay. Further, it has no past, present and future. It is neither eternal nor non-eternal. It is inexplicable and indeterminable. It is not included in the constituents, but appears only when all the constituents are present.
In the Kathāvatthu it is stated that the Sammītiyās point out that the pudgala has a material form in the world of men and gods. The gods, who have got material bodies, are called rūpāvacara brahmās. The gods, who are without any material form – they are called arūpāvacara brahmās.
- According to early Buddhist teaching, all beings must have both nāma-rūpa (mind & body). Thus in the arūpāvacara brahmaloka there must be also a kind of rūpa, however subtle it may be. (But there is again a small problem, because if there is whatever rūpa, then it would be strange, that the Buddha was not able to communicate with those beings. Thus it seems, that there is a contradiction in Tipiṭaka.)
Sammītiyās state that the pudgala corresponds with the entity called 'a being' (sattva) and also to the vital force (jīva) of a living being. However, at the same time it is neither identical with, nor different from, the body (kāya). The Buddha rejected both the views of identity as well as the difference from vital force and body: »Taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ.« and »Aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ.«
- We may doubt it as the Buddha said, that it is āyusmācaviññāṇaṃ – the life, temperature and consciousness leave the body at death. However, on one occasion the Buddha went with his monks and pointed to a passed away monk who attained Arahanthood and a cloud above him saying, that the cloud is Māra searching for viññāṇa – that would say, that there is a contradiction, because on one place the Buddha says there is no viññāṇa after death and on the other occasion He claims otherwise. However, the teacher ven. Dhammaratana says, that the viññāṇa in the passed away monk's case was actually sammuti statement, not mentioning viññāṇa as a constituent, but mentioning it as a means to name the occurrence in a comprehensible way.
(lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 12th of May, 2011
Sammītiyās rely on another statement made frequently by the Buddha, that a monk, while practicing mindfulness, remains always aware of what is happening within his body - »So kāye kāyānupassī viharati.« In this statement the Buddha uses the word 'so', meaning 'he'. It is the “puggala”, which watches the contents and movements of his body. According to Sammītiyās this 'so' is not a mere concept (paññatti, pragñapti). It refers to actual pudgala (puggala).
- Because the 'he' can see what is happening in the body. According to them, there are two things – puggala and pañcakkhandha, that is why one can watch oneself, that is why kāyānupassanā, cittānupassanā etc. are possible. However, I (ven. Czech Saraṇa) mentioned, that according to Ajān Brahmavaṃso, who himself tried to see “who is the watcher of mind”, he realized that the mind is very quickly changing. According to him, when we watch our mind, we actually look in the previous moments of the mind. Thus our mind works like a computer – computer also has only one processor, thus only one “brain”. The computer can check itself by retrospection – it will look in the past events. The same way we, when we watch our mind, we only look back in time what happened in the mind. The mind is so quick, that we think that we watch our mind working in present, however, we watch our mind retrospectively, that means looking backwards in time. This process may happen many times in extremely short times, so that undeveloped mind may be deluded to think, that it watches itself at the same time. Thus Sammītiyās through not developing meditation did not see, that mind watches itself, though introspectively, and through not seeing the reality they tried to justify the concept of puggala.
The Sammītiya now take up the problem of transmigration. They held that puggala” passes from one existence to another. But the puggala of two existences is neither the same nor different. The reason aduced by them is, that the person who has attained the Sotāpatti stage, continues to be Sotāpanna in his future existences. A Sotāpanna man may be reborn as a Sotāpanna god. There the Sotāpannahood remains. Thus the Sotāpanna remains unchanged though the constituents of his body have changed from those of a man to those of a god. The transition of Sotāpannahood from one existence to another cannot take place unless the existence and the continuity of puggala are admitted. In support of this view the Sammitiyas rely on the following utterances of the Buddha:
»Yadidaṃ cattāri purisayugāni, aṭṭha purisa puggalā.« - “There are four pairs of persons, eight persons.” (Dīgha Nikāya – Mahāparinibbāna Sutta)
»Sa sattakkhattuṃ paramaṃ, sandhāvitvāna puggalo; Dukkhassantakaro hoti, sabbasaṃyojanakkhayā’’ti.« (Khuddaka Nikāya - Itivuttaka – 1. Ekakanipāto – 3. Tatiyavaggo - 4. Aṭṭhipuñja Sutta) “A Sotāpanna has to be reborn seven times at the most to attain full emancipation.” Here, sandhāvitvāna puggalo means the transmigration of soul.
»Anamataggoyaṃ [anamataggāyaṃ (pī. ka.)] bhikkhave, saṃsāro. Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.« “The cycle of existence of a being is without a beginning which is not apparent to beings immersed in desires.” (Saṃyutta Nikāya – Nidānavaggapāḷi – 4. Anamatagga Saṃyuttaṃ – 1. Paṭhamavaggo - 1. Tinakaṭṭha Sutta) The Sammītiyās picked up the words saṃsāra and satta and they deduced therefrom that the Buddha admitted the transmigration of soul of beings.
“Pubbenivāsānusatiñāna” - regarding this ñāna Sammītiyas stated, that memory of past existences is not possible for the constituents, because in every moment the constituents change. Therefore, Sammītiyās add, that admission of memory implies the existence of puggala.
- As far as Theravāda concept is concerned, it is believed that memory comes with thinking – thinking is one stream where each moment are closely connected, which allows for memory (probably allowing the tracing back though each moment in the past). According to psychologists, there are three kinds of consciousness – consciousness, subconsciousness and unconsciousness. By suppressing consciousness we may activate subconsciousness and by suppressing subconsciousness we may activate unconsciousness. That unconsciousness may be the source of memory of past lives. One may compare unconsciousness to nevasaññānasaññā, but I would argue that it is a hasty conclusion.
The Sammītiyanikāyaśāstra mentions and discusses all possible views of puggala.
1. There is no real self
2. The self is indeterminable (avyākata, avyākṛta)
3. The five constituents and the self are identical
4. Five constituents and the self are different
5. Self is eternal (sassata)
6. Self is not eternal and impermanent
7. Self is actually existent though not eternal
Of these views the last is held by the Sammītiyās. In this text non-Sammītiya views have been briefly stated. (The view no. 4 is not accepted, because according to Sammītiyās the puggala is neither separated (different) from pañcakkhandha nor it is same as pañcakkhandha).
- At the exam we should write the quotations of Sammītiyās and the characteristics of puggala. We may also compare it to Theravāda.
Mahāsaṅghika School (lectured by ven. Ilukkevela Dhammaratana) 26th of May, 2011 -
Atthadhammaniruttipaṭibhāna Arahants were those, who could participate at the first Buddhist Council. No other monks could participate there. However, there were other monks who have heard other Dhamma preachings of the Buddha, but they were not allowed to participate in the Theravāda council. There was therefore another council, were Arahants together with non-Arahants participated, and that led to emergence of Mahāsaṃghika school.
- Lokottaravādīns were those, who believed that the Buddha was a supernatural being.
About a century after the Buddha's death, there was a great division in the Buddha's order. The 'conservative' and 'liberal'.[1] The hierarchic and the democratic were the names given to those two divisions. It is in this division, that the germs are traceable with regards to the Mahāyāna doctrines and the Hīnayāna schools. The details about this schism are found in the Ceylon chronicles, such as Mahāvaṃsa as well as in Pāli Vinaya texts and Buddhist Sanskrit works. Further, the Kathāvatthu of Moggaliputtatissa Thera states the division of the schools. According to the facts found in the Cūḷavagga Pāḷi, the ten rules of discipline, caused the conflict between Theravāda and Mahāsaṃghika. Traditionally there are controversies with regards to the ten points. However, Theravāda Vinaya texts introduce the following ten points:[2]
1. Siṅgiloṇakappo,
2. Dvaṅgulakappo,
3. Gāmantarakappo,
4. Āvāsakappo,
5. Anumatikappo,
6. Āciṇṇakappo,
7. Amathitakappo,
8. Jaḷogiṃ pātuṃ,
9. Adasakaṃ nisīdanaṃ,
10. Jātarūparajatanti.
The Kathāvatthu, which received its final shape at Ashoka's Council (the Third Buddhist Council), had been growing since the holding of the council at Vesālī (the Second Buddhist Council). The text attributes a few differences in canons to the Mahāsaṃghika school. Bhavya, Vasumitra, Vinītadeva and Tārānāta trace the origin of the school. There are Mahādeva's five articles of faith:
1. An Arahant may commit a sin under unconscious temptation.
2. One may be an Arahant and not know it.
3. An Arahant may have doubts on matters of doctrine.
4. One cannot attain Arahantship without the help of the teacher.
5. The noble way may begin with a shout/an exclamation.
- It is conceivable, that these articles are based on Tipiṭaka and Aṭṭhakathā of Theravāda tradition. However, the first article does not tally with the Aṭṭhakathā story where a woman decides to have sex with a deep sleeping Arahant and during it she wonders that no emission of semen happens.
The first four of the above mentioned articles of faith have been found in Kathāvatthu. Prof. Poussin, after examining the works of Bhavya, Vasumitra and others sums up the issue with five articles thus: “Several traditions indicate, that there was a council concerning the five points and that this controversy was the origin of the Mahāsaṃghika sect.”
- Therefore we may think, that Mahāsaṃghika arose due to the five articles, not due to the ten unlawful points.
Yuan Chwang believes, that Mahādeva enunciated five dogmas (the above mentioned five articles), which formed the subject of bitter controversy among the Bhikkhus. Mahādeva also criticized the fact, that the Arahants at the First Buddhist Council could not even recognize what are the 'major' and 'minor' rules, which led to their decision to keep all the rules, though they, as the Buddha said, didn't have to.
At the Second Buddhist Council Arahants voted against the five dogmas (articles), while inferior brethren sided with Mahādeva.
- There is a theory, that while four of the five points were mentioned in the Tipiṭaka and commentaries, the Arahants rejected them because they didn't know that they are mentioned in their scriptures. There is a theory, that the Arahants were less erudite than the Mahāsaṃghika.
Regarding the ten points of the rules of discipline and the five dogmas of Mahādeva the Chinese traveler goes very far to prove that a schism did happen in the Buddhist order/church at or around the time of the Second Buddhist Council. The agreement between the Vasumitra's work and the Kathāvatthu with regards to the essential tenets of the Mahāsaṃghika school proves beyond doubt, that the school existed before the time of composition of Kathāvatthu or around the time of the Second Buddhist Council.[3]
[1] This is an idea of N. Dutt.
[2] Mentioned in Vinaya Piṭaka – Cūḷavaggapāḷi - 12. Sattasatikakkhandhakaṃ – 1. Paṭhamabhāṇavāro
[3] This is also mentioned in “Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools” by N. Dutt.