Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c11.33

Language: English

v1.c11.33.1

He was now deliberating within himself whether it would be proper for him to preach a doctrine which was so deep and subtle, inexpressible, unconstituted, signless and tranquil, beyond the range of the organs of sense, or of words and discussions, unsuited for giving or taking or communicating, and realisable only by the wise within himself, and whether it would not be on his part a sheer waste of energy to attempt to preach such a doctrine to the uninitiated.¹ In the Pāli and some of the Sanskrit texts² attempt has been made to explain this unwillingness to preach the doctrine on the part of Buddha as due to the want of suitable men able to comprehend his teaching, and that it was only when Brahmā pointed out there were some whose eyes of knowledge were covered by slight impurities, that Buddha changed his mind and decided to preach the new Truth. This explanation seems to us to be more or less gratuitous, for it is not probable that Buddha who became a *sarvajña* (omniscient) could have required Brahmā's intervention for ascertaining that there were some suitable hearers. The plausible explanation is that the truth visualised by Buddha is beyond concept (*avyākṛta*), and as such it could not be imparted to others through words.

v1.c11.33.2

It is for this reason that we read often in the Pāli books that Buddha advised people to follow the path chalked out by him leading to Nirvāṇa and not to ask him for an exposition of the truth which is *avyākṛta*.³ Lastly, when he decided to preach the doctrine, he determined that he would speak about the Path only and not about what is Nirvāṇa or the highest Truth. For explaining his Path too, he sought for people who were of *samyaktvaniyatarāśi* i.e. who were possessed of such merits as would lead them to the realisation of the Truth.¹ Scanning the world for such persons, he found out that of the persons who could quickly comprehend his truth, his two teachers, Arāḍa and Rudraka, were dead, and his five companions of asceticism were then dwelling at Ṛṣipatana-mṛgadāya² on the outskirts of Benares. For imparting his teaching to his quondam companions he started for Benares, meeting on his way the Ājīvaka ascetic, Upaka. He stopped at Gayā in the house of Sudarśana Nāgarāja, and then crossing Rohitavastu, Uruvilva, Aṇāla, Sārathipura,³ reached the banks of the Ganges. On the refusal of the ferryman to take him across the river without *tarpaṇya* (ferry-hire),⁴ he flew over it and reached the other shore, and arrived at Benares. He approached the five ascetics, who, inspite of their plan not to show him any respect, yielded to his sublime look and ultimately listened to his discourses.

v1.c11.33.3

He delivered his first discourse known as *Dharmacakra*, in which he referred to the two extreme practices, followed hitherto, viz., the life of ease and that of extreme asceticism, the former probably referring to the life led by Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas who lived in towns and villages and performed elaborate sacrifices, and the latter to that of the ascetics living in the forests and given to severe self-mortifications.¹ He then explained the four Āryasatyas, or the four-fold method of examination of the things of the world,² by means of which, he said he was able to comprehend the causal genesis of things, consisting of three sections and twelve terms.³ It was this causal genesis that convinced him of the impermanent nature of things, and of the non-existence of a doer or a feeler, in other words, the non-existence of a self (ātma = pudgala) or of a transmigrator (saṅkramaka),⁴ and of action, good or bad. He found out that tṛṣṇā (desire) was the root of sufferings, and aṣṭāṅgikamārga the means to their cessation. He traced the origin of avidyā to careless mental constructions (saṅkalpajanitena ayonisena bhavate avidyā). Further, he was convinced that skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus do not make a Buddha and that avidyā owes its origin to mental constructions vikalpa) on the cessation of which it disappears and along with it all forms of existence. As he had found out this without the help of a teacher he was a Svayambhū (self-awakened).

v1.c11.33.4

On hearing this discourse, Ājñātakaunḍinya, spiritually the most advanced of the five, realised that everything including the three ratnas, Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha or the Brahmaloka were mere relative words, and had no existence in reality.'