Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c13.59

c13.59

(650) We cannot therefore hold that the Buddha claimed authority for his statements on the grounds that he was omniscient. Nor can we say that he received his knowledge from an omniscient divine source as seems to be implied in Poussin's statement that ‘Buddhism... was a faith in *revealed* truths’ (*op. cit.*, p. 33). The injunction on the part of Brahmā to the Buddha to preach his religion (*v.* desassu bhagavā dhammam, M I.169) does not imply that the Buddha gained his knowledge from Brahmā, especially when we see it said that Brahmā was ignorant of the deeper spiritual truths of Buddhism (*v. supra*, 645). Przyluski has also expressed the view that the Early Buddhist scriptures constitute a revelation. He says: ‘In Buddhist thought the notion of *śruti* is far more important than generally believed. It explains the frequently used term of *bahuśruta*,—rendered literally in Chinese by to-wen ‘who has heard much’. The initial formula of the sutra, *evam* *mayā śrutam* not only alludes to the sacred texts by Ānanda, when the First Council was held, but also indicates that these texts were revealed and that the whole of them constitute the *śruti*. And just as *śruta*- is opposed to drsta- or śruti- to pratyaksa- the former term applied as compared to the latter, a knowledge of superior quality. It seems easier now to understand why Pāli ditthi- 'view, opinion' is so frequently used deprecatingly with the meaning of 'ill-founded or false opinion'.¹ In a footnote commenting on *śruti* (*op. cit.*, p. 246, fn. 2) he says that 'it is true that for Buddhaghosa followed in this respect by European scholars (Kern, Manual of Buddhism, p. 2, quoted by Poussin, Opinions, p. 35) *evam mayā śrutam* means, sammukhā patiggahītam (DA. I.31)'. But this interpretation he says is 'a later one' (*loc. cit.*). This view is surprising It goes against everything that we know from and about the Pāli Canon. In the first place there is no reason to doubt the traditional explanation that 'evam me sutam' means 'thus have I heard', even if we doubt the rest of the tradition that they were the words of Ānanda This phrase introduces a Sutta, which has been reported by someone who had learnt it in an oral tradition. It preserves the same non-dogmatic attitude recommended in the Cankī Sutta that when someone has heard something from a tradition (anussavo) he preserves the truth, if instead of dogmatically claiming that it was the case he says, 'this is what I have heard from the tradition' (*evam me anussavo*, M. I.171, *v. supra*, 278). If the Buddha himself introduced his statements with the words, 'evam me sutam', we would have reason to believe that he was giving expression to something that he received from a human or divine source Not only does he not say anything of this sort but claims on the contrary the following: 'I do not say this having heard it from another recluse or brahmin, but what I myself have seen and experienced, that I speak' (tam kho pana aham ... nāññassa samanassa va brāhmanassa va sutvā vadāmi, api ca yad eva me sāmam ñātam sāmam dittham sāmam viditam—tam evāham vadāmī ti, It 59, 60, 74, M III.186). We see here the very opposite of what Przyluski was suggesting, namely the superior valuation of *dittham* (what is seen) over *sutam* (what is heard) (cp. *supra* 69). Przyluski has also apparently confused dittham with ditthi (*v. infra*, 742)