Kumara Kashyapa also points out that while some brahmins and recluses have developed the divine eye through their meditations and can see and know these things for themselves, ordinary people who had not cultivated meditation and developed past life recall or the divine eye would be like a person born blind who had never seen the sun or moon and must accept the testimony of others. Prince Payasi objects, saying that if these recluses and brahmins really did know for sure that there was such a thing as heaven, then they would kill themselves in order to get there as soon as possible. Kumara Kashyapa counters that this would make no more sense than a pregnant woman cutting her own belly open in order to have the baby before her due date. If she did so, both she and the baby would die. In the same way, to murder oneself in order to get to heaven would be to commit an act that would bring about the opposite result.
Many of Prince Payasi's objections are similar to those voiced by skeptics today; likewise, Kumara Kashyapa s responses may or may not be convincing to the skeptics of today. What this discourse shows is that the law of karma and the cycle of rebirth were not universally accepted. The Buddha and his disciples were not just teaching these things because everyone else assumed they were true. In fact, they sometimes encountered those like Prince Payasi who fiercely defended a materialistic point of view, and yet the Buddha and his disciples felt that it was important to try to make a case for the law of karma and the cycle of rebirth even in the face of such skepticism and objections.
Besides materialism, there were other views that negated the law of karma. In the following discourse the Buddha criticizes three beliefs that lead to what he calls the doctrine of inaction , by which he means the doctrine that our present actions, the karmic causes we make, do not have any bearing on the development of our lives either now or in any future lifetime.
There are, O monks, three sectarian tenets which, if they are fully examined, investigated and discussed, will end in a doctrine of inaction, even if adopted because of tradition. What are these three tenets?
There are, monks, some ascetics and brahmins who teach and hold this view: "Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or a neutral feeling, all that is caused by past action." There are others who teach and hold this view: "Whatever a person experiences ... all that is caused by God s creation."And there are still other ascetics and brahmins who teach and hold this view: "Whatever a person experiences ... is uncaused and unconditioned."
Now, monks, I approached those ascetics and brahmins (holding the first view) and said to them: "Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences ... all that is caused by past action?" When they affirmed it, I said to them: "If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to past action (done in a former life) that people kill, steal, and engage in sexual misconduct; that they speak falsehood, utter malicious words, speak harshly and indulge in idle talk; that they are covetous and malevolent and hold false views. But those who have recourse to past action as the decisive factor will lack the impulse and effort for doing this or not doing that. Since they have no real valid ground for asserting this or that ought to be done or ought not to be done, the term ascetics does not rightly apply to them, living without mindfulness and self-control."
This monks, is my first justified rebuke to those ascetics and brahmins who teach and hold such a view.
Again, monks, I approached those ascetics and brahmins (holding the second view) and said to them: "Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences ... all that is caused by God's creation?" When they affirmed it, I said to them: "If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill ... and hold false views. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor will lack the impulse and effort for doing this or not doing that. Since they have no real valid ground for asserting this or that ought to be done or ought not to be done, the term ascetics does not rightly apply to them, living without mindfulness and self-control."
This monks, is my second justified rebuke to those ascetics and brahmins who teach and hold such a view.
Again, monks, I approached those ascetics and brahmins (holding the third view) and said to them: "Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences ... all that is uncaused and unconditioned?" When they affirmed it, I said to them: "If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is without causes and conditions that people kill ... and hold false views. But those who have recourse to an uncaused and unconditioned (order of events) as the decisive factor will lack the impulse and effort for doing this or not doing that. Since they have no real valid ground for asserting this or that ought to be done or ought not to be done, the term ascetics does not rightly apply to them, living without mindfulness and self-control."
This monks, is my third justified rebuke to those ascetics and brahmins who teach and hold such a view.
These monks, are the three sectarian tenets which, if fully examined, investigated, and discussed, will end in a doctrine of inaction, even if adopted because of tradition. (AN 3: 60, see Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, pp. 61-63)
The Buddha rejects these tenets as undermining morality and spiritual cultivation. The first tenet is a view of karma that is so extreme it becomes a form of determinism, wherein people only have to blame the past for anything they do or fail to do in the present and there is no real freedom to choose one s course of action in the present. The second tenet is a form of predestination, wherein people can blame God for anything they do or fail to do. The last tenet is a form of nihilism that denies causality altogether. The Buddha points out that all of these beliefs have in common the undermining of personal responsibility for one s actions and the consequences of those actions. If everything is already determined by the past, or by God, or there is no causal efficacy, then there is no real reason to try to refrain from unwholesome actions or cultivate wholesome actions. Any efforts to attain liberation would be futile because we would be powerless to change anything, even ourselves.
In the Apannaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha similarly rejects those doctrines that deny mundane right view consisting of the affirmation of the efficacy of generosity, the fruition of good and bad actions, the reality of this life and the afterlife, respect for parents, the spontaneous rebirth of beings in the hells and heavens, and that there are those who have had direct knowledge of causality and the afterlife. He does so using an argument similar to what would later be called " Pascal's Wager" concerning the existence of God, except in this case it is the law karma that is at issue. The Buddha argued that one who denies the law of karma will fall into the lower realms, or even hell, if they are wrong; but even if they are right they will gain nothing of lasting value and be censured by the wise. However, if someone affirms the law of karma and they are right then they will attain rebirth in the higher realms or even heaven; but even if they are wrong, they will have lost nothing of lasting value and will be praised by the wise.
In the Sandaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, Ananda conveys the Buddha's teachings regarding four ways that negate the holy life to the wanderer Sandaka. The first way is the nihilistic view that negates mundane right view on the basis of materialism:
Giving is a doctrine of fools. When anyone asserts the doctrine that there is [giving and the like], it is empty, false prattle. Fools and the wise are alike cut off and annihilated with the dissolution of the body; after death they do not exist. (MN 76: 7, see Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pp. 619-620)
The second way is the denial that actions have any necessary consequences:
If, with a razor-rimmed wheel, one were to make living beings on this earth into one mass of flesh, into one heap of flesh, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing and slaughtering, mutilating and making other mutilate, torturing and making others inflict torture, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving gifts and making others give gifts, making offerings and making others make offerings, because of this there would be no merit and no outcome of merit. By giving, by taming, oneself, by restraint, by speaking truth, there is no merit and no outcome of merit. (MN 76: 10, see Ibid, pp. 620-621)
The third way is the doctrine that denies any kind of causal power in beings:
There is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled without cause or condition. There is no cause or condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified without cause or condition. There is no power, no energy, no manly strength, no manly endurance. All beings, all living things, all creatures, all souls are without mastery, power, and energy; molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes. (MN 76: 13, see Ibid, p. 621)
The fourth way is a fatalistic doctrine that destiny must run its course and there is nothing we can do to change it:
There is none of this "By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall make unripened action ripen or annihilate ripened action as it comes." Pleasure and pain are meted out. The round of rebirths is limited; there is no shortening or extending it, no increasing or decreasing it. Just as a ball of string when thrown goes as far as the string unwinds, so too, by running and wandering through the round of rebirths, fools and the wise both will make an end of suffering. (MN 76: 16, see Ibid, pp. 622-623)
In each of these four ways the holy life is negated because according to these views there is no benefit to be gained by cultivating self-restraint or virtuous qualities. In fact, to do so would be to miss out on worldly pleasures and advantages for no good reason. Either death will bring an end to everything, or one's causes will not follow one into whatever next life there might be, or things happen for no reason, or destiny will determine one s fate regardless of one's actions. Each of these views undermines any motivation people might have for following the holy life or even for the mere cultivation of worldly virtue.
|
