By
ROD BUCKNELL & MARTIN STUART
Fox
J Most of the earlier Mahayana siitras are said to have been delivered at
places where Gotama lived and taught, eg. Rajagfha or Sravasti (see "The ques
tions of Suvikrantavikramin" and "The Diamond Satra" in Edward Conze, The
Short Prajiiapiiramitii Texts (London: Luzac, 1974). However, later siitras and
tantras dispense with any pretence to historical realism.
D ii
100.
5 Tenzin Gyatso, The Buddhism of Tibet and the Key to the Middle Way, transl.
Jeffrey Hopkins and Lati Rimpoche (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 20.
Cf. W.Y. Evans--Wentz, ed. , The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation (London:
Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 122, note I, wherethe three turnings of the
wheel are called the Three Secret Doctrines.
Speech, and Mind of all the Buddhas".6 Thus the fact that a siitra
begins with this formula is, as scholars have long recognized, no guar
antee that it presents an authentic record of Gotama's teaching.
The wide historica l gap between the time of Gotama and the first
appearance of such sutras would make it most unlikely that they origin
ated from Gotama. The Mahayana claim that these siitras were
handed down in a special esoteric tradition, independently of the main
stream exoteric tradition preserved in the Pali c:anon, would be difficult
to prove or disprove because, it could be argued, an esoteric tradition
is, by its very nature, unlikely to leave any historical trace. Evidence
against the Mahayana claim is provided by the fact, revealed by even
the most superficial textual analysis, that many of the philosophical
doctrines expressed in the Mahayana texts (sunyatii, prajnii-upiiya, etc.)
did not become current until some centuries after Gotama's death. The
claim that these doctrines were known only to certain chosen disciples
charged with secretly transmitting them is unconvincing.
More telling as evidence for an esoteric transmission is the existence
of the elaborate symbolic language associated with the Vajrayana of
Tibet, and its Chinese/Japanese extensions, the Chen-yen/Shingon
schools. This system of symbols, known as the Twilight Language
(smrzdhyii-bhaa)7 incorporates various symbolic devices (mat;rJ,alas,
mudriis, etc.), often explicitly sexual in nature. It is mentioned in cer
tain important tantras, for example the Hevajra, where it is referred to
as "the Twilight Language, that secret language, that convention of the
yoginis, which the S ravakas and others cannot unriddle". 8 The Twilight
Language is said to have been created by siddhas, adept masters in an
esoteric meditative tradition, to aid in preserving and communicating
secret doctrines.9 The symbols are generally recognized as denoting
aspects of the meditative path to enlightenment; however, their detailed
significance is said to be known only to certain spiritually advanced
gurus and their immediate disciples.10
6 D. L. Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra, Part 1, Introduction and Translation
(London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 47.
7 We follow Wayman in the debate over whether the term should be samdh'ii
bhiifli or samdhya-bh'iifli. See Alex Wayman, The Buddhist Tantras: Light on
Inda-Tibetan Esotericism (New York: Rider, 1960), pp. 128-132.
8 Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra, Part 1, p. 99.
9 The Siddhas are referred to in Lama Anagarika Govinda, Foundations of
Tibetan Mysticism (London: Rider, 1960), pp. 52-53.
10 Cf. Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, transl. Wiliard R Trask
2nd ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969), pp. 249-254.
11
reys (New York: Delta Books, 1955), p. 12, and p .45, note 2.
Christmas Humph
indicating that even if an esoteric tradition did exist, it may have origin
ated centuries after Gotama's death. The attribution of Mahayana tex'.ts to
Gotama himself is most reasonably interpreted as an attempt to lend an
appearance of authenticity to new doctrines or meditative practices. On
the other hand, the lack of historical evidence does not constitute a con
clusive refutation of the Mahayanist claims; for, as pointed out above,
an esoteric transmission is unlikely to leave tangible traces.
The Theravada Evidence
information which Gotama withheld was not essential for the supreme
attainment; Gotama taught as much as his disciples needed to know in
order to attain enlightenment. In any case, and despite the claims
made by Humphreys and others, the fact that Gotama withheld a large
part of his knowledge has little bearing on the problem of an esoteric
teaching. 14 The question that concerns us is not: "Did Gotama with
hold part of his knowledge?" but rather; "Did Gotama withhold part
of his knowledge from the majority of monks, while revealing it to a
select minority?" On this crucial question the incident in the sir,sapii
grove sheds little light.
Having thus disposed of the one passage from the Pali Tipitaka
which has been taken as evidence for an esoteric transmission, we turn
now to the passage mentioned earlier, which is often cited as evidence
against such a transmission. This passage, which occurs in the Maha
parinibbiina-sutta and again in the Satpyutta, is translated by T. W.
and C. A. F. Rhys Davids as follows:
I have preached the truth without making any distinction bet
ween exoteric and esoteric doctrine; for in respect of the truths,
Ananda, the Tathiigata has no such thing as the closed fist of
a teacher, who keeps some things back.15
W. Rhys Davids took this as an explicit rejection of an esoteric
teaching, and concluded: "There is no 'esoteric doctrine' in true
Buddhism. "16
T.
14 Humphreys maintains that the esoteric tradition i s "none the less potent,
none the less reliable for the fact that it is nowhere, in more than fragments, written
down". Christmas Humphreys, Buddhism 3rd ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1962), p. 14. A propos of Gotama's withholding of knowledge, the Buddha is
popularly believed to have been omniscient, and on that ground alone, could
arguably never have taught all he knew.
15 D ii 100. The translation is from Dialogues of the Buddha, Vol. 11, transl.
T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids (London: Luzac, 1971), p. 107.
16 The Questions of King Milinda, transl. T.W. Rhys Davids (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1965), p. 143, note 3. See also pp, 267-268. note 3. Rhys Davids
argues that if there had been any such secret transmission in early Buddhism it
would have been referred to in the Milindapaiiha either where it is said that the good
teacher holds no secrets from his disciples, or where reasons are given why the Pa ti
mokha is kept secret from lay followers; i.e., at Milindapaiih a 9 4 add 96. That
Nagasena himself believed there was no such secret knowledge is apparent from the
section where he explains Gotama's refusal to answer the speculative questions posed
by the Elder Mii.luiikyaputta; see Milindapanha, 144-145. The commentary on this
section of the Milinda states that other teachers, on their death beds, confide to
24
25
26
10
would have taught the most advanced aspects of the Dharma only to
the most advanced students.
Gotama's statement that he had omitted nothing and excluded no
one was made in the context of a request by his favourite disciple,
A.nanda, for instructions concerning the leadership of the Sangha after
the Master's death.28 Gotama's answer was that no leader was needed.
The Sangha was already in possession of the truth he had taught, in
particular the truth about the path to enlightenment; knowledge of this
path was all the Sangha required. But in claiming that the Sangha was
in possession of his teaching, Gotama clearly did not mean that every
member of the Sangha knew and understood that teaching in its
entirety; for the highest knowledge - knowledge of the final stages on
the path to enlightenment - would have been possessed only by the
most advanced monks.
What Gotama evidently meant was that,
since a number of monks were already arahants, the Sangha as a whole
possessed knowledge of the full course of practice leading to enlighten
ment.
The above considerations indicate that Gotama's claim to have
taught the Dbarma without omitting anything or excluding anyone bas
to be understood as subject to two qualifications: He taught the
Dharma without omitting anything that was necessary for attaining en
lightenment; and he taught it to every student who came to him to the
extent that he or she was capable of applying it. The second of these
qualifications would have created conditions conducive to the develop
ment of an esoteric transmission; for advanced students would have had
access to knowledge that was denied to less advanced ones. Since the
passage containing this ambivalent claim is the one and only passage
in the Pali suttas that can plausibly be taken as denying an esoteric
transmission, it must be acknowledged that the Theravada evidence
relevant to this question is as inconclusive as the Mahayana evidence. 29
28
29
D ii
99-100.
11
12
statement that qne knowledge was attained in each of the three watches
of the night. Enlightenment dawned and liberation was realized upon
perfection of the third knowledge.
The three knowledges are clearly of supreme importance in the
Buddhist course of practice. They correspond to pafiilii in the three
fold division of the course of practice into sila, samiidhi, and panila
(morality, concentration, and insight); they correspond t0 vipassanii in
the twofold division of meditation into samatha and vipassanii (tranqui
lity and insight); and they correspond to samma ila1Ja (right insight),
the ninth stage in the tenfold path, of which the more familiar eightfold
path, appears to be an abbreviated version.32 As Pantle says in his
Origins of Buddhism: "His [Gotama's] originality appears to have con
sisted in the association of Samadhi and Pafifia in order to advance from
the Jhanas to the Three Vijjas and Sambodhi". 33 The transition from
the fourthjhiina to the first of the three knowledges therefore represents
a crucial stage on the path to enlightenment.34
Yet in spite of their evident importance, the three knowledges are
described quite inadequately in the Tipitaka. For example, the des
cription of how a monk should develop the first knowledge merely
states: "Thus with the mind composed, . .. immovable, he directs his
mind to the knowledge and recollection of former habitations. He
recollects a variety of former habitations, thus: one birth, two births,
three ...four ...five .. .ten ... twenty ... thirty ... forty ... fifty . . . a
hundred ...a thousand . ..a hundred thousand births, . . , ,3 5 In some
suttas the description is accompanied by a statement that the practice
.
32 On these equivalences and on the stages of the tenfold path. see Roderick
s. Bucknell, "The Buddhist Path to Enlightenment: An Analysis of the listing of
Stages", forthcoming.
33 Govind Chandra Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism 2nd rev. ed.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974, p. 538, note 145.
34 The accounts of Gotama's own enlightenment could plausibly be interpreted
as implyi g that the three knowledges arose spontaneously as a result of his abid
ing in the fourthjhiina. However Gotama's exhortations to the monks to develop
the same three knowledges indicate that, far from arising spontaneously, they
needed to be actively developed. The same is clear from instructions given by
Buddhaghosa. For example: "Therefore the monk who is a beginner, wishing to
recall this[ i.e. to recall his former existences] should .. . contemplate, in reverse
order all that he had done. .. " ( Visuddhimagga 412). The three knowledges are there
fore three forms of meditative practice to be actively developed once the four jhiinas
have been mastered.
35 M i 348.
13
D i 8 1.
Eg Visuddhimagga 410-423.
This, at least, was R. B.'s impression on questioning some of the most res
pected meditation masters in Thailand.
39 However, for an interpretation in terms of practical meditation see Roderick
S. Bucknell ang Martin Stuart-Fox. "The Three Knowledges of Buddhism: Impli
cations of Buddhadasa's Interpretation of Rebirth", f orthcoming.
40 It is irrelevant whether the suttas were originally recited by just one monk,
as the tradition implausibly claims, or were compiled by many monks over a period
of decades after Gotama's death. The point is that any record could only be of
Gotama's public teaching.
36
37
38
14
41 Cf. Sukumar Dutt, The Buddha and five After-Centuries (London: Luzac,
1957), pp. 99, 116-117.
42 Cf. A iii 355. see also Louis de Lavllee Poussin, "Musila et Niirada",
Melanges chinois et bouddnhiques, 5 (1937). pp. 210-222.
15
hayins soon
dwindled to a small
16
knew of the higher practices only as stereotype lists of stages, which they
dutifully memorized and recited to novices and lay devotees. Hence the
inadequacy of extant accounts of higher insight meditation.44
On balance, then, the evidence indicates that Gotama very probably
did impart what may be called an esoteric doctrine, a special higher
teaching on advanced meditation, reserved for an elite minority of
monks. However, in withholding detailed information on higher medi
tation from all but his most competent disciples, Gotama was not guilty
of having "the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps some things back"
Rather he was acting in the best interests of his students. Any monk
who had advanced sufficiently along the meditative path could become
eligible for membership of that elite group and receive some individual
instruction.
How long such an elite tradition would have persi5ted after Gota
ma's death is another question. Because of the steady decline in the
relative standing and influence of the jhiiyins, progressively fewer monks
would have been motivated to seek and hand on the precious knowledge.
It seems likely, therefore, that the lines of transmission could have died
out or become seriously weakened within a few centuries of Gotama's
death.45 However, it is not impossible that, as is believed in the
Ch'an/Zen schools, an unbroken line of adepts has kept the tradition
alive, albeit in somewhat altered form, down to the present day. The
Vajrayanists' claim that their meditative tradition (represented symboli
cally in the Twilight Language) goes back to the Buddha, also deserves
to be taken seriously. 46 On the other hand, the claim that Mahayana
siitras such as the Prajfiaparamitii. represent Gotama's esoteric doctrine
appears to have little to support it , for the content of such sutras, with
i ts emphasis on philosophy and relative neglect of meditation, is not in
keeping with what we may infer the secret higher teaching to have been.
The above analysis has necessarily rested largely on "the evidence
from silence"; as always in the case of a claimed esoteric transmission,
44
45
It
46
However,
not
17