Buddhism in India

The Dhamma 55

sects, the psychological intention behind on act is stressed as making

kammareal and efficacious. The Buddha firmly rejected asceticism,

meaning the absolutist position that any commission of ‘violence’—

connected actions leads to a negativeresult.

This is exemplified in his attitude towards meat-eating. In the

Vinayait is said that bhikkus could eat meat of an animal if they

did not know it was killed for them; given the prevalence of meat-

eating at the time and the general rule that a bhikku was supposed

to eat whatever was put in his bowl, this is perhaps natural. But

the teaching is made explicit. In theAmagandha Sutta(carrion

discourse) of the Sutta Nipata, Kassapa, a former Buddha, is

accused of eating ‘delectable meals made from the flesh of birds’,

though he claims to touch no carrion. In reply he says that it is not

meat that is carrion, but rather it is killing, maiming, theft, lies, lust,

passion, pursuit of pleasure, anger, conceit, envy, all the wicked

actions and emotions of men that is carrion. And he concludes,

Control thy senses, rule thy powers, hold to truth, be kind.

The saint who leaves all ties and vanquishes all sorrow

is stained by naught he sees or hears’ (Sutta Nipata #250).

A Jataka story, directed specifically against Jain teachings, makes

this clear. Mahavira (Nigantha Nathaputta) is born as a wealthy

devotee who feeds meat to the Boddhisattva as an ascetic and then

accuses him of sinning. The Boddhisattva replies ‘The wicked may

for gift slay wife or son, yet if the holy eat, no sin is done’ (# 246^2 ).

The one who kills, not the one who (unknowingly) eats, is guilty.

All of the references to Jains in the Pali canon, in fact, make the

same point. One Jataka even seems to argue that the ‘noble’ can

even drink strong liquor without being affected (#183).

It is control of passions, self-discipline, the removal of lust and

desire, that is the dominant theme in all the early recorded teachings.

Even in the midst of worldly luxury, it is said that a person can

attain such self-control:

Anyone who, though adorned in fine clothes, is tranquil,

who is peaceful, disciplined, self-controlled, virtuous,

54 Buddhism in India

However, a reading of these texts shows that the Buddha gave a
radically different interpretation of this framework. In fact, we can
take the specific Buddhist notion of ‘kamma’ as a central entry
point to understanding something of the Dhamma. The simple
meaning of kamma is action, which first millennium thinking
linked with the notion of rebirth and the transmigration of souls
through the inevitable links of action and re-action, cause and
effect. Both samanas and Brahmans accepted this linkage of karma
and rebirth. The Brahmans extended karma from the sacrifice to
the necessary rituals and rites of daily life, defined in terms of one’s
place in the varna system. Of the samanas, some, like the Ajivikas,
denied the efficacy of human action in affecting this kamma; others
like the Jains stressed it, but all worked within the same framework.
Even the materialists could put forward no convincing alternative. The
Buddha also began from this framework but so radically reinterpreted
it, using kammain a way totally different from either the Brahmans
or the samanas, that we can almost say that the framework itself
was shattered.
In a sutta in the Anguttaraya Nikaya, the Buddha says, ‘The
kamma done, caused by or arising out of one of these (non-greed,
non-hatred and non-delusion), is skilful, not blameworthy, and
brings happiness; it is helpful to the destruction of kamma, not to
the arising of kamma’ (3: 108). Here the term kammaseems to
be used in two ways. In the first use kammameans ‘action’; in the
second it is used in the sense of the results of action (usually in
future lives through the karma-rebirth link)—but then the Buddha
notes that some kinds of action are innocent of the clinging kamma
that produces rebirth. What actions are these? Those actions which
are not done by or caused by or arising out of greed, hatred and
delusion. The significance of action, then, depends on the subjective
orientation of the actor.
This shows the ethicisation of kammaand the psychological
orientation of the Buddha. In contrast to the Brahmans, the Buddha
like other samanas stressed that it was actions of violence and
nonviolence, against any sentient beings, which affected human
destiny. Sacrifice and ritual meant nothing in this respect; and in
discourse after discourse we see how the Buddha, in response to
Brahmans and to those affected by Brahmanic teachings, advises the
questioner to substitute righteous or loving actions for the sacrifices.
Against most of the samanas, and in particular the ascetic samana

(^2) Here and elsewhere in this text the numbers in brackets refer to the Jataka numbers
as given in Jatakas, 1985.