由尼柯耶論喬達摩成佛之道

中華佛學學報第15 期 (p471-493)： (民國 91 年)，臺北：中華佛學研究 所，http://www.chibs.edu.tw

Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, No. 15, (2002)

Taipei: The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies ISSN: 1017-7132

由尼柯耶論喬達摩成佛之道

穆克紀

中華佛學研究所特約研究員

p. 471

提要

此次演講主要探討有關喬答摩成佛之道上的幾個問題。首先，根據尼柯 耶，可以確定喬答摩修四禪。其次，「我」和「現法涅槃」並未出現在 喬達摩修四禪的敘述中。接著討論的是達到初禪後的精神體驗。依據《梵 網經》巴利原文的語法分析，達到初禪之後並不是住於初禪，因為「初 禪」只是一個名相，代表一連串心理狀態。綜合《梵網經》和《布喻經》

的敘述，由於禪修者刻意捨離了渴欲的對象與不善的心理狀態，有尋、

伺、淨信、歡悅、喜、身輕安、樂等心理狀態自然地次第升起，最後止 於三摩地。禪修者能在三摩地中持續一段時間，也就是安住於三摩地。

此時心中對於感受完全沒有任何思惟憶念，因此沒有自我意識的束縛，

這或許是喬達摩把「我」一詞從他禪修的敘述中剔除的原因。達二、三、

四禪後，一樣會住於三摩地。然而，因為有擾動定境的因素，四禪以下 只能暫住於三摩地。這些因素在初禪、二禪、三禪分別為尋伺、喜、樂。

住於第四禪的三摩地，沒有擾亂定境的因素，所以是穩固的，沒有自我 意識的約束，沒有覺受的影響，禪修者達到高度禪定，並且正念具足。

此時才有可能獲得真正客觀的知識，毋需藉助邏輯思考。喬達摩達四禪 住於三摩地時，依次如實知自己的過去世、眾生的過去世、苦樂生死輪

轉無盡，最後得「漏盡智（āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna）」，亦即有關除滅三 種有漏的智慧。然而證得漏盡智菩提並不等同於證涅槃，因為還有想蘊 會干擾定境。為了要住於定境不受干擾，喬達摩另外修無色定，最後達 到滅想受定，止息了一切受蘊，並且把想蘊降低至不足以干擾定境的程 度，這個境界最接近涅槃的狀態，這是禪修者在此世間可以經歷到的涅 槃。在達滅受想定之後，喬達摩便自稱為「如來（Tathāgatā）」。

關鍵詞： 1.初禪 2.無上現法涅槃 3.三摩地 4.漏盡智 5.如來 6.我

p. 472

今天我將要討論有關喬答摩成佛之道上的幾個問題。首先，喬答摩是否 修四禪？有些學者認為他沒有修四禪。這種見解根本站不住腳，因為遍 尋五部尼柯耶，沒有一處提到這種說法；相反地，在這些原始經典中一 致記載著：不僅是喬答摩，連他的弟子都修四禪。所以喬答摩當然是修 四禪的。

五部尼柯耶中對於四禪有兩種敘述，其中之一屬於無上現法涅槃學派

（此派主張，證得無上涅槃時，萬法俱存）。這兩套說法幾乎完全相同，

主要的差異只是：「此時，這個『我』已經達到涅槃。」這句話只出現 在無上現法涅槃學派的敘述中，卻不見於喬答摩所修四禪的敘述。這或 許是後世在結集時省略了這句話，因為沒有提到「我」，就表示證得無 我實相。然而喬答摩當時還在修行初階，尚未經歷過自我消融，因此，

「我」這個字眼，原來應該出現在喬答摩修四禪的敘述中。此外，當時 所有的沙門都相信有常我或暫時的我的存在，這也可以佐證喬答摩修四 禪的敘述中應該包含「我」這個字眼。

「無上現法涅槃」這個名相也應包含在喬答摩修四禪的敘述中。在無上 現法涅槃的境界，所有的感受（受蘊）都已泯滅，然而感官認知機能（想 蘊）依然完整地運作；換句話說，除了感受以及隨之而起的自我意識之 外，達到無上現法涅槃的修行者仍有感覺認知憶想的活動。證道之後的 喬答摩並不認為這是最高境界的涅槃；他認定世間究極的涅槃是滅受想 定，此時不僅無一絲感受的束縛，甚至連所有的認知憶想也幾乎蕩然無

存。但是修四禪階段的喬答摩還沒有經歷過滅受想定，當時他既然不知 道有任何境界更勝無上現法涅槃，自然不會在他修四禪的敘述中刪去這 個名相。

然而，兩種不同的敘述也許不是由於後世結集的增刪。喬答摩之所以不 認為此「我」達到無上現法涅槃有更深一層的理由，有關他修四禪的敘 述和他實際的禪修經驗是一致的。這點稍後再討論。

另外，我想討論一個人達到初禪後精神方面的體驗。前面提到的兩種敘 述都是有關相同的精神體驗，為了方便起見，我們主要依據《梵網經》

中對無上現法涅槃學派的禪修敘述來討論這個問題，相關的經文照錄如 下：

捨離了渴欲的對象與障礙聖道的心理狀態，而且也已經達到了初禪－－

初禪中有尋有伺，由捨離而生，並以喜、樂為特徵－－之後，他安住。

此時，這個「我」（soul，靈魂，神識）已經達到了無上現法涅槃的境

界。

這就是巴利原典所要傳達的意義，但是至今我所看過的翻譯對這段經文 多有誤譯之處，因此也就扭曲了原義。在此，我僅提出一個對我們研究 有重大影響的誤譯，也就是引文最後一部分的翻譯：「……現在，他達 到且住於初禪。此時，這個『我』

p. 473

（soul，靈魂，神識） 已經達到了無上現法涅槃的境界。」

譯者顯然改變了原義：原文「捨離」和「達到」這兩個動詞的型態是表 示過去的動作，因此「捨離」和「達到」這兩個動作純粹屬於已發生的 行為，和現在毫無關係，而譯者雖然正確地傳達出「捨離」過去式的意 味，卻毫無根據地把「達到」轉變為現在式的動詞。這樣的翻譯顯示譯 者認為修定的人住於初禪，而初禪就是無上現法涅槃。譯者這種認知我 們不敢茍同，因為那和實際的禪修經驗不符。首先，所謂「初禪」，其 實是一個約定俗成的名詞，用來指涉某些心理狀態；初禪，就是由這些 心理狀態組成的，而不是有別於這些狀態的另一個東西。其次，「初禪」

既然代表一連串的心理狀態，人就不可能在同一時間處於這一切狀態之

中。再者，屬於初禪的這些心理狀態含有許多擾亂定境的因素，而現法 涅槃是心理極度寧靜的狀態，這兩者決不可能相等。

原文亦未明言禪修者住於初禪或任何一種狀態，只是表明「住」是一個 現在式的動作，「已經達到了初禪」卻是過去式，所以，不可能「住於 初禪」。另一方面，經中說：「達到後，持續住於涅槃。」可見「證涅 槃」的行為雖然已經發生（patto），其境界卻一直持續到現在（hoti）。

因此「證涅槃」指的是現存的狀態，應該和「住」（viharati）這個現在 式動詞有關。

接著要探討禪修者的心識住於何種狀態，以及這種心理狀態何以等同於 無上現法涅槃。要解開這兩個疑點，首先得審視構成初禪的特徵。

有關初禪的描述中只提到捨離了欲與不善心法的心理狀態，同時存在的 是初步的和持續的判斷性的思惟（有尋有伺），引發這種心理狀態的是 捨離（由離生），而其特徵是喜與樂。其中，「欲」指的是一個人所執 著渴欲的對象，而不是指欲望。因為經中說：若人無欲，則感悲傷。沒 有人會因為失去欲望而感到悲傷。人要是沒有了欲望，反倒會感到快樂 才對。因此，「捨離了欲」指的是捨離了渴欲的對象。其次，所謂「不 善心法」指的是「造成障礙的心理因素」，也就是有礙修證的心理因素。

依照無上現法涅槃學派的傳統，這些不善心法包括悲傷、哀痛、苦悶、

絕望，同屬苦受的範疇。至於「由離生」的「離」（viveka）和「捨離

了欲與不善心法」的「捨離」（vivicca）同樣由字根√ vic 加上接頭詞 vi- 衍化而來，可見這兩個字同指捨離欲與不善心法。捨離了之後，構成初 禪的種種心理狀態才次第生起。因此初禪才會被稱為「由離生」。最後 有關喜和樂，我們只能粗略的說：喜、樂皆與身心有關，但是喜主要影 響生理，樂則偏重於心理。

此處臚列的初禪的特徵並不完備，在《中部 • 布喻經》也提到其他初 禪的特徵：

當一個人捨離煩惱（內心的染污）時，心中便生起淨信 （pasāda），

有信則有歡悅（pāmojja），

p. 474

歡悅則喜（pīti）生，而後有身輕安（passaddhi），而後樂（sukha）

生。

五部尼柯耶中的「樂」和寧靜有關，與一般日常所用的「樂」語意大不 相同。此經亦未完全列出出現在初禪中的所有心理因素，例如對「不苦

不樂」略而不提，在「樂」之後就直接跳到「三摩地（samādhi，心志

專注）」。這一連串心理因素的次第生起以三摩地為終點。

這段經文對於我們的研究至為重要，所以有必要了解其中蘊含的訊息。

《布喻經》陳述構成初禪的諸多心理因素，卻沒有提及「初禪」一詞，

可見這不過是個名相，不是有別於以上所列出的另一種心理因素。此 外，對初禪的敘述只是相對的事實，此經所謂的「煩惱」，涵蓋了《梵 網經》中的「（渴）欲（的對象）」與「不善心法」。這兩部經都說：

捨離了欲和不善心法（也就是「煩惱」）之後，構成初禪的心理因素便 次第生起。所謂「捨離」並不是表示禪修者將欲與不善心法斷除盡淨，

只是將其影響力降低到初禪中的種種心理因素可以生起的程度。所以在 閱讀尼柯耶時，要注意常有以絕對語詞來描述相對事實的情形。

「身輕安」在「喜」之後出現。事實上，喜極易擾動定境，只是其力量 不及先前大幅翦除的種種苦受，因而在喜之後，有身輕安的生起。

另有一點需要注意的是，捨離欲、不善心法（或是煩惱）是禪修者刻意 的作為，淨信、歡悅等一連串心理變化，是在欲與不善心法大部份消失 後自然而然出現的。因此，如果在禪修時將欲與不善心法捨離到某種程 度，以上臚列的心理因素自然會次第而起，而這些心理轉變的過程止於 三摩地。所謂次第而起，其實是指禪修者依次察覺到這些心理因素的存 在，也就是感覺到某一種心理狀態，便沒有察覺到其他心理狀態。而當 三摩地出現後，就沒有其他心理代之而起了，禪修者故而能在三摩地中 持續一段時間，這就是經中所謂的「他安住」－－禪修者安住於三摩地。

此時只感覺到心境的專注，而不見苦、樂、喜等感受，其心中對於感受 完全沒有任何思惟憶念。尼柯耶的傳統認為，自我意識與對感受的思惟 憶念並存。換句話說，沒有對感受的思惟憶念，就沒有自我意識。所以 處於三摩地時，不但察覺不到任何感受，而且不受自我意識的束縛。就 因為此時只知心志專注而不覺有我，故說有作業而無作者。

若禪修者事後要詳細自述住於三摩地的經驗，必得裁去「自我」一詞，

因為在三摩地中沒有自我意識，而「我」卻是神識中不可或缺的一環，

三摩地中自然無「我」，既然如此，也不會有個「我」達到無上現法涅 槃。因此之故，喬達摩很可能在證菩提之前，就把「我」一詞從有關修 四禪的敘述中剔除了。而為何住於三摩地即是達到無上現法涅槃呢？這

是因為在三摩地和在無上現法涅槃一樣，不受覺受與自我意識的束縛，

p. 475

在思惟憶想能力不失的情況下，經歷到極度的寧靜。此時喬達摩尚未體 驗到比三摩地更寧靜的境界，當然可能把捨離「我」的三摩地視為無上 現法涅槃。

「住於初禪」的說法並不確實，正確的說法應該是「住於三摩地」。剛 才提過：「住」是viharati，由接頭詞 vi- 加上字根 √ hṛ 形成的動詞，

早期佛教傳統用這個字顯示身或心的運動的停駐點。禪修中有一連串心 理狀態次第生起，止於三摩地且停駐於此。這也是我認為「他安住」指 的是「住於三摩地」的另一個依據。禪修者在三摩地中的體驗和無上現 法涅槃一樣，所以有關初禪的敘述中，「安住」和「達到無上現法涅槃」

都和現在式有關，指現存的狀態。

從以上的討論也可明顯看出，佛陀有關無我和有作業而無作者的教說最 初是基於他對三摩地的體驗。這些論點在後來喬達摩證滅受想定或證菩 提時，獲得進一步的證實。

依《梵網經》所述，不僅在達初禪之後體驗無上現法涅槃，達二、三、

四禪後，一樣會體驗到無上現法涅槃。也就是說，不管在哪一禪，禪修 者都會有心理不受覺受與自我意識的制約的體驗，也就是住於三摩地。

在此值得注意的是，阿毘達摩文獻中提到三摩地為構成初禪、二禪、三 禪、四禪中一連串心理因素的最後一項；喬達摩也說他達初禪後安住，

他必然同樣地體驗到三摩地，雖然他沒有說：「此刻，此『我』已達無 上現法涅槃。」

然而，他只能暫時住於三摩地，因為這種寧定的境界是自然而然升起，

而非禪修者刻意引發的，他既然沒有剷除或壓抑動搖心定的因素，當一 連串心理因素次第而起，止於三摩地時，擾攘不安的心理又開始作用。

初禪以尋（vitakka）、伺（vicāra）為主，因此禪修者的注意力由三摩

地轉向尋、伺，結果自然無法繼續安住於無上現法涅槃的極度寧靜之 中。為了要重回定境，他便試圖以批判的方式遣除這兩項因素。藉由不 斷的批判，禪修者對尋、伺產生嫌惡，繼而加以遣除。

當尋、伺不能擾動喬達摩的心境時，一連串的心理因素再次次第升起，

名之為「二禪」。在此不細究構成二禪的種種心理因素，但簡而言之，

這些心理變化一樣止於三摩地，喬達摩安住於此，再度經歷了無覺受與 自我意識束縛的自在。同樣的，他也不能久住於此，因為此時「喜」成 為擾動定境的主因，分散了他的注意力，使他又失去了類似涅槃的定 境。於是他再次藉著不斷地批判而消除「喜」的影響力，繼而體驗到另 一次的種種心理變化，名之為「三禪」。擾動「三禪」定境的是「樂」，

這種感受稱之為「心的轉向（ābhoga）」，ābhoga 是從動詞 √ bhuj 衍 生而來，其義為「轉彎，轉變方向」。「樂」使得禪修者的注意力轉向 樂的感受，而不能住於三摩地，因此他再次從涅槃定境中退墮下來。接 著他又藉著批判來遣除「樂」。這自然導致另一次的心理變化，同樣的 止於三摩地，達到「四禪」，安住於三摩地。

p. 476

第四禪中有不苦不樂受，這本質上不是擾動定境的因素，所以一旦住於 第四禪的三摩地，就沒有擾亂定境的因素升起，此時的三摩地是穩固 的，沒有自我意識的約束，也就不受主觀因素的干擾，加上沒有覺受的 影響，禪修者達到高度禪定，並且正念具足。再佛陀時代之前的沙門只 著重禪定，因為涅槃即是禪定，卻不強調去除自我意識與主觀因素的束 縛。但是，人唯有心中無絲毫主觀因素的左右，才有可能獲得真正客觀 的知識，也就是對諸法如實的認識。名之為「菩提」的知識，就是一種 客觀的知識。此外，禪修者住於這種無主觀因素影響的心境時，只要專 注於某個對象，就能如實了解它，毋需藉助邏輯思考。這樣的知識稱為

「如實（yathābhūta）」。

這種心境不會自行改變，也不需要專注於任何對象，所以喬達摩可以專 注於不同的事物，如實地了解這些事物。他首先專注於自己的過去世，

不消片刻就看清楚自己無數的過去世。接著專注的對象是眾生的過去 世，而了解眾生在不同的過去世中由於種種不同的業所造成的苦樂。他 也發現這樣生生世世的輪轉無止盡，苦樂也因而無止盡。他想要找出解

脫的方法，立刻就認識到有漏的存在、根源、除滅、與除滅的方法。在 最早可見的聖典中，這樣的認知稱為「漏盡智（āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna）」，

亦即有關除滅三種有漏的智慧。這種智慧被稱為「菩提」是過了相當長 的一段時間之後的事。

獲得「菩提」之後，他所知道的是，他不會再有生死輪迴，而且已經完 成了所有該做的事。早期經典僅稱之為「第三明」，後來在《有學經》

中被稱為「菩提生（bodhijam）」，意思是由於菩提而產生的。菩提，

也就是對諸法客觀的如實認知，每次只能針對一個對象，無法同時專注 於各種不同的對象。在《念處經》中記載了佛陀如實認識的許多事物，

但是只有對於有漏或苦的如實認知才稱為「菩提」。

關於有漏的如實認識特別重要，因為漏盡智和生死輪迴的解脫有直接關

係。有漏分為三種：一、欲漏（kāmāsava），因五欲之樂而引起的雜

染；二、有漏（bhavāsava），和個體存在有關的雜染；三、無明漏

（avijjāsava），和根本無明有關的雜染。顯而易見的，只要除滅有漏，

禪修者就能跳出生死輪迴。

然而這種心理狀態並非涅槃。證菩提並不等同於證涅槃，證涅槃是心理 極度的寧定，這是證菩提時無法體驗到的。因為證菩提時思惟憶念的能 力（想蘊）和可以感受到的諸法的範疇維持不變，而任何思惟活動對住 於三摩地的禪修者而言卻猶如在背的芒刺。為了要住於定境不受干擾，

喬達摩修另一套禪法－－無色定，以降低思惟作用及其範圍。他先藉由 批判形體使心不受形體的束縛。空間是因為形體才變為有限，隨著形體 的消失，他體驗到廣袤無垠的空間。無色定的修持不是我們今天探討的 要點，所以我只提出喬達摩最後達到非想非非想處，但即使在這個境 界，思惟作用也沒有完全根除，換句話說，和涅槃相較之下，這個境界 仍不穩定。佛陀連那絲毫的思惟作用也除去了，

p. 477

而達到滅想受定，止息了一切思惟與感受（無想蘊與受蘊）。經典所說 的「止息」並非全然的止息，因為如果完全沒有思惟活動，禪修者無從 得知他已經達到這個境界。但是可以確定的是，他完全捨離一切感受，

因此不受自我意識（我、我所）的控制，思惟活動也大幅降低至不足以 干擾定境的程度。所以這個境界最接近涅槃的狀態，這是禪修者在此世 間可以經歷到的涅槃。不論在證四禪住三摩地時，或在非想非非想處定 中思惟感受止息時，主觀因素都不復存在。這使得喬達摩相信：在有為 法與無為法中，「我」皆不存在。基於以上的討論內容可知：佛陀主要 的教說源於其禪修經驗，而在達滅受想定之後，喬達摩便自稱為「如來

（Tathāgatā）」。

接下來我想探討另一個相當重要的問題：為何喬達摩在證菩提之後選擇 證入現法涅槃？

喬達摩在證菩提之後已經確定他最終將證入涅槃，跳脫生死輪迴，他已 經完成了應該做的事，也看穿了我、我所虛妄的本質，因此不可能對涅 槃有所欲求以滿足一己之私。那麼為何他要進而努力求取涅槃呢？在這 種情況下，唯一可能的解釋是他對眾生毫無條件的慈悲：由於對眾生的 慈悲，他證涅槃以圓滿利他行。根據《雙念經》，喬達摩甚至在達初禪 之前就培養出自然流露的平等的慈悲。

我們或許可以因此理解他的行為是出於慈悲，但這並未解釋為何必須證 涅槃以幫助苦難眾生。他原本可以藉著持戒、教導大眾證菩提之道來利 益眾生，而要做到這兩點不需要證涅槃。那麼他為什麼要有現法涅槃的 經驗呢？佛陀那個時代的老師只宣說自己所經歷過的，無上現法涅槃學 派和無色禪定的老師顯然都是如此，即使是斷滅論的老師也是基於自身 親證而說法。他們之中沒有一個人宣說屬於無為法的涅槃，但是當時一 般似乎將無為法視為理想，而「如來」就被認定是用來描述親證涅槃無 為法的人。要是沒有經歷過涅槃，就無法全然掌握真理。根據對色心諸 法真正客觀的認知，在有為法中並沒有「我」的存在，而達到滅受想定 時，他也體認到無為法中「我」亦不可得。他是在有了這樣的經驗之後 才能宣說無我的真理，也才能探討涅槃。而且一個人唯有證涅槃的經驗 才能確保在身死命終色身壞滅後入涅槃。涅槃是此生必須達到的最高精 神目標，是修行人無上尊貴的表徵，人們會熱切的追求奉行這種人的教 導。正是因為如此，喬達摩在證菩提之後進而體驗涅槃。

2001 年 6 月 5 日講於中華佛學研究所

（此文係由中華佛學研究所研究生方怡蓉小姐翻譯、整理）

Gotama Becomes the Buddha: A Study in Nikāya Traditions

Biswadeb Mukherjee

Contracted Correspondent, Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies

p. 478

Summary

The main concern of this speech is certain problems about the path w hichGotama followedto become Tathāgata. First, according to the Nik āyas, Gotamasurely practiced the 4 jhānas.In Gotama's version of the

4 jhānas in the Nikāyas there is no mention of “attā” and“Parama-diṭṭ ha-dhamma-nibbāna”. Thenext problem is about the spiritual experie nce afterthe attainment of the firstjhāna. With the analysis of the Brah majāla-sutta in Pali, after theattainmentof the first jhāna, one does not abide in the first jhāna, for “the first jhāna”is a merename for a series of mental elements. According to Brahmajāla-sutta andVatthupama-s utta, due to the meditator's intentional separation from theobject of de sire andinexpedient mental elements, such mental elements asinitial

and sustained judgementaldeliberations (vitakka and vicāra), pasāda(

confidence), pāmojja (glad), pīti (joy), passaddhi(physical tranquility), andsukha (happiness) naturally arise one after another and end witht he arising of samādhi (mental concentration). The meditator is able to remain consciousofsamādhi for some time, which situation is indicate d by the statement “he abides(viharati)”

(in “samādhi”). The thoughts of all feelings are absent from themind o f the meditator, andtherefore there is no awareness of “I”. So it isquite possible that Gotama dropped the term“attā” from his description of t he 4 jhānas. After the attainment of the other three jhānas, themeditat or wasabiding in samādhi. But because of someagitative elements Go tama could notabide in samādhi for long until theattainment of the four th jhāna. The most agitative elementsin the first threejhānas are vitakk a and vicāra, pīti, and sukha respectively. Withoutanydisturbing eleme nt, samādhi after the fourth jhāna is stable and the meditator’smind isf ree from any feeling and “I-consciousness”. It is then that it ispossible for him to gain trulyobjective knowledge with no aid of any logicalthink ing. Gotama gained in order the trulyobjective knowledge of his own p astlives, the past lives of others and the endless cycle ofbirth and deat

h, andthe āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna (the wisdom regarding the destruction o f theāśravas).The realisation of āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna is, however, differ ent from therealisation ofnibbāna, for in former case the faculty of perc eption remainsintact and disturbs the calmnessin samādhi. To experie nce the undisturbedcalmness Gotama next followed theārupya-samā pattis (the attainment offormlessness) and finally attained the state of thesaññā-vedayita-nirodha (thecessation of perception and feeling), w hich is the closestpossibleapproximation to the actual nibbāna. After t he attainment ofthesaññā-vedayita-nirodha, Gotama declared himself to be the Tathāgatā.

關鍵詞：1.the first jhāna

2.Parama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbānavādins/PDN 3.samādhi 4.āśrava-kṣaya-jñāna 5.Tathāgatā 6.attā

Today I would like to discuss certain problems relating to the path whi chGotama followed tobecome Tathāgata.[1]

The first problem is whether Gotama practised the system of 4 jhānas ornot. Some scholarsthink that Gotama did not practise this system of meditation.Such a view is really untenable.The Nikāyas do not know o

f any tradition thatstates that Gotama did not follow this systemof med itation. On the contrary,the Nikāyas consistently and unanimously hol d that not onlyGotama but also hisdisciples followed the system of 4 jh ānas. So we may take it for grantedthatGotama practised the 4 jhānas .

There are 2 different versions of the 4 jhānas in the Nikāyas. One vers ionis attributed to theParama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbānavādins(Parama- diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbāna is called PDNhereafter), or the advocates of t heSupreme Nibbāna amidst the perceptibles. These 2versions are al most identical.The only notable difference is that the PDN-vādin versi onincludes the followingsentence which is missing from the version at tributed to Gotama:

“Nowthe attāhas attained the PDN”. One may think that this differenc e is due to thelater-dayediting due to the following reasons: the non-m ention of the term “attā” presupposes therealisation of the truth of “an attā”. But Gotama was thenin the initial stages of his spiritualjourney.

He had yet no experience aboutthe non-existence of “attā”. So the ve rsionattributed to Gotama should haveincluded the term “attā”.

Moreover, all the contemporary śramaṇas believed in the permanent ortemporary existenceof “attā”. This state of things also supports the i dea thatGotama had included the term “attā”in his account of the 4 jh ānas.

Again it is reasonable to think that the term PDN was also included in hisversion. In PDNthe feelings are absent, but thefaculty of perception

remains intact. Except the feelings andthe resultant“I-awareness”, all the other perceptibles can be experienced. This state wasnotaccepte d by the Buddha as the Supreme Nibbāna. The state ofsaññā-vedayit a-nirodha,which is free not only from all feelings but also fromalmost a ll perceptions was accepted bythe Buddha as the Nibbāna in this worl d.But Gotama had not yet experienced this state. AsGotama had not y et anyknowledge of nibbāna which was truer and higher than the PDN

,there is no reasonwhy Gotama would drop this term from his account of the 4 jhānas.

Yet this difference between the 2 versions may not be due to editing a t alater period. Thereare deeper reasons to think Gotama did not acce pt the viewthat the attā attains the PDN.Consequently the version attri

buted to Gotamaconforms to the actual experience that hehad in medi tation. This point will bediscussed later.

The next problem I want to discuss is about the spiritual experience o neattains after theattainment of the first jhāna. In course of our discus sion itwould become clear that both theversions speak of the same sp iritualexperience. For the sake of convenience we woulddiscuss this p roblem mainlywith reference to the PDN-vāda as given in theBrahmaj āla-sutta.

The relevant passage in the Brahmajāla-sutta runs as follows:

Having separated himself (vivicca) from kāma (desirable objects

),havingseparated himself (vivicca) from akusala-dhammas (inex pedientmentalelements) and having attained the first jhāna -- wh ich isaccompanied byvitakka and vicara, born of separation (vive kaja) andcharacterised by pītiand sukha (joy and happiness)

-- he abides(viharati). Now the attā (soul)has attained the PD N.

This is what the Pāli passage actually means. But so far as I have see n,this passage hasalways been wrongly translated in morethan one pl

aces and the message was distorted.Here I will discuss only one ofthe mistakes committed by the previous translators which is ofutmost imp ortancefor our study. They have translated the last part of the account

as follows:

“Heattains and abides in the first jhāna. Now the attā has attained the PDN”.

One can immediately see how the translators have changed the mean ing of thepassage.The forms of “vivicca” and “upasampajja” are geru nd and in Pāli theseforms are called“pubba-kiriyā”, which means “pas t action”. So these actions ofseparation (vivicca) andattainment (upas ampajja) belong exclusively to the pastand are no way connected with

thepresent. But the scholars arbitrarilyinterprets “upasampajja” in the present tense (attains)while retaining thecorrect meaning of “vivicca”

(having separated). Moreover, theimplications ofsuch an arbitrary tran slation, as it will be shown, are absolutelyunacceptable.This translatio n implies that the meditator is abiding in the first jhāna, andthatthe first

jhāna is the same as the PDN. Both these implications arecontradicte d bymeditative experiences and should be rejected. First, there isno fir st jhāna over and abovethe mental elements characterising this ment

alstate. The first jhāna is a mere name toindicate all these elements. S econdly,the term first jhāna stands for a series of mentalelements and

one cannot abidein all these elements at the same time. Thirdly, this seriescontains manyagitative elements and so it cannot be identical w ith the nibbāna in thisworld,which indicates ideal mental calmness.

The text also does not state that the meditator abides in the first jhāna

.It simply states thathe abides (viharati). We have also to note that the attainment of the first jhāna has beendescribed as a completed past a ction (upasampajja = having attained), a pubba-kiriyā. Onthe other ha nd, theexpression “viharati”

(abides) indicates a present action. The act of“abiding”cannot mean a biding in the first jhāna.The attainment of nibbāna, on the otherhand, h as beendescribed through the verbal expression “patto hoti”. The exp erience ofnibbāna,though already attained (patto), is still continuing in the present (hoti). Sotheattainment of nibbāna refers to a present situ ation and as such it should beconnected withthe present action of abi ding (viharati).

It follows from the conclusions reached above that we have now to fin d outwhat is themental state where one can abide and why was this m ental stateidentified with the PDN. Tosolve these two problems we ha ve to pay closeattention to the characteristics that constitutethe so-cal led first jhāna.

The first jhāna formula merely tells us that the mental state is separat edfrom kāma andakusala-dhammas, accompanied by initial and susta ined judgementaldeliberations (vitakkaand vicāra), born of separation

(vivekajam) andcharacterised by pīti and sukha (joy andhappiness). H ere kāma means desirableobjects to which one is attached. It does no t meandesire. For in the text weread that when a person loses kāma, he becomes sad. Nobodybecomes sad by losingdesire. One becomes

happy instead. And what is the meaning of“akusala-dhammas”? This term can be translated as “inexpedient mental elements”, i.e. themen talelements which are unsuitable for attaining the spiritual goal. Accor ding tothePDN-vādin tradition these dhammas stand for soka (grief), p arideva(lamentation), dukha(pain), domanassa (melancholy) and upā yāsā (despair). It isobvious that theseakusala-dhammas belong to the

category of the feeling ofdukkha.

Next the term “viveka”

(separation) may be explained. Vivicca and vivekacome from thesam e root √ vic together with the same prefix “vi”. It isreasonable to concl ude that these twoterms refer to the separation from thesame element s viz kāma and akusala-dhammas. As aresult of this separation them ental elements constituting the first jhāna gradually come intoexistenc e. Thejhāna is, therefore, called “vivekajam”.

As to pīti and sukha we can say without going into a detaileddiscussio n that pīti is joy whichis more connected with the body than with themi nd. This joy affects the body strongly.Sukha is more mental than physi cal.But it is also connected with the body, for oneexperiences sukha t hrough thebody.

This list of the mental characteristics of the first jhāna as given here is not complete. Thereare other characteristics of this state which have beengiven in the Vatthupama-sutta ofMajjhima Nikāya as follows:

When one gives up the upakilesas (mental defilements) the ele ment ofpasāda(confidence) arises in his mind. When there is p asāda, he feelspāmojja(glad). When he feels glad, pīti (joy) ari

ses in his mind. After pītiheexperiences physical tranquility (pass addhi). After passaddhi,sukha(happiness) arises.

Sukha in the Nikāyas is connected with calmness, and is different fro m whatis understoodas sukha in ordinary life. The sutta omits a numb er of elements,one of which isadukkham-asukham. Immediately after sukha, the sutta mentionsthe arising of the elementof mental concentr ation (samādhi). And thisprogression from one element to another ca meto an end with the arising of theelement of samādhi.

This passage is of utmost importance for our study and we should try t ounderstand themessage it conveys. The Vatthupama-sutta gives a d escription ofthe mental elementconstituting the first jhāna without usin g the blanket term“first jhāna”. This shows that the“first jhāna” is a me re name; there is nofirst jhāna as distinct from the mental traitsenumer ated.

Moreover, the account of the first jhāna is only relatively true.“Upakile sa” of theVatthupama-sutta covers the desire for the desirable objects (kāma) and theakusala-dhammas of the Brahmajāla-sutta account of t he firstjhāna. The suttas state thatafter the meditator has become sep

arated from kāmaand akusala-dhammas (i.e. fromupakilesa) the ment al elements constituting the first jhānacome into existence. When thes uttas speak of the separation from kāma andakusala-dhammas, it doe s not mean that themeditator has completely given upkāma etc. He ha s become free from these elements tothe extent it is necessaryfor the arising of the mental elements constituting the first jhāna.One has tob e very careful while reading Nikāyas which are often usingnon-relative expressions to express relative facts.

Physical calmness (passaddhi) arises after pīti. Actually pīti is a verya gitative element. But itis not as agitative as the feelings belonging to t hecategory of dukkha which the meditatorhas just given up to a great extent. Socompared to dukkha, pīti does not agitate the body somuch.

Consequently afterthe arising of pīti he feels physical calmness (pass addhi).

Another point we have to note is that the giving up of kāma andakusal a-dhammas or that ofthe upakilesas is an intentional act on the part of the meditator. The arising of pasāda,pāmojja, etc. is not intended by t hemeditator; it is happening automatically. The processstarts due to t

he relativeabsence of kāma and akusala-dhammas. Thus if one is abl e to giveup kāma andakusala-dhammas to some extent in meditation, the mental elementsenumeratedabove will naturally rise one after an other. This natural progression ofelementscomes to an end with the ar ising of the element of “samādhi”

(mentalconcentration). Thestatement that the mental elements are ari sing one afteranother actually means that themeditator is becoming c onscious of them oneafter another. When he is conscious of oneelem ent, he is not conscious of theother elements. So when the element of

samādhi comesinto existence, there is nomental element that naturall y rises after samādhi and replaces it.So themeditator is able to remain conscious of it for some time. This situation isindicated bythe stateme nt “he abides”

(viharati). The meditator abides in“samādhi”. Now the meditator isonl y aware of the concentratedstate of mind. He is no longer aware of su ch feelings asdukkha, sukha, pīti,etc. So the thoughts of all feelings ar e absent from the mind of themeditator.According to the Nikāya traditi on the thoughts of “I-awareness” must co-existwiththe thoughts of fee lings. If there is no thoughts of feelings, there cannotbe an awareness

of“I” So while in samādhi one is not only free from theconsciousness of any feeling but alsofree from the ego-consciousness, or “I”.

When one abides in samādhi, the awareness of the mental concentrat ion isthere, but thereis no awareness of “I”. So such thoughts as “I a m aware ofthat” does not arise. Thus thereis knowledge of an action b ut not of an actor.

If the meditator himself should later give an accurate description of thi sexperience insamādhi, he could do it only by dropping the term attā f rom hisdescription. It is so becausethere is no awareness of “I” in sa mādhi, whereas“I” is the essential characteristic of an attā.So it is quit e possible thateven before the attainment of bodhi Gotama dropped t he term“attā” from hisdescription of the 4 jhānas. As the existence of “ attā” in the state of samādhiisdenied, the question of an attā attaining the PDN does not arise at all. Whywas the abidingin samādhi accepte d as the attainment of the PDN? The experienceof samādhi is free fro mall thoughts of feelings, and of ego-consciousness also.In this state t he meditatorexperiences a great degree of calmness, even thoughthe

faculty of perception remainsintact. This state was identified with the

PDN. Gotama had not yet experienced any statewhich was calmer th an samādhi; sohe might have accepted this identification of samādhiw ith the PDN, provided theattā was not brought into association with thi s experience.

The abiding in the “first jhāna” is unreal, but the abiding in samādhi isr eal. This abiding, aspointed out before, is indicated by the expression“

viharati”

(he abides). The verbal root √ hṛwith the prefix “vi-” in earlyBuddhist tr adition shows the point at which amovement, whetherphysical or ment al, comes to an end, and the person abidesthere. In meditation also th emeditator experiences one mental element afteranother. This series of experiences comesto an end when he experiences samādhiand he abides there (viharati). This is also anotherreason for which Iconclude d that “abiding” means abiding in samādhi. The mental state insamād hiis the same as the mental state of one who experiences PDN. There fore, inthedescription of the first jhāna the acts of abiding and attaining

the PDN havebeen referredto as current situations.

It is also apparent from what I have discussed so far that the Buddha”

steachings aboutanattā or about actions without an actor are initially b ased onhis experience of the mentalstate in samādhi. Later these con clusions werefurther confirmed when Gotama attained theāśrave-kṣa ya-jñāna or bodhi.

Moreover, the Brahamajāla-sutta speaks of experiencing the PDN not onlyafter theattainment of the first jhāna but also after the attainment of theother three jhānas. Thisshows that in all these cases the meditat or wasexperiencing the same mental state which isfree from the thoug hts of allfeelings and the awareness of “I”. This means that in every c asehe was abidingin samādhi.

It may be noted in this connection that the Abhidharma texts mentions amādhi as the lastelement in the series of mental elements constitutin g allthe four jhānas. There is no doubtthat Gotama also experienced t he same mentalstate, for he also says that he abides(viharati) after att aining the firstjhāna, though he most probably did not use the expressi on: “Now the attā hasattained the PDN”.

But Gotama could abide in this peaceful mental state only for a very s horttime. Why? He hasexperienced the state of samādhi due to the for ce of naturalprogression of mental elementsthat ends in samādhi. Thi s progression has notbeen willed by the meditator. The agitativeeleme nts have neither been destroyednor suppressed by him. When the pro gression ofelements comes to an end with thearising of samādhi, the agitative elements again startbecoming active. The mostagitative ele ments in the first jhāna are the vitakka and vicāra. Sohiscontinuous a wareness of the mental concentration (samādhi) is disturbed, andhisa ttention is drawn towards these two elements. Consequently he loses hisawareness ofthe peacefulness of PDN. He wants to get back the st ate of nibbāniccalmness. He thereforetries to get rid of these two elem ents by adverselycriticising them again and again. Themeditator loses his liking for theelements adversely criticised and generates aversion forthem, and inconsequence gets rid of them.

When the vitakka and vicāra lost their influence on the mind of Gotam a, aprogression of anew series of mental elements followed, which wa s given thename of “second jhāna”. Weneed not discuss all the ment al elements constitutingthe second jhāna. We can simply saythat this

progression of elements also endsin samādhi, in which Gotama abide d. So againhe experienced the same mentalstate which was free from all feelings, and consequentlyfrom the awareness of“I”. Again Gotam a could not abide in samādhi, for pīti, the mostagitativeelement in this mental state, creates distraction and he could no longer beaware ofth e mental concentration. He lost nibbāna-like calmness. So he got ridof

pīti throughadverse criticism of pīti, and became aware of another seri es ofmental elements theconventional name for which was the “third j hāna”.

The samādhi in which Gotama was abiding after the attainment of the thirdjhāna wasdisturbed by the element of sukha (happiness). Sukha i s the strongestagitative element inthis mental state. This feeling (sukh a) is called the“ābhoga” of mind. The word “ābhoga”comes from the verbal root √ bhuj, whichmeans in this case “to bend”. The feeling “su kha”bends the attention of themeditator towards itself, so that the me ditator cannot abide insamādhi anymore.

Thus he lost the nibbānic calmness again. So he next got rid of sukha byadversely criticisingit, and naturally another progressionof elements

followed which likewise ended in samādhi,and he attained the fourthj hāna. He abided in samādhi.

The feeling in the fourth jhāna is called adukkham-asukham. It isnon- agitative in itself. Soonce the meditator is in samādhi, there is noelem ent in this mental state that can disturb theconcentrated state of mind.

Sosamādhi after the fourth jhāna is called stable andimmovable. The mind insamādhi is free from “I-consciousness”, so it is free from subje ctiveelements.Moreover, as the mind in this state is not influenced by any feelingand“I-consciousness”, it is characterised by a deep calmn ess and perfectmindfulness. Thepre-Buddhist śramaṇas paid attentio n to the calmness only, fornibbāna was calmness itself.But they did no t pay attention to the freedom fromthe ego-consciousness and subject iveelements. And only when a person's mind isfree from subjective el ements is it possible forhim to gain truly objectiveknowledge, i.e. the k nowledge of an object as it truly is. Theknowledge whichis given the n ame of “bodhi” is also an objective knowledge.

Another interesting feature of this mental state is that the meditator int his state -- which isfree from all subjective elements -- gains the truek

nowledge of it by simply paying attentionto it; it is not necessary for hi m togo through any logical thinking. Such a knowledge isindicated by t he term“yathābhūta” (如實).

This mental state does not change of itself. Moreover, this is a state of mental concentrationwithout any object to concentrate upon. So Gota ma was ableto direct his attention todifferent subjects of enquiry to gai n objectiveknowledge of them. He first directed hisattention to his own past lives. Andimmediately he could see innumerable past lives withv arious details. Next hepaid attention to the past lives of others and co uld know about theirsorrowsand happiness in different past lives due t o various types of kammas (skt.karma).He found there is no end to thi s progression of one life to another, noend to the experiencesof sadne ss andappiness. So he wanted to find a way out of this situation. Ther eafter hehadthe direct knowledges of the existence of the āsavas (skt.

āśrava), the originof theāsavas, the destruction of the āsavas, and th e path to their destruction.In the earliestavailable tradition these knowl edges came to be collectivelycalled as theāśrava-kṣaya-jñāna, the wi sdom regarding the destruction of theāśravas. This wisdomcame to b e known as “bodhi” at a comparatively later time.

After “bodhi” he got the knowledge that he would have no more any f uturebirth, he hadalready done what had to be done. In the earlier sutt as thisknowledge is merely called the“third knowledge”. But later in th e Sekha-suttathis knowledge is called “bodhijam”, born ofbodhi. The objective knowledge ofdifferent things has to be gained separately. O ne cannotget the objectiveknowledge of all things at the same time. In

the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta wereadabout many items about which the Bud dha had objective knowledge. But onlytheobjective knowledge about āsavas or duhkha came to be known as “bodhi”.

The objective knowledge of the āśrava was held to be specially import ant,for theāśrava-kṣaya-jñāna is directly connected with the end of the

cycle ofbirths and deaths.There are three types of āsavas:

1) kāmāsava, or thedefilements connected with desire forthe five type s of sensual objects,

2)bhavāsava, or the defilements connected with individualexistence, a nd 3)avijjāsava, or the defilements connected with the basic ignorance . So oncetheāśravas are destroyed, the meditator becomes free from all future existences.

This state is, however, not the experience of nibbāna. The realisation of“bodhi” is not thesame as the realisation of nibbāna, for the nibbāna

standsfor the utmost calmness which inthe state of bodhi cannot be e xperienced. Thisis so because in the state of bodhi both thefaculty of perception and theentire range of perceptibles remain intact. And any act ofperception is painfulandhas been compared to a boil and other p ainful things. It disturbs theabiding insamādhi. So to experience the un disturbed calmness he next followedanothersystem of meditation, the ārupya-samāpattis (the attainment of formlessness)inorder to reduce t he faculty and field of perception. First he freed his mindfrom the form sthrough the adverse criticism of forms. The space becomes limiteddu e to forms. With thedisappearance of forms he experiences the unlimit edspace. We would not discuss thedifferent states of formless meditat ion. Anyway,he gradually reached the state ofneither-perception-nor-n ot-perception. Even inthis state the Buddha had the awareness ofsom e perception. This state wasagitative compared to the nibbāna. So Bu ddha got rid ofeven that perception andattained the state of the saññā -vedayita-nirodha, the cessation ofperceptionand feeling. The cessati on the tradition speaks of is not complete cessation.For ifthere is a tot

al cessation of perception, the meditator would not be ableto know tha t he wasin that mental state. It is, however, true that he got ridof all fee lings, and consequently hewas free from the awareness of “I” and“mi ne.” The perception in this state is so weak that itdoes not disturbmedi tator's sense of calmness. The state is the closest possibleapproximat ionto the actual nibbāna, the unconditioned. This is the nibbāna which themeditator can experience while in this world.

The absence of the element of “I” either in the state of samādhi after t heattainment of therūpajhāna, or in the state of the cessation of perce ption andfeeling after the samāpatti of theneither-perception-nor-not-p erception,convinced the Buddha of the non-existence of theattā in bot h the realms of theconditioned and the unconditioned. On the basis of what wehave discussed so farit is clear that the main tenets which the

Buddha taught flows fromhismeditative experiences. After the attain ment of the saññā-vedayita-nirodha,Gotamadeclared himself to be the

Tathāgatā.

I would now like to discuss a problem which might be of someimporta nce. Why did Gotamachoose to realise the nibbāna in this world after t heattainment of the “bodhi”?

After the realisation of “bodhi” Gotama was certain that he wouldultim ately merge intonibbāna and go out of the vortex of saṃsāra. All he ha d todo had already been done.Moreover, as Gotama had seen throug h the illusorynature of “I” and “mine”, he could nothave any personal desire for nibbāna. Sowhy did he further strive for nibbāna? Under suc hcircumstances the only answerthat suggests itself is his uncondition al compassion forothers. Out ofcompassion for others he realised the nibbāna, so that he could helpothersbetter. According to the Dvedhāvi takka-sutta Gotama developednon-judgemental,spontaneous compas sion even before the attainment of the first jhāna.

We may thus accept that he acted out of compassion. But this does n otexplain why he hadto realise nibbāna in order to help the suffering p eople. Hecould have helped by preachingśīla and teaching others the path to therealisation of bodhi. And to do this it was notnecessary to at tain nibbāna. Sowhy did he experience nibbāna in this world? In those

daysthe teachers preachedonly what they experienced. This is evide nt from the teachers oftheParama-diṭṭha-dhamma-nibbāna-vāda, the different formlessattainments(ārūpya-samā-patti). Even the teachers of the Ucchedavāda spoke from theirownexperiences. None of them p reached the nibbāna, the Unconditioned. But itappearsthat the Uncon ditioned as an ideal was well known and the Tathāgatā wasthe accept edepithet of the knower of the Unconditioned, the nibbāna. Withoutex periencing the nibbānathe truth was not completely mastered. The tru eobjective knowledge of the differentelements -- physical or mental -- provedthat the conditioned was devoid of attā. On theother hand, the attainment ofthe cessation of perception and feeling showed him that t herewas no attā evenin the Unconditioned. It was only after this experi ence that he was inaposition to preach the truth of anattā and talk abo ut the nibbāna.It is only after therealisation of the nibbāna that one is a ble to mergedirectly into the nibbāna after thedissolution of the body.

The nibbāna was thehighest spiritual goal to be attained in this lifeand marked the unrivalledexcellence of a śramaṇa. The teachings of such a person wouldbe eagerly soughtafter and followed by the people. It i

s for this reason the Gotamaexperiencedthe nibbāna even after the re alisation of the bodhi.

(A speech at Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, on June 5, 2001. Translated andcollated by Miss FANG Yirong)

[1] A copy of the speech I gave extempore for the students on May 6, 2001 at theChung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies.