Charvaka, (an Indian philosopher of the middle ages) believed that this world was the only place where living beings existed. He did not believe in life after death and so it followed that there was no hell or heaven to go to as a result of bad or good deeds. Life began at birth and ended with death. Hence it was good to indulge in endless pleasures as far as possible, even if by cunning means.
"Yavajjivam sukham jivennästi mrtyoragocaran; Bhasmībhūtasya dehasya punarāgamanam kutah."
"Live and enjoy life while it lasts because no one can escape death. How can the body that has been burnt upon death be reborn? So it does not matter if you have to cheat or lie for your pleasures, for there is no negative fruit of unwholesome action."
Charvaka, who rejected the principle of karma and its fruit, advocating unfettered indulgence in hedonistic pleasures said:
"... Anganädyälinganādijanyam sukhameva purusärthah."
"... The pleasure of holding a beauteous women in one's arms is the ultimate pleasure and goal of a man. There is no other purpose to his life."
Even during the Buddha's time, there were those who did not believe in the philosophy of good or bad actions and their effects. For instance, Purana Kassapa believed that unfettered indulgence in violence was acceptable as it carried no negative effect; neither good nor bad action existed and everything ended with one's life. This view is the pinnacle of existentialism.
Ajita Kesakambala said that everyone takes birth only to die and dissolve forever in the five elements; no sin exists and no merit (puñña) exists -no cause, no effect.
"Yavajjivet sukham jivet, rnam krtvā ghrtam pivet."
"One must enjoy life, indulging in the finest as long as life lasts, even if it means having to go into debt as there are no consequences to be met in the future."
Another school of thought believed that though the body is impermanent, the soul is permanent and when the body is destroyed, the soul takes on a new body which does not carry the karmic effects of indulgences, violence etc. committed earlier.
In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that the soul is permanent and ever untouched, only the body dies. There is no negative karma in killing one's relatives in battle (Arjuna was once faced with the dilemma of having to kill his dear relatives arraigned against him on the battlefield). The soul takes on a new body when the old body is destroyed, just like wearing new clothes. But I could never reconcile myself with this line of thought.
Believer and Non-Believer"...A fool or a sage, all are destroyed with the end of the body. nothing remains after death. Belief in God is false."
"There is no other world, higher or lower, no negative or positive karma. Those who give charity are foolish as it has no karmic benefit."
People such as these were considered to be non-believers, while the Buddha was the ultimate believer. In India of those days, those who believed in the law of karma and its fruits were considered to be believers and those who did not believe in it were considered to be non-believers.
The Buddha knew the views of non-believers to be totally false. He had experienced, and therefore 'believed in, the existence of other worlds besides this world. He also knew through direct experience and believed in the timeless, natural laws of karma and its result, and taught this to people. His teaching was to avoid unwholesome actions and remain focused on performing wholesome actions. Be it a householder or a renunciate, this was one beneficent teaching that was given to all. Doubtlessly, he was a quintessential believer and teacher of the law (Dhamma). In the middle ages when dharma debates and arguments were the order of the day, the non-believer Charvaka, with his belief system born of an unwholesome mind, and the total believer Buddha were placed in the same category.
How does one reconcile licentious Charvaka with the One who not only lived the life of a celibate, but also taught the beneficent teaching of Vipassana with its wisdom of living the life of celibacy naturally, effortlessly! How unfair it was to lump these two into the same category.
Following Celibacy
When Mara was unsuccessful in disrupting the meditative state of the Bodhisatta, his three beauteous daughters tried to Kindle sensual desires in him but remained unsuccessful. Of course, after the Bodhisatta became the Buddha then kindling desire in him was impossible.
MāgandhiyaThe incomparably beautiful and golden-hued daughter of the brahmin Magandhiya was of marriageable age. Magandhiya wanted to get her married to someone as handsome as she was beautiful, but could find no one who matched her beauty either in the brahmin community or amongst the nobility. Then one day he encountered the Buddha and thought that this amazingly attractive person was indeed a perfect groom for his daughter. Breathless with excitement and anxious not to miss out on this opportunity, he rushed home and returned to the Compassionate One with his bejewelled daughter and entreated him to accept her as his bride. But the impossible could never be! To reject this golden woman whom everyone, from nobility to the high caste brahmin community, was eager to accept as a bride was unfathomable for the brahmin Magandhiya. How could he know that he had encountered the Buddha?
The bhikkhu disciples also took an oath of celibacy with the precept –
"Abrahmacariyā veramani-sikkhāpadam samadiyami."
"I accept the rule of training to abstain from incelibacy."
Khuddakapātha- 2.3
Out of the 5 precepts that a lay person, a householder would take, one of them would be the precept -
"Kamesumicchācārā veramani sikkhāpadam samādiyāmi."
"I accept the rule of training to abstain from sexual misconduct."
Dighanikāya- 1.130
There are those who try to follow this precept sincerely while there are others who reach the state of celibacy naturally with the deep meditative practice of Vipassana.
To lump together such a one and his followers traversing the path of total dissolution of desires with Charvaka who promoted unbridled lasciviousness was patently wrong! Had the original words of the Buddha and his practical teaching of Vipassana survived in India), this massive blunder would have never occurred.
Contemplating on such matters, I was now deeply influenced by his teachings. The confused impressions I had of his words regarding karma and its effects dissolved forever. Life was bliss!
UnchangeableDo the teachings of the Buddha give us knowledge regarding the temporal, mundane, ever-changing reality of existence only? Was nothing said about that which is eternal, permanent, unchanging?
There has been a patently baseless accusation that his teaching was only about the changing, fluctuating reality of existence, there was nothing that was timeless. Such immensely false accusations have been put forward for centuries leaving a deep impact on the minds of the masses in the country. Just as many foisted false beliefs of the Buddha being a pessimist, so also they accused him of being a purveyor of impermanence, of changing reality, and they opposed Vipassana with the profoundly mistaken belief that the singular goal of Vipassana was to focus solely upon that which is impermanent.
Of course, those who start meditating understand very well that one is undergoing the experience of impermanence in the field of the body, and mind and the sense organs, so that the deep attachment to these may start melting away, as it is this attachment which is at the root of craving and aversion. The meditator begins to understand at an experiential level that this body and mind is not 'me', 'not mine', 'not my soul'. The more one gets established in this truth the more one's attitude changes, thus weakening craving and aversion.
Though a person may understand with his own experience that it is pointless to awaken craving and aversion towards that which is impermanent, yet due to the old habit pattern he may indulge in his senses, wanting to hold on to pleasant experiences. But over time, as the pleasant sensation changes and he can no longer hold on to it, then with proportionate intensity he feels the suffering. Experiencing this truth over and over again, automatically the deeply rooted attachments begin to break down. As the new cravings and aversions do not arise, the old ones start weakening too
"Khinam purānam nava natthi sambhavam..."
Suttanipāta 238
"With the old [kamma] destroyed, and no new arising..."
Finaly, that state arises where that which is permanent, forever, (dhuva), Nibbāna, beyond the impermanent field of mind and body, is realised. The meditator understands well that the entire field of the senses has the nature, the dhamma, of anicca or impermanence; it carries an effect to every cause, changing every moment. One continues to meditate experiencing this law of nature to reach that state of permanent, causeless and fruitless Nibbāna. This is the final goal of Vipassana.
From this it is clear that in the Buddha's teaching, the field of the impermanent, the field of dukkha or suffering, is being explored in order to become free from it. The feeling of anatta or 'not me', 'not mine towards mind and body is being experienced so as to become free from it, so that the 'Permanent may be realised. Exploring the field of anicca is not to fulfil a mere rite or ritual. The goal is to touch that which is beyond anicca where nothing arises, nothing passes away, where there is no birth, no death, where the 'Elixir of Permanence exists forever.
(from the Autobiography of Mr. SN Goenka ) -
Continued...