Skilful Means in Theravada Buddhism
Dr. Amartya Kumar Bhattacharya
BCE (Hons.) ( Jadavpur ), MTech ( Civil ) ( IIT Kharagpur ), PhD ( Civil ) ( IIT Kharagpur ),
Cert.MTERM ( AIT Bangkok ), CEng(I), FIE, FACCE(I), FISH, FIWRS, FIPHE, FIAH, FAE,
MIGS, MIGS – Kolkata Chapter, MIGS – Chennai Chapter, MISTE, MAHI, MISCA, MIAHS,
MISTAM, MNSFMFP, MIIBE, MICI, MIEES, MCITP, MISRS, MISRMTT, MAGGS, MCSI, MMBSI
Chairman and Managing Director,
MultiSpectra Consultants,
23, Biplabi Ambika Chakraborty Sarani, Kolkata – 700029, West Bengal, INDIA.
E-mail: dramartyakumar@gmail.com
The early Buddhist scriptures (Pali Suttas) record that at the time of His enlightenment – when Siddhattha Gotama attained Nibbana and therefore freed Himself from the wheel of death and rebirth (Samsara) – He initially hesitated to teach His experience to other people. Lord Buddha, or ‘Awakened One,’ as He was henceforth known, felt that His teaching (Dhamma) was too difficult for a generation that ‘delights in worldliness’ to understand, and that its realisation lay beyond their spiritual grasp:
‘Those dyed in lust, wrapped in darkness,
Will never discern this abstruse Dhamma
Which goes against the worldly stream,
Subtle, deep, and difficult to see.’
At this point, however, He saw a lotus pond with some of the lotuses in bloom above the water surface and some lotus buds, submerged, and yet to rise above the water surface. Seeing this, Lord Buddha pondered, surveyed the world with His spiritual eye and saw that there were indeed people of different predilections – ‘some with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties … easy to teach and hard to teach.’ His deep compassion (Karuna) stirred by this vision, Lord Buddha resolved to teach the Dhamma to all:
‘Open for them are the doors to the deathless,
Let those with ears now show their faith …’
Having taken the decision to teach the Dhamma to the world, Lord Buddha was faced with the daunting task of rendering the Dhamma accessible to everyone – of devising a teaching strategy which could equally accommodate pupils ‘with keen faculties and with dull faculties.’ His solution to this problem was the practice of ‘skilful means’ (Upaya-Kosalla). Starting from the conviction that Nibbana was beyond thought and linguistic expression, Lord Buddha asserted that His spiritual teaching was only a useful ‘pointer’ to the truth – not the truth itself. This meant that the Dhamma – because merely provisional – was neither fixed nor dogmatic. Rather, being an expedient ‘means’ (Upaya) to an end, this teaching was dynamic and contextual. This pragmatic philosophical stance gave Lord Buddha enormous flexibility – it meant He was free to adjust or change His teaching to suit the level of His audience.
In its basic form, ‘skilful means’ appears in the early Buddhist texts as simply a progressive or ‘gradual instruction’ (Anupubbi Katha) on the Dhamma. When teaching to spiritually mature pupils, Lord Buddha directly explains complex philosophical aspects of His doctrine. To beginners, however, He offers preparatory lessons on general spiritual virtues before moving to advanced topics. This process is clearly illustrated in the account of His teaching to Upali:
‘Then the Blessed One gave the householder Upali progressive instruction, that is, talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on the heavens; He explained the danger, degradation and defilement in sensual pleasures and the blessing of renunciation. When He knew that the householder Upali’s mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrances, elated, and confident, He expounded to Him the teaching special to Lord Buddha: suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path.’
In its more advanced guise, ‘skilful means’ assumes forms that in other contexts could be construed as contradictory or even heretical. For example, in the Tevijja Sutta, two young Brahmins (followers of the Vedic tradition) cannot decide which Vedic teacher offers the correct path to ‘union’ with the aforementioned god, Brahma. Having heard of Lord Buddha’s wisdom, they approach Him for advice on the matter. Lord Buddha, though, does not accept ‘union with Brahma’ as the final goal of salvation – for Him salvation is Nibbana. However, recognising the Brahmins’ sincerity and spiritual potential, He retains their religious terminology and through a progressive question-answer session seeks to wean them from their theism. Firstly, He points out that because the Vedic sages have not seen Brahma ‘face to face,’ they cannot guarantee Brahma’s ultimate ontological status. He then points out that, unlike Brahma, these sages are ‘encumbered’ by the five hindrances and therefore lack the moral purity to achieve ‘communion’ with Him after death. In contrast, because He is ‘unencumbered’ by the five hindrances, Lord Buddha claims that He possesses genuine spiritual knowledge. In deference to the spiritual level of the two Brahmins, however, He presents this transcendent knowledge using Vedic terminology:
‘…I know Brahma and the world of Brahma, and the way to the world of Brahma, and the path of practice whereby the world of Brahma may be gained.’
The young Brahmins, won over by Lord Buddha’s arguments, now ask Him to teach this way to ‘union with Brahma.’ Lord Buddha, though, changes tack and introduces them to His ‘holy life’ – in particular the purifying meditation on the ‘divine abodes’ (Brahma-Vihara). Through this exercise, He points out that the practitioner cultivates the moral virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity, and psychically transmits them to the four points of the compass. Lord Buddha assures them that this is the correct ‘way to union with Brahma’ – a ‘way’ which by now has subtly morphed into a preparatory stage on the path to Nibbana. The two Brahmins, grateful for this illuminating teaching, praise Lord Buddha’s ‘gradual instruction’ and its revelatory power:
ʻExcellent, Reverend Gotama, excellent! It is as if someone were to set up what had been knocked down, or to point out the way to one who had got lost, or to bring an oil-lamp into a dark place, so that those with eyes could see what was there. Just so the Reverend Gotama has expounded the Dhamma in various ways.’
Similarly, it is well known that Lord Buddha emphatically denied any notion of a permanent soul (Atta). Instead, He maintained that the human being is comprised of five impermanent ‘aggregates’ (Khandha). When, though, Lord Buddha is confronted with a Charvaka (materialist) who believes that the human being is comprised only of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) and that there is no moral mechanism of kamma and rebirth, He recognises that strong ‘medicine’ is required. To wean the Charvaka from His extreme materialism, Lord Buddha therapeutically presents Him with the opposite extreme – the idealist belief in a permanent soul (Atta). While, in Lord Buddha’s view, this Vedic doctrine is also false because a permanent soul contradicts the evidence of experience, He deems it preferable to materialism because it recognises a moral dimension of reality. That is, if the soul is an enduring entity, then it is a morally responsible agent. According to the Vedic law of kamma, the everyday actions of the human being determine his or her soul’s destiny. Also, Lord Buddha judges that at this stage of the Charvaka’s instruction, the ‘permanent soul’ is easier to grasp intellectually than His empirical theory of the ‘aggregates.’ Then, when He is satisfied that the Charvaka is sufficiently cured of his nihilistic beliefs, and that his mind is clear and receptive, Lord Buddha sets the soul-doctrine aside and advances His own theory of the human personality.
The foregoing paradigm of ‘skilful means’ pioneered by Lord Buddha in the early Suttas provided a template for all future developments in Buddhist pedagogy.
Dr. Amartya Kumar Bhattacharya 