________________
88 Johannes Bronkhorst
provoke were looked upon as signs that old kanna was being destroyed. Once all the old karma destroyed, no new karma being added, it was sufficient for the ascetic to fast to death, motionlessly, and no new births would await him.
The other method shares the same essential concern. One can only be freed from the result of actions by not committing them. According to this second method, one has to discover that one is not identical with the active parts of the personality. All that is required is that one realise this important insight. Once one stops identifying with the body and the mind, i.e. with all those aspects of the person that are active, one is no longer bound by the actions that have been committed by those parts. Usually this insight consists in the discovery of one's real self, one's soul, which is completely inactive by nature.
These two methods of liberation are organically related to the doctrine of karma They constitute, in a way, natural answers to the problem posed by this doctrine: Rebirth being occasioned by one's actions only inaction can stop it. In spite of this, the early Buddhist texts contain clear evidence that both these methods were rejected at one point, most probably by the historical Buddha himself. The early Buddhist texts know the two methods just discussed, but they reject them. Ona number of occasions the Buddha is depicted as debating with Jainas, and as reject. ing their practices. But nor was he in favour of the method consisting in knowledge of the true nature of the self
Buddhism, then, accepted the doctrine of kumma. Moreover, like the other religious currents that accepted this doctrine, and which constituted together what might be called the Sramana movement, Buddhism looked upon the ongoing cycle of rebirths as thoroughly unsatisfactory, and accepted escape from this cycle as the highest religious aim. But the Buddha did not accept either of the two methods which most naturally fitted the problem connected with this doctrine. Buddhism preached an own method, different from those two. The Buddhist texts present, in fact, various methods, which are sometimes in contradiction with each other. The confused appearance of the early Buddhist texts is most easily explained by the circumstance that, from an early date, the Buddhists themselves were embarrassed by the fact that the solution presented by their tradition did not, or not clearly, fit the problem. This circumstance, in its tum,made Buddhism particularly vulnerable to the influence of the other methods, which fitted the problem admirably.
The three examples given at the beginning of this article illustrate this. They all concern the restriction of the mind, of the sense organs, or quite simply of all bodily and mental activities. Other examples, too, illustrate the attraction which this particular theme exerted on the early Buddhists. However, there is another theme which should be expected to have left its traces in the ancient Buddhist texts. This is the theme of the inactive self, knowledge of which will liberate one from the cycle of rebirths.
The so-called first semmon of the Buddha knows a conception of the self as being permanent, unchangeable and bliss. Such a conception of the self is well known from other, non-Buddhist sources. Indeed, the conception of a permanent,
unchangeable self underlies the religious movements just referred to, which believe that insight into the true nature of the self is the necessary, or even sufficient, condition for the attainment of liberation from the cycle of rebirths. Their self has to be permanent and unchangeable, precisely because it does not participate in any actions. Some texts add that the self is bliss (ananda) which corresponds to the sukha mentioned in the first sermon. The author of this passage clearly knew the conception of a self that is permanent, unchangeable and bliss, he was evidently also acquainted with the method of liberation through insight into the true nature of the self. The passage shows acquaintance with that method, and rejects it. It rejects the belief that it suffices to know the true inactive nature of the self in order to be liberated from the effects of one's actions,
The continuation of this sermon, having just rejected one liberating insight. introduces another one. For here the knowledge of not-self is presented as a liberating insight. The mere fact of hearing this wisdom proclaimed is enough for the first disciples of the Buddha to reach Arhat-ship right there and then. No question of retiring into loneliness, of reaching subsequently the Four Dhyanas, etc., which are elsewhere in the Buddhist texts presented as essential prerequisites for attaining to this exalted state.
All this looks mysteriods at first sight, but is really relatively easy to explain. For the knowledge of the not-selfis, in its essence, hardly different from the knowledge of the self of the non-Buddhists. Why did knowledge of the self signify for so many Indians, liberation from the effects of one's actions? Precisely because it implied that one is not identical with the active parts of one's personality, ie, the body and the mind. Well, this is exactly what the knowledge of the not-sell does for the Buddhists. It teaches that none of the constituents of the personality are the self. If we understand this to mean that one should not identify with these constituents, we come to the same kind of insight as that of the self for the non-Buddhists. A major difference is, of course, that an empty spot seems to remain there where the nonBuddhists believed to find a soul, but the effect of non-identification with one's actions is exactly the same.
This passage illustrates how a doctrine that was explicitly rejected, found its way into the Buddhist texts through a back-door. The reason is easy to guess: because in the case of such an insight it was clear why it could constitute a solution to the prob. lem posed by the doctrine of karma. The effects of action can only be avoided through non-action. Knowing that one's active parts are not really one's self. implies not being affected by the results of those actions.
The thesis which this last case, as well as the ones considered carlier, illustrates, is that Buddhism was vulnerable to clear and direct answers to the problem of karma. To conclude, two examples from later Buddhism will be considered, which are meant to show that, many centuries after its earliest period, Buddhism remained vulnerable to such answers. The first example is about the notion of an inactive self. the second one concems physical and mental inactivity.