Contemplative Characters Contemporary to the Buddha

Contemplative Characters ...

In an age of doctrinal diversity, the modern era filled to its brim with competing political factions, religious sects, and personality cults, a basic "literacy" of such positions is helpful for navigating the increasingly uncertain ideological terrain that lies before us. Likewise for the Buddha's time.

Most know that the Buddha lived in what we now know to be northern India near the border with Nepal, his earliest teachings preserved in the Pāli language, others in Sanskrit and related dialects. While those encountering Buddhism in the present day and age are usually aware of the broad context in which the Buddha lived and taught, few are familiar with other spiritual teachers active in the same period. The Buddha certainly was not the only contemplative of his time.

Perhaps we may acquire a clearer understanding of the philosophies relevant and contemporary to the Buddha by investigating those philosophers he addresses by name, including, most notably, all who receive mention in an early text of the Pāli Canon from the Dīgha Nikāya, titled the Sāmaññaphala Sutta.

In particular, these teachers mentioned by the Buddha include:

• Pūraṇa Kassapa
• Makkhali Gosāla
• Ajita Kesakambalī
• Pakudha Kaccāyana
• Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta
• Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta

Each contemplative, in turn, had his own worldview or philosophy, his own teaching which he sought to impart to others. In this article, we wish to provide brief doctrinal biographies of contemplative characters contemporary to the Buddha for the sake of better understanding the contemplative context in which he lived and taught.

Amoralism and Pūraṇa Kassapa the Naturalist

The first contemplative to be mentioned in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta went by the name Pūraṇa Kassapa. He was a contemplative of the Buddha's time associated with amoralism, summarized by the Pāli term "akiriyaṃ," reflecting his belief that there are no evil acts or fruits of evil acts. Likewise, for Pūraṇa Kassapa, there were no good acts nor fruits of good acts. The kiriya in the term "akiriyaṃ" means "action" or "activity" and is closely associated with the more commonly recognized form karma in Sanskrit, or kamma in Pāli. Pūraṇa Kassapa was also known as an ahetuvadin, a denier of causality.

By asserting that there are neither actions nor the fruits (or results) of actions, Pūraṇa Kassapa denied the operation of karma. While it is important to note that there are multiple versions of karma, the pre-Buddhist notion tending toward a deterministic version and the Buddhist variation allowing a significant place for the role of intention or volition, all theories of karma entailed some understanding of the connection between cause and effect, act and result.

Pūraṇa Kassapa, however, believed that there would be no reward for good acts and no punishment for evil acts. One could practice giving and other virtuous acts but acquire no merit whatsoever. One could murder and steal yet not reap any consequences, in his view. The Buddha found this perspective to be dangerous and thus rejected it. Notably, Pūraṇa Kassapa, who believed himself to be omniscient, is said to have committed suicide by drowning, perhaps finding no point in living, death being his destiny anyway. We start off on a somewhat dark note by summarizing his doctrinal biography here.

Determinism and Makkhali Gosāla the Fatalist

Makkhali Gosāla, on the other hand, was a devoted "ājīvika," literally one who acts according to livelihood, also contemporary to the Buddha. He was a proponent of determinism or fatalism (niyativāda), according to which all that one experiences has been written in stone and there is no changing the course of events inscribed in one's fate. Makkhali Gosāla and his supporters followed their "ājīvika" livelihood not out of choice, but because it was pre-ordained.

Notably, Makkhali Gosāla used the notion of "saṃsārasuddhiṃ" (wandering on) to advance the belief that there are no causes or conditions within one's control for defilement or purification. In other words, one is absolutely powerless, as these factors are pre-destined. He and his followers denied the existence of free will.

What purpose, then, is there to any activity whatsoever? On face value, such a philosophy could easily lend itself to the spectrum of passive indifference, catatonia, or to a form of hedonism in which anything goes given that it's all pre-determined and outside one's control anyway. Makkhali Gosāla's teachings may have been popular among some, but the Buddha was not impressed.

Annihilationism and Ajita Kesakambalī the Materialist

Also contemporary to the Buddha was a contemplative character by the name of Ajita Kesakambalī, who taught a form of annihilation, according to which everything is annihilated, destroyed, obliterated upon death. His response to questions about his teaching can be summed up by the Pāli term "ucchedaṃ," literally referring to complete destruction.

Also associated with materialism (lokāyata), Ajita Kesakambalī emphasized only the present life, without recourse to past or future lifetimes. In other words, this life is all we have. According to Ajita Kesakambalī and the materlialists, all we are is composed of matter that is doomed to decay. Nothing survives or continues post-mortem.

Such a materialist and annihilationist worldview in the Buddha's time most often lent itself to a denial of morality. Even if moral causality operates within a single lifetime, it ends upon death. The Buddha avoided this sort of slippery slope by rejecting the extreme view of annihilationism, finding it limiting and even unskillful to teach. Others could easily get the wrong idea and begin to act irresponsibly, thinking "you only live once" and neglecting to take future ramifications into consideration.

Eternalism and Pakudha Kaccāyana the Amoral Atomist

Meanwhile, another contemplative named Pakudha Kaccāyana who was around at the same time as the Buddha advocated a form of eternalism (sassatavāda) based on a Pāli statement attributed to him, "aññena aññaṃ," meaning "something else" and amounting to a form of evasion. Rather than moral teachings, Pakudha Kaccāyana was pre-occupied with other matters.

Taking a somewhat scientific turn, Pakudha Kaccāyana was a contemplative mainly concerned with atomic theory. He summarized his insights to his followers through reference to seven eternal, non-interacting "elements," including earth, water, fire, air, pleasure, pain, and life. We may recognize and acknowledge the first four as elements, but to include pleasure, pain, and life as elements perhaps sounds unusual. Regardless of its peculiarity, Pakudha Kaccāyana regarded each as eternal building-blocks comprising reality as we know it.

Drawing from this theories of eternalism and atomism, Pakudha Kaccāyana proposed a form of amoralism, denying, for instance, that there is anyone who kills and no act of killing despite what otherwise would count as murder. Pakudha Kaccāyana claimed, in a rather reductionist manner, that a bladed weapon, when used against another, passes only through the seven substances. Nothing more. Nothing moral. The atoms would merely disperse and, given their eternality, would re-assemble elsewhere. This is a startling conclusion to reach, and the Buddha rejected it outright.

Agnosticism and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta the Eel-Wriggler

Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta, a rather curious contemplative character, is associated with agnosticism (ajñana, literally not knowing or without knowledge) due to his strategic use of a debate technique known at the Buddha's time as "vikkhepaṃ" or evasion and equivocation.

Rather than put forth any coherent philosophy, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta remained skeptical and uncommitted, which became a doctrine of its own, known in Pāli as amarāvikkhepavada, connoting endless equivocation. His response was often some variety of, "I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not."

Due to his use of this "neti neti" ("neither this nor that") response, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta became associated with the "eel-wrigglers" (amarāvikkhepika) whose name characterizes their evasive efforts to wriggle themselves out of providing an answer when questioned, like a slippery eel squirming out of its catcher's grasp. The Buddha remained unimpressed with this sort of evasiveness. Whenever the Buddha, for instance, decided not to provide an answer to a question, he gave a legitimate reason. To merely go around saying "I don't think this, I don't think that" perhaps came across as deceptive or even lazy. Dissatisfied, several of Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta's followers left him, joining the Buddha instead.

Asceticism and Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta the Jain

Perhaps most familiar to us, as well as to the Buddha, might be Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, otherwise known as Mahavira, the founder of Jainism. While the other teachers never gathered as much momentum, only Mahavira and the Buddha's legacies became recognized as religions. In fact, Buddhism and Jainism developed side by side, in the same place at the same time. Even visual depictions of Mahavira closely resemble the Buddha, and although their teachings were quite different in several ways, the statues that have been made of them are often confused for each other. While the previous teachers are likely brand new to most of us, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta founded a major tradition still alive to this day.

Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta's teaching, which has developed into what we now know as Jainism, emphasized the importance of extreme observances, as depicted by the Pāli term "cātuyāmasaṃvaraṃ," meaning "fourfold restraint," as a means of burning off all karma without creating any anew. Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta taught his followers to go to extreme lengths in order to avoid any activity that would generate further existence.

Such methods involved severe dietary restrictions and avoiding even accidental harm to insects and invisible or microscopic beings in the spirit of absolute non-violence. Followers of Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta were asked to abstain from eating all animal products whatsoever, to avoid root vegetables because harvesting them would injure insects in the soil as well as kill the plant and prevent it from re-growing, and carefully filter their water in case there were any microscopic beings inside. Those who still practice Jainism, strictly observing Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta's regulations, may even refrain from walking on grass to avoid stepping on insects, gently sweep the path in front of them to clear it of ants, wear a breathing mask to prevent inhaling invisibly small beings, and so on. While commendable on one hand, the Buddha nonetheless found such observances impractical to demand of everyone and disagreed with the extremes that characterize strict Jainism.

Contemporary to the Buddha

Given that each of these contemplative characters lived contemporary to the Buddha, they undoubtedly influenced the context in which the Buddha formulated his own understanding of the world. We hope that by providing a brief doctrinal biography of each, we have shed light on the core features of their philosophies. While a mere three paragraphs each cannot do justice to the complexities and intricacies of their teachings, we hope they serve as a launching pad for further investigation.

Why should any of this matter to us? That the Buddha was familiar with the doctrines of other contemplatives, despite disagreeing with them, showcases his openness to hearing the perspectives of others. Rather than remaining willfully ignorant of his contemporaries, he made himself aware of what was going on in the contemplative world around him, building a sort of philosophical and contemplative literacy with regard to other emerging traditions.

Likewise, in our present experience, we encounter doctrines from diverse factions, many of them proclaiming themselves to be the sole truth. Rather that grow hostile toward them, or remain ignorant of their messages, we may at least try to understand what they teach. We are not required to agree with any of them in the slightest in the process of learning more about them.

Too often, we assume that multiple points of view cannot coexist in harmony. If we collectively work toward opening space for an understanding that unity can be found within plurality as opposed to conformity, we stand to grow substantially as a global community.

Certainly, if particular beliefs have a tendency to lead to harm for individuals or societies, they should be actively questioned, but not without understanding where they originate, what motivates and fuels them. The Buddha objected to each of the above listed contemplatives and even dismantled many of their doctrines, doing so not from a competitive quest to be the best, but out of a collectively minded effort to discern what conduces to suffering and what conduces to freedom. May all experience the freedom of clear discernment and unity within plurality. Feel free to leave us a comment below.