Theravada and Pali - What's it Mean?Contemplations - Maurice Walsh
A book worth knowing about and using is the Buddhist Dictionary by the late and great German scholar-monk Nyanatiloka, revised by his no less great pupil Nyanaponika, also a German, who died not long ago at the Forest Hermitage in Sri Lanka. The Buddhism covered by this dictionary is purely Theravada, the Buddhism of the Pali Canon. For a handy dictionary covering all schools I'm afraid you will have to wait for my concise dictionary of Buddhism.
Theravada is not, of course, literally and precisely just what the Buddha taught. How could it be? But there are good grounds for regarding it as broadly representing the nearest approach we can get to that original teaching. Anyway, whatever your particular Buddhist approach, you may find it helpful to consult Nyanatiloka's dictionary, for his excellent definitions. The terms defined are, of course, given in Pali which is roughly a kind of simplified Sanskrit. Some people say, 'Yes, but it's not simplified enough!'
If you want to go straight to the heart of the matter, you might say, 'What is the definition of Nirvana?' You'd have to look it up here under the Pali name of Nirvana, and you would find a notable comment. The English may be a little cumbrous, perhaps betraying the German origin, but the point seems to be important, even crucial. He writes:
'One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nirvana, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nirvana — according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings — either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters, or with which it merges.'
To fully grasp the truth of anatta, or nonself, must mean that one has overcome the crucial fetter of personality belief, in Pali sakkaya-ditthi. This is the firmly rooted belief we all have of our own existence as an autonomous personality, the 'I-am-I' conviction which most of us never even question. It is the illusory nature of this natural seeming belief that has to be perceived; it is a problem that has to be cracked. In Zen terms, the ultimate koan or riddle.
The egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence, in Theravada is called anatta, nonself. In Mahayana the term generally used is iunyata, or emptiness, which is the same thing with, perhaps, a few extra trimmings. When a person has gained this realization, that is the decisive step. One is irrevocably on the path and destined for full enlightenment and at that moment, according to the great commentator Buddhaghosa, Nirvana is glimpsed.
I assume that the immediate aim for most of us here (at this Buddhist summer school] is, or should be, what I call 'the moment of truth'. In Theravada it is slotted into a well-defined series of stages. It is the transforming, liberating moment in which, to use Nyanatiloka's words, 'the egolessness and the insubstantiality of all forms of existence', is clearly seen as a fact. In that moment, the powerful feeling of 'me-ness' that usually dominates us, is seen and known to be spurious. The vision fades, but its effect is never lost. The person who has gained this is an Ariya, or noble one, inevitably destined for full enlightenment, which is Nirvana or Nirvana.
At this point, perhaps, one begins to see what is meant by
those famous words of the Heart Sutra: Form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form.
It is important, I think, to examine almost every word of Nyanatiloka's statement. He has told us that, both for the actual realization of Nirvana and for a theoretical understanding of it, it is necessary to have grasped the truth of nonself. Now, when he referred to all forms of existence, he was speaking of what in Pali are called sankharas, or samskaras in Sanskrit, by which are meant things which are put together, compounded, or conditioned. This means all the objects and events we are normally aware of, or involved with, including our so-called selves. We can think of them, roughly, not as solid lumps of something — and the physicists tell us that no such solid lumps of anything really exist — but rather, perhaps, as being like waves in the sea.
Pioneer translators, people like Professor Rhys Davids, had to decide what words like sankhara really meant, and how to render them into English. At first they were fairly clueless. Sankhara (literally 'put together') they Latinized as 'confection', a word which might suggest sweets to the English and ready-made clothing to many continentals. Others made up a Greek-based compound which suggested nothing at all to most people — syllogies. Nyanatiloka did rather better with 'formations' as the most general sense, although in some cases, I think, 'patterns' might be better. Actually, a sankhara can be all sorts of things, from a house to an emotional reaction. It's something that is formed or compounded or conditioned.
The formula used in the Pali Canon to describe that liberating moment in one individual, is as follows: 'And just as a clean cloth from which all stains have been removed receives the dye perfectly, so in the brahman Pokkharasati as he sat there, there arose the pure and spotless Dhamma eye, and he knew whatever things have an origin must come to cessation. Theravada and Pali - What's it Mean?
