Excerpts from Leonard Priestly's "Pudgalavada: the reality of the indeterminate self"

Excerpts from Leonard Priestly's "Pudgalavada: the reality of the indeterminate self"

 "How can the analogy of fire help us to make sense of this? Let us return to two of the canonical passages which we have already noted. The first is from the Aggivacchagottasutta:

'Now what do you think, Vaccha? If a fire were burning before you, would you know that that fire was burning before you ?

If a fire were burning before me, Gotama, I should know that that fire was burning before me.

But if someone were to ask you, Vaccha, “ For what reason does this fire burn that is burning before you?” how would you reply, Vaccha, when questioned thus?

If someone were to ask me, Gotama, “ For what reason does this fire burn that is burning before you?” I would reply, Gotama, when questioned thus, “This fire that is burning before me bums because of its fuel of grass and sticks.”

If the fire that was before you, Vaccha, were to be extinguished, would you know that that fire that was before you had been extinguished? 

If the fire that was before me were to be extinguished, Gotama, I should know that that fire that was before me had been extinguished. 

But if someone were to ask you, Vaccha, “ In which direction has it gone from here, that fire which was before you and has been extinguished: to the east, west, north or south?” how would you reply, Vaccha, when questioned thus?

It does not apply, Gotama. For that fire burned because of its fuel of grass and sticks, and as that has been consumed and no more has been given to it, it has no sustenance and so it is said to be extinguished. Even so, Vaccha, that physical form by which one identifying the Tathagata might identify him, that physical form has been done away with by the Tathagata, its roots cut up, made like an uprooted palm tree, made unable to become, not liable to arise in the future. Freed from definition according to physical form is the Tathagata, Vaccha, deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘ neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply. [And so likewise for feeling, perception, mental forces and consciousness.]' (M i 487f.)

The Buddha seems to say here that the fire is simply non-existent once it has gone out for lack of fuel, and so it makes no sense to ask in what direction it has gone; something that has ceased to exist does not go anywhere. But when he comes to apply this to the Tathagata after death, he does not say that because the Tathagata no longer exists it makes no sense to ask where he has gone. He says rather that the Tathagata “is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean” , and that he cannot be said to arise, not to arise, both or neither. The analogy seems to fail. The fire that has gone out is simply non-existent, whereas the Tathagata after his death cannot be said to exist (to arise, after all, is to begin to exist), not to exist, both or neither. Or is there some sense in which we could say that the fire after it has gone out “ is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean”? Surely the fire, once it is extinguished, simply does not arise. We would not say that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, and so on.

The other passage is from the “Upastvamanavapuccha” in the Suttanipata:

'As a flame blown out by the force of the wind, Upaslva, said the Fortunate One, flees to its setting, beyond definition, so does the sage freed from his mental body flee to his setting, beyond definition.

One who has gone to his setting, does he not exist, or is he unimpaired, being eternal? Explain this well to me, Sage, for so is this doctrine known to you.

There is no measure of one who has gone to his setting, Upaslva, said the Fortunate One. Nothing of his exists by which they might speak o f him. When all dhammas have been removed, then all ways of speaking are also removed.' (SN 1074-1076)

The “ setting” to which the flame goes when it is blown out is analogous to the setting of the sun, which goes to its “attha” (Sanskrit asta), its home, when it sinks below the horizon. ‘Going home’ (atthagama or atthamgama) is used as an expression for any extinction or disappearance; we find it used instead of ‘nirodha' in statements about the five aggregates, their origin and their cessation. Thus the “ setting” of the sage might appear to be nothing more than his extinction; but of course if it were simply that, there would be no obvious reason not to say that one who “has gone to his setting” does not exist." (L. Priestly, Pudgalavada: the reality of the undeterminate self; pp. 170-2)

"That such a conception of fire could indeed be acceptable to Buddhists is shown by a remarkable passage in the Milindapanha, a work preserved (and highly regarded) by the Theravadins although it seems to have been originally the product of some other school (Norman, 1983: 110 ff.). King Milinda has asked the learned monk Nagasena whether there is some place in some particular direction where Nirvana is stored. When Nagasena replies that there is no such place, Milinda argues that Nirvana does not exist, since there is nowhere from which it can be produced. Nagasena replies

'There is no place, Great King, where Nirvana is stored up, but Nirvana exists, and one who has rightly practised will by his methodical attention realize Nirvana. Just as fire exists, Great King, though there is no place where it is stored up, and when two sticks are rubbed together the fire is produced, even so, Great King, Nirvana exists, though there is no place where it is stored up....' (MP 327)

Nagasena has already explained (MP 269) that Nirvana cannot be produced but exists and can be attained. His explanation here makes sense only if fire is similarly believed to exist eternally though in no actual place, and to be produced (or more accurately, “ attained”— aggim adhigacchati) as a particular fire through the friction of the fire sticks. We do not have to assume that this conception of fire was ever universal among Buddhists or even widespread. But its adoption in a text like the Milindapanha as part of an explanation of the nature of Nirvana, without any suggestion that it might be regarded as inconsistent with the teaching of the Buddha, certainly shows that it could have been adopted also by the Pudgalavadins as a way of indicating the nature of the indeterminate self. Moreover, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvanasutra, we find the fire that has been extinguished used to explain the “eternal body” (...) of the Buddha:

'Purna(...) said, Gautama, why is the eternal body not east, west, south or north?

The Buddha said, Son of good family, I will now ask you a question; reply to it as you think best. What is your opinion, son of good family: if a great bonfire were burning before you, while it was burning, would you know that it was burning?

Yes, Gautama.

And when the fire was extinguished, would you know that it was extinguished?

Yes, Gautama.

Puma, if there were someone who asked, “When the fire that was before you was burning, where did it come from, and when it was extinguished, where did it go?” how would you reply?

Gautama, if there were someone who asked me that, I would reply, “When the fire was produced, it depended upon a quantity of fuel; when its original fuel was exhausted and no further fuel was brought to it, the fire was then extinguished.”

And if someone asked further, “When the fire was extinguished, in what direction did it go?” how would you reply? Gautama, I would reply that because the fuel was exhausted, the fire was extinguished; it did not go anywhere.

Son of good family, so it is also with the Tathagata. If there is physical form which is impermanent [and the other aggregates] up to consciousness which is impermanent, then because of thirst there is burning. The burning is the acquisition of the twenty-five kinds of existence. So while it was burning one could say that the fire was east, west, south or north. But now that the thirst is extinguished, the twentyfive kinds of existence which resulted from it no longer burn. Without the burning, one cannot say that there is any east, west, south or north for him. Son of good family, the Tathagata has extinguished the physical form that is impermanent [and the other aggregates] up to the consciousness that is impermanent, and so his body is eternal. If his body is eternal, it is impossible to say that there is any east, west, south or north for him.' (T374, 59737-21; T375, 845ai5-b2)

This is of course very similar to the passage in the Aggivacchagottasutta. But here it is not simply the Tathagata but the Tathagata’s eternal body that is compared to the fire that has gone out. Whatever the precise nature of this “eternal body” , it seems clear that the extinguished fire is assumed to be not simply nonexistent but rather to have returned to a non-local, unmanifested state which is thus analogous to that of the Tathagata in his eternal body after his death. There is nothing inherently implausible, then, in the supposition that the Pudgalavadins interpreted the analogy of fire in a somewhat similar fashion."(L. Priestly, Pudgalavada: the reality of the undeterminate self; pp. 174-6)