One of the favorite set of verses for Buddhist monastics is the Tāyana Verses (SN 2.8), which speak to the necessity of sincere and energetic application to the spiritual life for those gone forth. They’re recited after the pātimokkha each fortnight in the Thai tradition.
It might seem odd to suggest that such a well-known set of verses is not really Buddhist; but the verses themselves tell us as much. They’re spoken, not by the Buddha, but by the god Tāyana, who is very unusually said to have in a past life been a religious founder. The Buddha, of course, repeats them, but this is a mere formalism.
The verses are mostly found elsewhere, including the Dhammapada, which means they boast an impressive list of parallels. However, despite the fact that we have no less than three (not all complete) versions of the Sagāthavagga, there doesn’t seem to be a parallel for the sutta as a whole. Moreover, one line in particular, which is the one that strikes me as non-Buddhist, doesn’t appear to have any parallels (though this is based on very incomplete research!)
The line I’m concerned with is the last line of the first verse. The verse is usually translated something like this:
Chinda sotaṃ parakkamma,
Having striven, cut the stream!
kāme panuda brāhmaṇa;
Dispel sensual pleasures, brahmin.
Nappahāya munī kāme,
A sage who doesn’t give up sensual pleasures
nekattamupapajjati.
doesn’t give rise to unification.
So what’s non-Buddhist about this? Nothing; but I don’t think the last line is correct. The key terms are ekatta and upapajjati.
Now, ekatta is an abstractive from eka “one”, and might have a variety of meanings. However the most standard usage is to refer to states of rebirth: in the “nine abodes of sentient beings” and the “seven planes of consciousness” it refers to beings who are “unified in body” and/or “unified in perception”.
The rendering above takes it for granted that the term refers to meditative unification, i.e. jhana or samadhi. However ekatta is not really used as a standard term in that context, although we do find it used that way occasionally (eg. AN 8.86).
The verb upapajjati, however, does not have the same ambiguity. It means “is reborn”. It occurs hundreds of times in this sense in the EBTs. Other uses are very rare; in MN 148 it is used in a special logical sense to mean “tenable, defensible”. So we’d need a strong reason to think that another meaning was meant here, and I can’t see that there is. Given that the most common use of ekatta is precisely to refer to a state of rebirth, surely that is what is meant here.
This substantially shifts the meaning of the verses. As currently taken, they mean that a mendicant must devote themselves to practice, without which they can’t gain samadhi. We take it for granted that this also implies realizing extinguishment; but this is not stated in the verses.
The verses warn us that the penalty of misbehavior is rebirth in hell, while not dealing with the advantages of good behavior in any great detail. It is precisely this unusually stern, scary tone that has recommended it for use in the patimokkha.
If the verses are taken at face value, they are not teaching us to meditate to realize Nibbana at all. In fact there is no real mention of the standard Buddhist terms such as mindfulness, samadhi, and so on. Instead, the emphasis throughout is on strident effort and ethics only.
The terminology is reminiscent of our Jain friends, too: we find tapati used twice, and the stirring up of dust (raja), a very jain idea. The text also refers to the practice of vata (“vows”), once again typical of Jainism or other non-Buddhist sects.
Now sure, these terms, among many others, can be adopted for use in a Buddhist context, but here there is no reflection or modification of their meaning; they’re simply applied as if taken for granted, while the whole field of meditation, wisdom, and release is passed over.
If we are to assume that the text is a Buddhist one, then it is natural to assume that it is recommending that we practice for samadhi, and the phrase ekattamupapajjati, while unusual, is easily read as a poetic expression of this idea. I suspect that this unchallenged assumption has conditioned the various translators.
If we relax this assumption and translate ekattamupapajjati according to its standard usage, the text is telling us to keep ethics, make ardent effort (implying the practice of austerities) in order to be reborn in a state of unified perception.
Here is my proposed translation of the first verse:
Having striven, cut the stream!
Dispel sensual pleasures, brahmin.
A sage who doesn’t give up sensual pleasures
is not reborn in a unified state.
While as a final injunction this is not really characteristic of Buddhist teachings, it doesn’t outright contradict them. The Buddha would also say that effort is required (but effort in meditation, not mortification), that sense desire must be cut (but by the bliss of samadhi, not by burning up desires through self-torment), and that unity should be gained (but samadhi as a basis for insight, not with the goal of rebirth in such a state.) The terminology and phrasing is close enough to Buddhism to allow it to be interpreted according to our usual Buddhist path, which, presumably, is how the text slipped into the canon.
If I am correct, this text becomes another illustration of a principle I first observed in my study of the Satipatthana Sutta: The more popular a text is in contemporary Buddhism, the less likely it is to be authentic.
Okay, this is not really true! There are plenty of counter examples; the patimokkha itself being one of them. Still, there is something to it. The Buddha’s teachings are subtle and difficult, and there is, it seems, an almost inexorable pull back to the more primitive teachings of the pre-Buddhist era.
Note, I edited this essay at a later date after coming across the use of upapajjati in MN 148, hence some of the discussion may be out of date.