By Alexander Wynne:
It is possible that much of what is found in the Suttapiṭaka is earlier than c.250 B.C., perhaps even more than 100 years older than this. If some of the material is so old, it might be possible to establish what texts go back to the very beginning of Buddhism, texts which perhaps include the substance of the Buddha’s teaching, and in some cases, maybe even his words, but I will at least attempt to show that some of the details of the Buddha’s biography, namely those which record some of his activities as a Bodhisatta, have recorded accurate historical information about events that happened in the fifth century B.C. This will show that a careful use of textual sources is the only way to know anything about Buddhism in the pre-Aśokan period, and will lead to the conclusions that some material in the Suttapiṭaka is historically accurate and extremely old.
Various Suttas describe the Buddha’s visits to the sages Aḷara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, although the source for the account is probably the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN26). Andre Bareau has translated a Chinese Sutra that corresponds to the APS as well as an account found in the Chinese version of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. There are also versions of the narrative in the Mahasaṅghika Mahavastu and the Mulasarvastivadin Saṅghabhedavastu. It seems that the account of the training under the two teachers was embedded in the pre-sectarian Buddhist tradition, that is, if one accepts the idea that corresponding parts of the sectarian literature are likely to be pre-sectarian. There is also material on the two teachers scattered throughout the Suttapiṭaka. Scholars have generally accepted Bareau’s opinion that the tradition of the two teachers’ instruction to the Bodhisatta was a fabrication, but more recently, Zafiropulo has shown that Bareau’s arguments are fallacious. If we are to take the tradition seriously, as we must do in the light of Zafiropulo’s comments, we must also take into consideration the fragmentary information about the two teachers that is scattered throughout the Suttapiṭaka. I hope to show that a re-evaluation of the data on the two teachers makes two things quite clear. Firstly, some of the information on the two teachers cannot have been shared at a later date – it must reflect a presectarian tradition. And secondly, a peculiar detail in the account of the Bodhisatta’s training under the teachers shows that the two men must have existed. They must have been teachers of some repute in the fifth century B.C. in northern India, teachers of meditation who probably taught the Bodhisatta.
To show the former point, I will consider the information found in various sources concerning the location of Uddaka Ramaputta. Hsṃan tsang mentions some legendary evidence that relates Udraka Ramaputta to Rajagṛha; it seems that this represents the local tradition of the Buddhists living in the area of Rajagṛha. This tradition is confirmed by the account of the Bodhisatta’s training in the Mahavastu, which also places Udraka Ramaputra in Rajagṛha. The coincidence between these two sources might have been reached in the sectarian period. There is, however, similar evidence in the Suttapiṭaka which makes it almost certain that the tradition must be presectarian. In the Vassakara Sutta, the Brahmin Vassakara, chief minister of Magadha, is said to visit the Buddha in Rajagaha and tell him that the raja Eḷeyya has faith in the samaṇa Ramaputta; the commentary names him as Uddaka Ramaputta. Vassakara also appears in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta as the chief minister of King Ajatasattu of Magadha. Vassakara’s connection with Rajagaha and Magadha suggest that the raja Eḷeyya was a local chieftain in Magadha, probably situated somewhere near to Rajagaha. If so, it is likely that Uddaka Ramaputta was situated in the vicinity of Rajagaha.
The coincidence of this different evidence from the Theravadin and Mahasaṅghika sources, as well as the information of Hsṃan tsang, is not to be overlooked. It is inconceivable that this correspondence was produced by a later leveling of texts, for it is entirely coincidental – different source materials, not corresponding Suttas, state or imply the same thing. It is hardly likely that a Mahasaṅghika monk or nun gained knowledge of obscure Pali Suttas, from which he deduced that Uddaka Ramaputta must have been based in Rajagaha, and after which he managed to insert this piece of information into the biographical account in the Mahavastu. And it is even more unlikely that a Theravadin Buddhist, in the early centuries A.D., studied the Mahasaṅghika Vinaya, from which he learnt that Udraka Ramaputra was based in Rajagṛha, following which he fabricated Suttas which contained circumstantial evidence which indirectly related Ramaputta to Rajagaha. Anyone who believes this version of textual history is living in cloud-cuckooland. It is clear that the information on the geographical situation of Uddaka Ramaputta must precede the Aśokan missions, and even the schism between Sthavira-s and Mahasaṅghika-s. This implies that the biographical tradition of the training under the two teachers goes back to the very beginning of Buddhism. It surely means that accurate historical information has been preserved, and suggests that Uddaka Ramaputta was based in Rajagaha, no doubt as a famous sage of Magadha. Incidentally, it is clear that this material has no normative value whatsoever, and so rebuts Schopen’s claim that ‘even the most artless formal narrative text’ has a normative agenda.
Another detail, found in almost all the sectarian accounts of the training under the two teachers, can hardly have been produced by a later leveling of the Buddhist literature; it occurs in the account of the training under Uddaka Ramaputta. This account is identical in almost all regards to the description of the training under Aḷara Kalama. It tells us that the Bodhisatta first of all mastered the teaching, i.e. he gained an intellectual understanding of it, after which he attained the direct realisation of the sphere of ‘neither perception nor non-perception’ through understanding (abhiṭṭa). But the account of the training under Uddaka Ramaputta makes it clear that it was not Uddaka Ramaputta who had attained the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, but Rama, the father or spiritual teacher of Uddaka. This is seen in the following exchange. The Bodhisatta is said to have contemplated that Rama (not Ramaputta) did not proclaim (pavedesi) his attainment through mere faith, but because he dwelt (vihasi) knowing and seeing himself. The corresponding passage in the account of the training under Aḷara uses the same verbs in the present tense (pavedeti, viharati), indicating that Aḷara was living and Rama was dead, and that Ramaputta had not attained and realised the dhamma he taught.
The same phenomenon is found in the rest of the passage. Thus the Bodhisatta is said to have asked Ramaputta: ‘The venerable Rama proclaimed (pavedesi) [his attainment], having himself realised this dhamma to what extent (kittavata)?’ The reply, of course, is as far as nevasaṭṭanasaṭṭayatana. The Bodhisatta is then said to have contemplated that not only did Rama have faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and insight, but that he too possesses these virtues. And at the end of the episode, Uddaka Ramaputta is reported to have said: ‘Thus the dhamma that Rama knew (aṭṭasi), that dhamma you [the Bodhisatta] know; the dhamma you know, that dhamma Rama knew.’ This is different from the corresponding speech that Aḷara is reported to have made to the Bodhisatta: ‘Thus the dhamma I know (janami), that dhamma you know; the dhamma you know, that I know.’ And whereas Aḷara is willing to establish the Bodhisatta as an equal to him (samasamaṃ), so that they can lead the ascetic group together (imaṃ gaṇaṃ pariharama ti), Uddaka acknowledges that the Bodhisatta is equal to Rama, not himself (iti yadiso ramo ahosi tadiso tuvaṃ), and asks the Buddha to lead the community alone (imaṃ gaṇaṃ parihara ti).
The distinction between Uddaka Ramaputta and Rama is also found in the Sarvastivadin, Dharmaguptaka, and Mahasaṅghika accounts of the Bodhisattva’s training. Although the Saṅghabhedavastu (plus parallel Tibetan translations) and the Lalitavistara fail to distinguish Ramaputta from Rama, this must be because of a later obfuscation of the tradition. Exactly the same mistake has been made by I. B. Horner, the PTS translator of the Majjhima Nikaya, who has been duped, by the repetitive oral style, into believing that the accounts of the training under Aḷara and Uddaka must be the same apart from the difference between the names of the two men and their meditative attainments.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that there is no need to trouble over these details in an oral tradition where adjacent passages are often composed in exactly the same way, one passage frequently being a verbatim repetition of the previous one with a minor change of one or two words. The tendency for reciters of this autobiographical episode would have been to make the two accounts identical bar the substitution of Uddaka’s name for Aḷara’s. A conscious effort has been made to distinguish Uddaka Ramaputta from Rama, and not to let the repetitive oral style interfere with this. This effort must surely go back to the beginning of the pre-sectarian tradition of composing biographical Suttas, and the distinction can only be explained if Rama and Ramaputta were two different people. Otherwise, it is part of an elaborate hoax, and there is no reason for such a hoax.
Bareau maintained that the correspondence between the two descriptions of the training under each of the teachers proved their artificial (i.e. unhistorical) nature. But repetition is normal in Pali oral literature. And it seems that the two parallel accounts, having preserved the important distinction between Ramaputta and Rama, rather than leaving an impression of ‘contrivance’, have preserved valuable historical information. The conclusion is that the three men were real. It is hardly likely that Buddhists got together a few hundred years after the Buddha’s death and decided to make up the idea that Rama and not Ramaputta had attained the state of neither perception nor non- perception, and then had such an influence that the idea found its way into recensions of texts being made in regions as far apart as central Asia and Sri Lanka. The idea must have been in the Buddhist tradition from the beginning, and can only be explained as an attempt to remember an historical fact. There is no other sensible explanation. It is also worth pointing out that if this biographical material is so old and really does represent an attempt to record historical facts, then it means that this portion of the Bodhisatta’s biography is most likely to be true. It is likely that the Bodhisatta really was taught by Aḷara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.
