The Idea Of ​​Freedom In "The Great Edge"

The actual mechanics of Buddhist liberation as taught in the earliest discourses is very understudied, and even less understood. Of course it is generally known that, for example, in the discourses, full liberation is usually described with the twin epithets, ceto-vimutti, or liberation of mind, and panna-vimutti, or liberation by wisdom; which are known to be the respective results of tranquility and insight practices.① Furthermore, the discourses state quite clearly, and tradition maintains, that tranquility practice is for developing one’s powers of concentration, and insight practice is concerned with accumulating wisdom. And, finally, it is all but universally accepted that development in both the areas of concentration and wisdom is required for full liberation. Thus, we would seem to have a nice, balanced, and symmetrical dual path to a twofold final goal. But, that is not what we see in the traditional Theravada presentation of the path. And, regarding concentration and wisdom--how they relate to one another, and how they work to bring about liberation--there is no consensus.First of all, it must be borne in mind that we are looking at early Buddhist accounts of liberation through 2,000 of traditional exegesis and explanation, much of which bears very little resemblance to how liberation is described in the discourses themselves. It must be stated, however, that even the discourses, our best source for the earliest accounts, do not speak with one voice, and among them there are any manner of various and divergent views to be found.But one very important piece to the puzzle is found in the Pali Digha Nikaya’s Mahanidana Sutta② (hereafter, the MNS). In the final passages of this lengthy discourse, we have perhaps the only case in which we find, within a single discourse, the juxtaposition of two separate paths to liberation--liberation by wisdom and liberation in both ways--which between them straddle the divide between concentration and wisdom, embracing both. Furthermore, there is the enigmatic qualification, "There is no other liberation in both ways higher or more sublime than this liberation in both ways" following the already quite unique depiction of liberation in both ways found in the MNS, which is also the climax of the entire discourse. These final passages of the MNS will provide the primary focal point for this report.Two of contemporary academic Buddhism’s biggest researchers, Professor Richard Gombrich and Dr. Alexander Wynne, have both written at length about all or most of these very same issues. In "An Interpretation of ’Released on Both Sides’③ and the Ramifications for the Study of Early Buddhism,"④ Dr. Wynne cites two discrepant accounts of Buddha’s own liberation. One⑤ portrays him experiencing liberation while in a state called the cessation of feeling and perception: a decidedly concentrative state, and the zenith of tranquility practice attainments. Another⑥ depicts his liberation as having come about through the realization of wisdom garnered through insight into the Four Noble Truths while in a meditative state called the fourth jhana. Although not explicitly called so in either text, in these discourses represent examples of liberation in both ways and liberation by wisdom, respectively. Understandably, Dr. Wynne finds it difficult to resolve these divergent accounts of the Buddha’s liberation by two mutually irreconcilable paths, and determines that what we are seeing are "doctrinal inconsistencies and debate in the early material" (Wynne, 2002,40) concerning liberation.Much of Dr. Wynne’s work is founded on ideas first proposed in Professor Gombrich’s 1996 ground-breaking, How Buddhism Began:The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. In chapter four of that work, "Retracing an Ancient Debate: How Insight Worsted Concentration in the Pali Canon,"① Professor Gombrich reviews the evidence he has found in the discourses of "an ancient debate" surrounding elevation of wisdom over concentration by some groups which promoted the idea of one’s being liberated by wisdom; that idea, in turn, elicited the introduction of the concept of liberation in both ways as a response. In contrast to this bifurcation of the Buddhist soteriological path, he proposes a theory of an originally unified path to Buddhist liberation based his interpretation of the aforementioned dual designation of ceto-vimutti, pannd-vimutti which nearly always crowns any mention of liberation.Over the course of their investigations, both researchers identify the MNS as a key discourse to helping shed some light on the problem. (Wynne,2002,34-5; Gombrich,120) Yet, even after quite thorough investigations of the relevant MNS material conducted by two luminaries of modern Buddhology, we are nevertheless left with several unanswered questions surrounding liberation in early Buddhism generally and in the MNS in particular. This report will seek to fill in some of the remaining gaps in our understanding.While agreeing in the main with Dr. Wynne and Professor Gombrich, we shall notice how the effectiveness of their efforts to resolve the many issues surrounding liberation in the early Buddhist discourses are hampered by three shared weaknesses:1. misinterpreting of textual evidence due to attachment to traditional views on the predominance of wisdom, the limited liberating potential of concentration, and jhana meditation as the primary path to liberation;2. not being comprehensive enough in their review of examples of paths to liberation found among the Pali discourses;3. and overlooking significant differences in the Chinese parallels to the Pali MNS.I believe that the present report will successfully demonstrate how being open to alternative views of liberation, a wider-ranging diversity in selection of texts, and Pali-Chinese comparative textual analysis can help broaden our understanding of a very confusing and complex issue.First, in the Literature Review, taking Dr Wynne’s and Professor Gombrich’s findings as our frame of reference, we will comb the discourses to find out as much as possible regarding liberation: paying special attention to the respective roles of concentration and wisdom in effecting liberation, while also attempting to ascertain the mechanics of their relationship with each other. Following on this, in the Cross-text Comparison, we will compare the passages on liberation found in the Pali MNS with corresponding passages from the four Agama parallels to DN 15 found in the Chinese canon in search for what additional details they may reveal to us regarding liberation as it is taught in that discourse. Lastly, in Final Conclusions, we will summarize our conclusions regarding liberation, both generally and specifically as it is taught in the MNS. In the process, we hope to address some of the questions left unanswered by these two scholars while, at the same time, making note of what areas still call for further study.