The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca)
is generally translated by almost all scholars as ‘The Noble Truth of
Suffering’, and it is interpreted to mean that life according to
Buddhism is nothing but suffering and pain. Both translation and
interpretation are highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is
because of this limited, free and easy translation, and its superficial
interpretation, that many people have been misled into regarding
Buddhism as pessimistic.
First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor
optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a
realistic view of life and of the world. It looks at things objectively (yathābhūtaṃ).
It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool’s paradise, nor does
it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins.
It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world
around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace,
tranquillity and happiness.
One physician may gravely exaggerate an illness
and give up hope altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there
is no illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving the
patient with a false consolation. You may call the first one pessimistic
and the second optimistic. Both are equally dangerous. But a third
physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the cause and
the nature of the illness, sees clearly that it can be cured, and
courageously administers a course of treatment, thus saving his patient.
The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise and scientific
doctor for the ills of the world (Bhisakka or Bhaiṣajya-guru).
It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit duḥkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery’, as opposed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’ or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha
as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life
and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes
enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term dukkha in
the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of
‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as
‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, ‘insubstantiality’. It is
difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of
the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to
leave it untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it
by conveniently translating it as ‘suffering’ or ‘pain’.
The Buddha does not deny happiness in life when he
says there is suffering. On the contrary he admits different forms of
happiness, both material and spiritual, for laymen as well as for monks.
In the Aṅguttara-nikāya, one of the five original Collections in Pāli containing the Buddha’s discourses, there is a list of happinesses (sukhāni),
such as the happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a
recluse, the happiness of sense pleasures and the happiness of
renunciation, the happiness of attachment and the happiness of
detachment, physical happiness and mental happiness etc.[40] But all these are included in dukkha. Even the very pure spiritual states of dhyāna (recueillement
or trance) attained by the practice of higher meditation, free from
even a shadow of suffering in the accepted sense of the word, states
which may be described as unmixed happiness, as well as the state of dhyāna which is free from sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant (dukkha) and is only pure equanimity and awareness – even these very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In one of the suttas of the Majjhima-nikāya, (again one of the five original Collections), after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyānas, the Buddha says that they are ‘impermanent, dukkha, and subject to change’ (aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā).[41] Notice that the word dukkha is explicitly used. It is dukkha, not because there is ‘suffering’ in the ordinary sense of the word, but because ‘whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (yad aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ).
The Buddha was realistic and objective. He says,
with regard to life and the enjoyment of sense-pleasures, that one
should clearly understand three things: (1) attraction or enjoyment (assāda), (2) evil consequence or danger or unsatisfactoriness (ādīnava), and (3) freedom or liberation (nissaraṇa).[42]
When you see a pleasant, charming and beautiful person, you like him
(or her), you are attracted, you enjoy seeing that person again and
again, you derive pleasure and satisfaction from that person. This is
enjoyment (assāda). It is a fact of experience. But this
enjoyment is not permanent, just as that person and all his (or her)
attractions are not permanent either. When the situation changes, when
you cannot see that person, when you are deprived of this enjoyment, you
become sad, you may become unreasonable and unbalanced, you may even
behave foolishly. This is the evil, unsatisfactory and dangerous side of
the picture (ādīnava). This, too, is a fact of experience. Now
if you have no attachment to the person, if you are completely detached,
that is freedom, liberation (nissaraṇa). These three things are true with regard to all enjoyment in life.
From it is evident that it is no question of
pessimism or optimism, but that we must take account of the pleasures of
life as well as of its pains and sorrows, and also freedom from them,
in order to understand life completely and objectively. Only then is
true liberation possible. Regarding this question the Buddha says:
‘O bhikkhus, if any recluses or brāhmaṇas do not
understand objectively in this way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures
is enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that
liberation from them is liberation, then it is not possible that they
themselves will certainly understand the desire for sense-pleasures
completely, or that they will be able to instruct another person to that
end, or that the person following their instruction will completely
understand the desire for sense-pleasures. But, O bhikkhus, if any
recluses or brāhmaṇas understand objectively in this way that the
enjoyment of sense-pleasures is enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness
is unsatisfactoriness, that liberation from them is liberation, then it
is possible that they themselves will certainly understand the desire
for sense-pleasures completely, and that they will be able to instruct
another person to that end, and that that person following their
instruction will completely understand the desire for sense-pleasure.’[43]
The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects: (1) dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha), (2) dukkha as produced by change (vipariṇāma-dukkha) and (3) dukkha as conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha).[44]
All kinds of suffering in life like birth, old
age, sickness, death, association with unpleasant persons and
conditions, separation from loved ones and pleasant conditions, not
getting what one desires, grief, lamentation, distress – all such forms
of physical and mental suffering, which are universally accepted as
suffering or pain, are included in dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha).
A happy feeling, a happy condition in life, is not
permanent, not everlasting. It changes sooner or later. When it
changes, it produces pain, suffering, unhappiness. This vicissitude is
included in dukkha as suffering produced by change (vipariṇāma-dukkha).
It is easy to understand the two forms of suffering (dukkha)
mentioned above. No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First
Noble Truth is more popularly known because it is easy to understand. It
is common experience in our daily life.
But the third form of dukkha as conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha)
is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble Truth,
and it requires some analytical explanation of what we consider as a
‘being’, as an ‘individual’, or as ‘I’.
What we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or
‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of
ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies, which may be
divided into five groups or aggregates (pañcakkhandha). The Buddha says: ‘In short these five aggregates of attachment are dukkha’.[45] Elsewhere he distinctly defines dukkha as the five aggregates: ‘O bhikkhus, what is dukkha? It should be said that it is the five aggregates of attachment’.[46] Here it should be clearly understood that dukkha and the five aggregates are not two different things; the five aggregates themselves are dukkha.
We will understand this point better when we have some notion of the
five aggregates which constitute the so-called ‘being’. Now, what are
these five?
The Five Aggregates
The first is the Aggregate of Matter (Rūpakkhandha). In this term ‘Aggregate of Matter’ are included the traditional Four Great Elements (cattāri mahābbūtāni), namely, solidity, fluidity, heat and motion, and also the Derivatives (upādāya-rūpa) of the Four Great Elements.[47]
In the term ‘Derivatives of Four Great Elements’ are included our five
material sense-organs, i.e., the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue,
and body, and their corresponding objects in the external world, i.e.,
visible form, sound, odour, taste, and tangible things, and also some
thoughts or ideas or conceptions which are in the sphere of mind-objects
(dharmāyatana).[48] Thus the whole realm of matter, both internal and external, is included in the Aggregate of Matter.
The second is the Aggregate of Sensations (Vedanākkhandha).
In this group are included all our sensations, pleasant or unpleasant
or neutral, experienced through the contact of physical and mental
organs with the external world. They are of six kinds: the sensations
experienced through the contact of the eye with visible forms, ear with
sounds, nose with odour, tongue with taste, body with tangible objects,
and mind (which is the sixth faculty in Buddhist Philosophy) with
mind-objects or thoughts or ideas.[49] All our physical and mental sensations are included in this group.
A word about what is meant by the term “Mind’ (manas)
in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be
understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It should
always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize a spirit opposed
to matter, as is accepted by most other systems of philosophies and
religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye
or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty,
and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and
disciplining these six faculties. The difference between the eye and the
mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and
visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts
and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with
different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. Nor can
we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our five physical
sense-organs – eye, ear, nose, tongue, body – we experience only the
world of visible forms, sound, odours, tastes and tangible objects. But
these represent only a part of the world, not the whole. What of ideas
and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be
sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose,
tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is
mind. Now ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world
experienced by these five physical sense faculties. In fact they depend
on, and are conditioned by, physical experiences. Hence a person born
blind cannot have ideas of colour, except through the analogy of sounds
or some other things experienced through his other faculties. Ideas and
thoughts which form a part of the world are thus produced and
conditioned by physical experiences and are conceived by the mind. Hence
mind (manas) is considered a sense faculty or organ (indriya), like the eye or the ear.
The third is the Aggregate of Perceptions (Saññākkhandha).
Like sensations, perceptions also are of six kinds, in relation to six
internal faculties and the corresponding six external objects. Like
sensations, they are produced through the contact of our six faculties
with the external world. It is the perceptions that recognize objects
whether physical or mental.[50]
The fourth is the Aggregate of Mental Formations[51] (Saṃkhārakkhandha). In this group are included all volitional activities both good and bad. What is generally known as karma (or kamma) comes under this group. The Buddha’s own definition of karma should be remembered here: ‘O bhikkhus, it is volition (cetanā) that I call karma. Having willed, one acts through body, speech and mind.[52]
Volition is ‘mental construction, mental activity. Its function is to
direct the mind in the sphere of good, bad or neutral activities.’[53]
Just like sensations and perceptions, volition is of six kinds,
connected with the six internal faculties and the corresponding six
objects (both physical and mental) in the external world.[54]
Sensations and perceptions are not volitional actions. They do not
produce karmic effects. It is only volitional actions – such as
attention (manasikāra), will (chanda), determination (adhimokkha), confidence (saddhā), concentration (samādhi), wisdom (paññā), energy (viriya), desire (rāga), repugnance or hate (paṭigha), ignorance (avijjā), conceit (māna), idea of self (sakkāya-ditthi)
etc. – that can produce karmic effects. There are 52 such mental
activities which constitute the Aggregate of Mental Formations.
The fifth is the Aggregate of Consciousness (Viññāṇakkhandha).[55]
Consciousness is a reaction or response which has one of the six
faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind) as its basis, and one
of the six corresponding external phenomena (visible form, sound, odour,
taste, tangible things and mind-objects, i.e., an idea or thought) as
its objects. For instance, visual consciousness (cakkhu-viññāṇa) has the eye as its basis and a visible form as its object. Mental consciousness (mano-viññāṇa) has the mind (manas) as its basis and a mental object, i.e., an idea or thought (dhamma)
as its object. So consciousness is connected with other faculties.
Thus, like sensation, perception and volition, consciousness also is of
six kinds, in relation to six internal faculties and corresponding six
external objects.[56]
It should be clearly understood that consciousness
does not recognize an object. It is only a sort of awareness –
awareness of the presence of an object. When the eye comes in contact
with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which
simply is awareness of the presence of a colour; but it does not
recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is
perception (the third Aggregate discussed above) that recognizes that it
is blue. The term “visual consciousness’ is a philosophical expression
denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary word ‘seeing’.
Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other forms of
consciousness.
It must be repeated here that according to
Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can
be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and
that consciousness (viññāṇa) should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in
opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasized,
because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that
continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the
earliest time to the present day.
One of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name,
held that the Master taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that
transmigrates and wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by
‘consciousness’. Sāti reply is classical: ‘It is that which expresses,
which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here
and there’.
‘To whomever, you stupid one’, remonstrated the
Master, ‘have you heard me expounding the doctrines in this manner?
Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of
conditions: that there is no arising of consciousness without
conditions’. Then the Buddha went on to explain consciousness in detail:
‘Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which
it arises: on account of the eye and visible forms arises a
consciousness, and it is called visual consciousness; on account of the
ear and sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory
consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises consciousness,
and it is called olfactory consciousness; on account of the tongue and
tastes arises a consciousness, and it is called gustatory consciousness;
on account of the body and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and
it is called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and
mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness, and it is
called mental consciousness.’
Then the Buddha explained it further by an
illustration: A fire is named according to the material on account of
which it burns. A fire may burn on account of wood, add it is called
wood-fire. It may burn on account of straw, and then it is called
straw-fire. So consciousness is named account to the condition through
which it arises.[57]
Dwelling on this point, Buddhaghosa, the great
commentator, explains: ‘… a fire that burns on account of wood burns
only when there is a supply, but dies down in that very place when it
(the supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has changed,
but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a
splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on
account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate of sense organ
(i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible
forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the
condition) is no more there, because then the condition has changed, but
(the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become
auditory consciousness and so on…’[58]
The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that
consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental
formations and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says:
‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭham),
and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness
may exist having sensation as its means… or perception as its means… or
mental formations as its means, mental formations as its objects,
mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow,
increase and develop.
‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the
going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the
development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception
and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not
exist.’[59]
Very briefly these are the five Aggregates. What
we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient
name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are
all impermanent, all constantly changing. ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccaṃ tam dukkhaṃ). This is the true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha’.
They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal
to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.
‘O Brāhmaṇa, it is just like a mountain river,
flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no
moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on
flowing and continuing. So Brāhmaṇa, is human life, like a mountain
river.’[60] As the Buddha told Raṭṭhapāla: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’
One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance
of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging
substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a
permanent Self (Ātman), individuality, or anything that can in
reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that neither matter, nor
sensation, nor perception, nor any one of those mental activities, nor
consciousness can really be called ‘I’.[61]
But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are
interdependent are working together in combination as a
physio-psychological machine,[62]
we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a mental
formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the
fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea
of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
These five Aggregate together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha itself (saṃkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:
‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]
There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It
is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but
life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things.
In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself
is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be
found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is
diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’
Now a question may be raised whether life has a
beginning. According to the Buddha’s teaching the beginning of the
life-stream of living beings is unthinkable. The believer in the
creation of life by God may be astonished at this reply. But if you were
to ask him ‘What is the beginning of God?’ he would answer without
hesitation ‘God has no beginning’, and he is not astonished at his own
reply. The Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this cycle of continuity (saṃsāra) is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings wandering and running round, enveloped in ignorance (avijjā) and bound down by the fetters of thirst (desire, taṇhā) is not to be perceived.’[64]
And further, referring to ignorance which is the main cause of the
continuity of life the Buddha states: ‘The first beginning of ignorance (avijjā) is not to be perceived in such a way as to postulate that there was no ignorance beyond a certain point.’[65] Thus it is not possible to say that there was no life beyond a certain definite point.
This in short is the meaning of the Noble Truth of Dukkha. It is extremely important to understand this First Noble Truth clearly because, as the Buddha says, ‘he who sees dukkha sees also the arising of dukkha, sees also the cessation of dukkha, and sees also the path leading to the cessation of dukkha.’[66]
This does not at all make the life of a Buddhist
melancholy or sorrowful, as some people wrongly imagine. On the
contrary, a true Buddhist is the happiest of beings. He has no fears or
anxieties. He is always calm and serene, and cannot be upset or dismayed
by changes or calamities, because he sees things as they are. The
Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy. He was described by his
contemporaries as ‘ever-smiling’ (mihita-pubbaṃgama). In Buddhist
painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with a
countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate. Never a trace of
suffering or agony or pain is to be seen.[67]
Buddhist art and architecture, Buddhist temples never give the
impression of gloom or sorrow, but produce an atmosphere of calm and
serene joy.
Although there is suffering in life, a Buddhist
should not be gloomy over it, should not be angry or impatient at it.
One of the principal evils in life, according to Buddhism, is
‘repugnance’ or hatred. Repugnance (pratigha) is explained as
‘ill-will with regard to living beings, with regard to suffering and
with regard to things pertaining to suffering. Its function is to
produce a basis for unhappy states and bad conduct.’[68]
Thus it is wrong to be impatient at suffering. Being impatient or angry
at suffering does not remove it. On the contrary, it adds a little more
to one’s trouble, and aggravates and exacerbates a situation already
disagreeable. What is necessary is not anger or impatience, but the
understanding of the question of suffering, how it comes about, and how
to get rid of it, and then to work accordingly with patience,
intelligence, determination and energy.
There are two ancient Buddhist texts called the Theragāthā and the Therīgāthā
which are full of the joyful utterances of the Buddha’s disciples, both
male and female, who found peace and happiness in life through his
teaching. The king of Kosala once told the Buddha that unlike many a
disciple of other religious systems who looked haggard, coarse, pale,
emaciated and unprepossessing, his disciples were ‘joyful and elated (haṭṭha-pahaṭṭha), jubilant and exultant (udaggudagga), enjoying the spiritual life (abhiratarūpa), with faculties pleased (pīṇitindriya), free from anxiety (appossukka) serene (pannaloma), peaceful (paradavutta) and living with a gazelle’s mind (migabhūtena cetasā),
i.e., light-hearted.’ The king added that he believed that this healthy
disposition was due to the fact that ‘these venerable ones had
certainly realized the great and full significance of the Blessed One’s
teaching.’[69]
Buddhism is quite opposed to the melancholic,
sorrowful, penitent and gloomy attitude of mind which is considered a
hindrance to the realization of Truth. On the other hand, it is
interesting to remember here that joy (pīti) is one of the seven Bojjhaṃgas or’Factors of Illumination’, the essential qualities to be cultivated for the realization of Nirvāṇa.[70]
[40] A (Colombo, 1929), p. 49.
[41] Mahādukkhakkhandha-sutta, M I (PTS), p. 90.
[42] M I (PTS), p. 85 ff; S III (PTS), p. 27 ff.
[43] M I (PTS), p. 87.
[44] Vism (PTS), p. 499; Abhisamuc, p. 38.
[45] Saṃkhittena pancupādānakkhandhā dukkhā. S V (PTS), p. 421
[46] S III (PTS), p. 158.
[47] S III (PTS), p. 59.
[48] Abhisamuc, p. 4. Vibh. p.72. Hhs. p. 133 §594.
[49] S III (PTS), p. 59.
[50] S III (PTS), p.60
[51] ‘Mental Formations’ is the term now generally used to represent the wide meaning of the word saṃkhāra in the list of Five Aggregates. Saṃkhāra in other contexts may mean anything conditioned, anything in the word, in which sense all the Five Aggregates are saṃkhāra.
[52] A (Colombo, 1929), p. 590 – Cetanā’haṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi. Cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācā manasā.
[53] Abhisamuc, p.6.
[54] S III (PTS), p. 60.
[55] According to Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy the Aggregate of Consciousness has three aspects: citta, manas and vijñāna, and the Ālaya-vijñāna
(popularly translated as ‘Store-Consciousness’) finds its place in this
Aggregate. A detailed and comparative study of this subject will be
found in a forthcoming work on Buddhist philosophy by the present
writer.
[56] S III (PTS), p.61
[57] Mahātaṇhāsaṃkhaya-sutta, M I (PTS), p. 256 ff.
[58] MA II (PTS), pp. 306-307
[59] S III (PTS), p. 58.
[60] A (Colombo, 1929), p. 700. These words are attributed by the Buddha to a Teacher (Satthā)
named Araka who was free from desires and who lived in the dim past. It
is interesting to remember here the doctrine of Heraclitus (about 500
B.C.) that everything is in a state of flux, and his famous statement:
‘You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever
flowing in upon you.’
[61] The doctrine of Anatta ‘No-Self’ will be discussed in Chapter VI.
[62] In fact Buddhaghosa compares a ‘being’ to a wooden mechanism (dāruyanta). Vism. (PTS), pp. 594-595.
[63] Vism. (PTS), p. 513.
[64] S III (PTS), pp. 178-179; III pp.149, 151.
[65] A V (PTS), p. 113.
[66] S
V (PTS), p. 437. In fact the Buddha says that he who sees any one of
the Four Noble Truths sees the other three as well. These Four Noble
Truths are interconnected.
[67] There
is a statue from Gandhara, and also one from Fou-Kien, China, depicting
Gotama as an ascetic, emaciated, with all his ribs showing. But this
was before his Enlightenment, when he was submitting himself to the
rigorous ascetic practices which he condemned after he became Buddha.
[68] Abhisamuc, p. 7.
[69] M II (PTS), p. 121.
[70] For these Seven Factors of Enlightenment see Chapter on Meditation, p. 43.
