The Journey Thus Far …
In the last three Dharma Notes essays, I presented a basic outline of Buddhist practice that proceeds from generosity and the problem of impermanence to the solution of contemplation as a vehicle for the development of wisdom. The development of wisdom then brings liberation from the original problem of attachment to an impermanent world.
That wisdom itself represents the investigation and understanding of the basic facts of life: Impermanence, the way things arise and perish depending on other things arising and perishing, the consequences of moral and immoral actions, and the basic nature of experience and existence. This is why it was usually defined in Buddhist commentary as discernment: Wisdom discerns the nature of things.
In the next two or three essays, I want to explore this point further by investigating the two root problems identified in early Buddhist sources: The problem of ignorance and the problem of desire. These two problems are presented sometimes together and sometimes separately. Over the course of history, Buddhist thought gravitated towards the problem of ignorance and away from the problem of desire. Indeed, by the time of the Classical period when Mahāyāna teachings like those of Nagārjuna and Asaṇga gained prominence, ignorance was considered the primary problem. But this may not have always been the case for Buddhists.
Ignorance in Greek Philosophy
Before I look at ignorance in early Buddhist sources, I want to first take a detour into another tradition: early Greek philosophy. The reason for this is historical: the Greek and Indian civilizations likely came into continuous contact with each other after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire’s easternmost frontier. These events happened at the end of the 4th century BCE, which postdate the Buddha’s life whether we accept that he lived in the 6th or the 5th century BCE.
Alexander the Great’s military campaign went as far as Bactria (Afghanistan today) and the Indus River (Pakistan today). Alexander died in 323 BCE before he could return to the West to conquer the Romans and other regions not yet under his rule. After his death, his leading generals divided his empire between themselves. The Macedonian general Seleukos took control of the eastern territories of the old Persian Empire and founded the Seleucid Empire. Meanwhile, a new empire was also founded by Chandragupta of the Mauryan dynasty in India. Ruling from Pataliputra, he quickly expanded the boundaries of his rule in India to the Indus River. This expansion led to a brief war between the Seleucids and the Mauryans at each others’ frontier in 305 BCE.
When it was apparent that neither empire would gain much from military campaigns in their shared hinterland, they agreed to a peace treaty, and regular contact between the Indian and Greek world was established on relatively good terms.
Not much is known about the state of Buddhism in India during this period. The first archeological evidence of Buddhism takes the form of Asoka’s edicts, which were engraved onto stone pillars scattered around Indian during his reign about 50 years after the peace treaty between the Mauryans and Seleucids (i.e., between 268-232 BCE). We do know, however, that Buddhism became established in the Indus River region and Bactria around the same time according to Buddhist sources. A major branch of Sarvāstivādin Buddhism was established in Taxila of the Hindu Kush. Dharmaguptaka Buddhists were also present in the Bactrian region as well from at least the late second century BCE, as evidenced by the oldest textual remnants discovered in Afghanistan.
All of this is to say that there’s plenty of reason to assume that cultural influences took place in both directions: Indian religious ideas may have influenced Greeks, and Greek philosophical ideas influenced Buddhists. Sarvāstivādins would later become the preeminent Abhidharma tradition in India and influence the entire Buddhist world in one way or another.
Socrates was roughly a contemporary of the Buddha, living from 470-399 BCE. Similar to the Buddha, he became the founder of the Western philosophical tradition, but his thought and teachings are known to us only through his disciples, Plato and Xenophon. While Xenophon was not a philosopher, Plato (ca. 428-327 BCE) would play a role similar to Buddhist figures like Śāriputra. He wrote a large body of works that would then inspire Western traditions until the Enlightenment era.
The dialogues of Socrates written by Plato are the only summary of his teachings that exist. The dialogue that concerned itself with the problem of knowledge was Theaetetus, which was named after the mathematician who was Socrates’ interlocutor. I want to highlight a passage in this work, which was published in Greece only a few decades after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa (if we accept that it was ca. 400 BCE).
Ignorance in English means a lack of knowledge or education. In Greek and Pali, the word we translate as “ignorance” was G. agnōsĭ́ā and P. avijjā. Both words literally mean “lack of knowledge or understanding” and could refer to state of self-deception or misperception.
In the thought of Socrates and Plato, ignorance was a double-edged blade. When a person realizes that they are ignorant of something, they can begin to learn and acquire knowledge about it. If a person fails to become aware of their ignorance, then it leads to folly at best and a kind of arrogant disregard at worst.
This passage in Theaetetus occurs during a description of the problem of a man who doesn’t know the principles of justice and goodness. Rather than mock them, Socrates says that they must be told the truth:
Socrates: [Their] very ignorance of their true state fixes them the more firmly therein. For they do not know what is the penalty of injustice, which is the last thing of which a man should be ignorant. It is not what they suppose—scourging and death—things which they may entirely evade in spite of their wrongdoing. It is a penalty from which there is no escape.
Theodorus: And what is that?
Socrates: My friend, there are two patterns set up in reality: One is divine and supremely happy; the other has nothing of God in it, and is the pattern of the deepest unhappiness. This truth the evildoer does not see; blinded by folly and utter lack of understanding, he fails to perceive that the effect of his unjust practices is to make him grow more and more like the one, and less and less like the other. For this he pays the penalty of living the life that corresponds to the pattern he is coming to resemble. And if we tell him that, unless he is delivered from this “ability” of his, when he dies the place that is pure of all evil will not receive him; that he will forever go on living in this world a life after his own likeness—a bad man tied to bad company: he will but think, “This is the way fools talk to a clever rascal like me.”
It’s not hard to see here a general parallel with passages we find commonly in early Buddhist texts. The common Buddhist refrain is that ignorance is a root cause of suffering because it causes sentient beings to engage in unwise behavior and stubbornly hold to incorrect views. This leads to a cycle of rebirth until one’s ignorance is eliminated through practice and awakening. The Greeks did not have the same world view as the Indians in regard to rebirth, but the basic observation is the same in both contexts.
Of course, it’s no great leap of logic to conclude that people mislead themselves and often become stubborn about it. It was likely something that was apparent in ancient times as much as it is today. The point of interest is the centrality of ignorance as the root problem that Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato sought to solve through the development of wisdom. This “love of wisdom” is precisely where we get the entire field of “philosophy” (Gr. philo + sophos = “loving” + “wisdom”).
Ignorance in Early Buddhist Sources
In early Buddhist sources, ignorance is typically mentioned in one of a these contexts:
Dependent origination
The three contaminants
The three knowledges
The four noble truths
The four yokes
The five higher bonds
The seven tendencies
Outside of these formal lists, ignorance is also sometimes mentioned alongside craving as a pair of things to eliminate, which puts them both on equal footing as the two root problems of life.
Definitions of Ignorance in Early Sources
The word “ignorance” (P. avijjā, S. avidyā, C. 無明) is defined by Śāriputra in SĀ 1.40 (257) and SĀ 2.199 (251) very generally as “not knowing.” When asked what it is that an ignorant person doesn’t know, he replies:
They don’t truly know form … the formation of form … the cessation of form, and don’t truly know the path to form’s cessation. They don’t truly know feeling … conception … volition … awareness … the formation of awareness … the cessation of awareness, and don’t truly know the path to awareness’ cessation. Mahākauṣṭhila, they don’t truly know these five acquired aggregates. They don’t see and have no direct realization of them. They are foolish, benighted, and aren’t insightful. This is called ignorance. Someone who achieves this is called ignorant.
One might surmise that what it is about the aggregates that an ignorant person doesn’t know is that they are impermanent, painful, empty, and not self, which are the insights which lead to liberation in SĀ 1.1-4 (1):
It was then that the Bhagavān addressed the monks, “You should observe that form is impermanent … painful … empty … not self. Observing it in this way is right view. Correctly observing it gives rise to disillusionment. When someone is disillusioned, delight and greed end. When delight and greed end, I say one’s mind is liberated.
“Thus observe that feeling … conception … volition … awareness is impermanent … painful … empty … not self. Observing it in this way is right view. Correctly observing it gives rise to disillusionment. When someone is disillusioned, delight and greed end. When delight and greed end, I say one’s mind is liberated.”
This is confirmed when we look at Śāriputra’s answer in SĀ 2.199:
It refers to having no understanding. Someone without understanding is ignorant. About what do they have no understanding? They don’t truly know that the eye is impermanent. This is called ‘no understanding.’ They don’t truly know the eye is something that arises and perishes. This is called ‘no understanding.’ The eye, nose, tongue, body, and mind are likewise. In this way, Venerable Mahākauṣṭhila, they don’t truly know about these six senses of contact. Not seeing and not realizing, they are benighted, ignorant, and in darkness. This is called ignorance.
Ignorance, however, eventually widened to cover a host of topics considered essential to developing wisdom in the Buddhist practice. SĀ 28.1-36 (490) is a good example of this:
Jumbukhadaka asked Śāriputra, “There is the expression ‘ignorance.’ What is ignorance?”
Śāriputra replied, “The expression ‘ignorance’ refers to having no understanding of the ultimate beginning, the ultimate end, and the ultimate beginning, middle, and end; the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha; suffering, its formation, its cessation, and the path to its cessation; what’s skillful, unskillful, and indeterminate; and what’s internal or external. If one has no understanding of such things and are blocked by darkness, this is called ignorance.”
Jambukhadaka said, “This is a great mass of darkness!” He then asked, “Śāriputra, is there a path or a way that puts an end to ignorance when cultivated and cultivated often?”
Śāriputra replied, “There is. It is the eightfold right path of right view up to right samādhi.”
SĀ 3.16 (298) enlarges this list of subjects even more by adding deeds, results, and deeds and their results; causes and the things that are produced by causes; the blameworthy and blameless; what to cultivate and not cultivate; and what is inferior, superior, defiled, and pure.
What we can make of these expanding definitions of ignorance found in these texts is that they show a transition from practical day-to-day realities like impermanence to more philosophical and abstract subjects. These lengthy definitions are mirrored in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma definitions as well, which makes it difficult to not suspect that these long definitions were added to sūtras after they were compiled in Abhidharma texts. Another point to notice, too, is that it is Śāriputra who provides these interpretations of ignorance, not the Buddha. Śāriputra was considered to be the disciple who compiled the Saṅgiti list of Dharma topics, and the Dharmaguptakas considered him the originator of their own Abhidharma collection.
Among the added subjects of these large definitions are moral and ideological topics such as karma, what is skillful or blameworthy, defiled or pure, and the three treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha. When we compare these topics to the description of the ignorant man by Socrates, we can see a closer alignment compared to the simpler definition that harkens back to the problems of impermanence and attachment.
When we turn to Theravāda sources, we find similar definitions as those we’ve summarized above, which underlines their Abhidharma origins when we compare them to definitions in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. One of the more common definitions in the Nikāyas, however, cuts the philosophical definition down to ignorance of the four noble truths.
Ignorance and the Dependent Origination of Suffering
The parallel between Buddhist ignorance and Platonic ignorance becomes stronger when we turn to the role of ignorance in its most well-known context: Dependent origination and cessation. The twelve steps of what became the standard form of dependent origination begin with ignorance as the ultimate cause and end with the whole mass of suffering that results from successive rebirths. Ignorance is the pre-existent or default condition of sentient beings because it caused them to commit various moral or immoral acts that led to their birth into the present life.
This version of dependent origination, however, may be a later interpretation of a simpler version that began with craving instead. The evidence for this is similar to the evidence for the expanding definitions of ignorance that we considered above. The twelve steps begin with ignorance in every presentation found in Abhidharma and later Mahāyāna sources. A person could be forgiven for thinking that the twelve-step version was the only version of dependent origination. They would not know of the other versions unless they investigated the early sūtra canons that still preserve them today.
Even when we set aside the later sources and look at those early canons, we notice evidence of the twelve steps being a later addition.
In the Dīrgha Āgama, for example, that version of dependent origination intrudes into both the Mahāvadāna (DĀ 1) and Mahānidāna sūtras (DĀ 13) when it does not appear in either of the Theravāda parallels (DN 14 and DN 15). Instead, DN 14 and 15 feature a ten-step version of dependent origination that ends with name and form and awareness mutually conditioning each other. What’s more, ignorance is not actually the first cause of the DĀ version of the twelve-step dependent origination: It appears to begin instead with delusion (P. moha, C. 癡), one of the three roots of unskillfulness. While this term was considered a close synonym with ignorance, it was possibly an intermediate step of development that began with a different word than ignorance.
Both the Saṃyutta Nikaya and Saṃyukta Āgama contain sizeable collections of sūtras that address dependent origination in various ways. Neither of them inspire great confidence in the assumption that ignorance was part of the original teaching. Around 4 out of 10 suttas in the SN collection identify ignorance as the root cause of suffering, and a little less than that ratio do in SĀ. There are in fact two other root causes presented in other sūtras: Either name and form and awareness are codependent, or past actions are presented as the root cause without mentioning ignorance. These alternatives are less frequent that the version that begins with ignorance, but they beg the question as to why they exist at all when later sources are nearly unanimous that ignorance is the root of past actions that lead to rebirth and suffering.
Ignorance and the Contaminants
“Contaminant” is my translation of an Indic word: G. asava, P. āsava, S. āsrava. It’s often translated to English as “taint,” “defilement,” or “outflow.” The C. translation was typically 漏, the basic meaning of which meant “to leak, spill, or an emission.” It, however, had extended figurative meanings such as “to omit” or “forget,” the hole or space through which a leak flows, the dampness caused by a leaky roof, or even a type of water clock that operated by dripping at regular intervals.
In the Indic languages, it sometimes referred to substances in tree or plant sap that were intoxicating, and so the word refers to the sap flowing when harvested. It carried the connotation of something detrimental to the mind, like a drug in modern times. It’s in this sense that I translate the term as “contaminant,” meaning something detrimental that leaks into or out of a crack or hole in a roof or container.
Generally, the contaminants were the most basic obstacle to liberation in early Buddhist sources. Whether or not they were originally a list of three specific things is not entirely clear, mainly because the list is often inserted after “contaminants” in many passages, as though added as a later gloss. But the list itself is consistent across early Buddhist traditions, so the gloss must have been quite early in Buddhist history. We can see an example of this in a brief passage in DĀ 2 (the Parinirvāṇa Sūtra):
After staying in Rājagṛha for as long as was fitting, the Bhagavān told Ānanda, “All of you, get ready. I’m going to visit the Bamboo Park.”
Ānanda replied, “Very well.” He prepared his robe and bowl and followed the Bhagavān with the great assembly. They took the road from Magadha and arrived next at the Bamboo Park.
The Buddha went up into the hall there and sat down. He gave the monks a discourse on the precepts, samādhi, and wisdom: “Cultivating precepts and obtaining samādhi wins a great reward. Cultivating samādhi and obtaining wisdom wins a great reward. Cultivating wisdom and purifying the mind wins complete liberation. With the end of the three contaminants, which are the contaminants of desire, existence, and ignorance, this knowledge of liberation arises after one is liberated: ‘My births and deaths have been ended, the religious life has been established, and the task has been accomplished. I won’t be subject to a later existence.’”
Throughout the early texts, the ending of the contaminants is synonymous with becoming an arhat, and one of the higher knowledges gained upon awakening is the knowledge that one’s contaminants have ended. It’s clear, then, that the contaminants as a whole serve as the root psychological problem that an arhat escapes. The three types of contaminants which are so often recited seem only to be a statement of what the basic problems of life were to early Buddhists: desire, existence, and ignorance.
The role of ignorance as one of the three contaminants is not entirely clear, however. Some passages, such as this one in MĀ 29 (Mahākauṣṭhila), say that ignorance is the cause of the contaminants:
Mahākauṣṭhila replied, “There is. Venerable Śāriputra, there’s a monk who truly knows the contaminants, knows the formation of the contaminants, knows the cessation of the contaminants, and truly knows the path to the cessation of the contaminants.
“How does he truly know the contaminants? It means there are three contaminants, which are the contaminant of desire, contaminant of existence, and contaminant of ignorance. This is called truly knowing the contaminants. How does he truly know the formation of the contaminants? It means there are contaminants because of ignorance. This is called truly knowing the formation of the contaminants. How does he know the cessation of the contaminants? It means that the contaminants cease when ignorance ceases. This is called truly knowing the cessation of the contaminants. How does he know the path to the cessation of the contaminants? It means the noble eightfold path, which is right view … up to … right samādhi, which is the eighth. This is called truly knowing the path to the cessation of the contaminants.
“Venerable Śāriputra, suppose a monk truly knows the contaminants in this way, knows the formation of the contaminants, knows the cessation of the contaminants, and truly knows the path to the cessation of the contaminants. This is called a monk who has achieved vision, attained right view, gained an unbreakable purity in the Dharma, and entered the correct Dharma.”
Is this the same ignorance that is one of the contaminants? If so, then it would seem to be more fundamental than the other two, being both their and its own cause. Perhaps the list of contaminants was added later or ignorance was not originally a member of it. It would certainly make these passages more straightforward.
This situation is more perplexing in MĀ 29’s parallel MN 9 where both ignorance and the contaminants are defined and analyzed in terms of their causation and cessation. There, ignorance is said to be caused by the contaminants in one passage, and the contaminants are caused by ignorance in another passage. This results in a codependent relationship. It would seem to say that the contaminant of ignorance is the cause of ignorance in dependent origination, and the ignorance of dependent origination is the cause of the contaminant of ignorance.
MĀ 29 does not address ignorance at the end of its treatment of each item of the chain of dependent origination, perhaps for this reason. Again, these awkward implications would not exist if ignorance were not one of the contaminants (originally).
We must turn to Abhidharma explanations for specific definitions of the contaminants. In the Sarvāstivāda’s Abhidharma Saṅgītiparyāya, the three contaminants were defined in this way (cf. T1536.26.383a4-11):
The three contaminants: First is the contaminant of desire, second is the contaminant of existence, and third is the contaminant of ignorance.
What is the contaminant of desire? Answer: Aside from ignorance connected to the desire realm, it is the remaining bonds, tendencies, and binding afflictions that are connected to the that realm.
What is the contaminant of existence? Answer: Aside from ignorance connected to the form and formless realms, it is the remaining bonds, tendencies, and binding afflictions that are connected to those realms.
What is the contaminant of ignorance? Answer: Lacking knowledge of the three realms.
As the Bhagavān taught:
“If a monk has ended the contaminants
Of desire, existence, and ignorance
Then he parinirvāṇas without appearance
Because the contaminants are forever gone.”
In MN 9, the ignorance of dependent origination is lacking knowledge of the four noble truths, and the broader definition of ignorance that we mentioned above is used to define it in the Abhidharma Dharmaskandha and SĀ. Logically, the result would be that this comprehensive ignorance would cause the ignorance of the three realms, and vice versa.
All of this would make much more sense if ignorance were not part of the contaminants, and that the contaminants originally referred to the binding afflictions in general.
Ignorance and the Three Knowledges
The three knowledges or, as I often translate it, the three insights are a description of the specific knowledge that brings about full liberation and awakening. The first two are the knowledge of past lives and knowledge of the births and deaths of sentient beings. The third knowledge is the knowledge that one’s contaminants are gone forever. This last knowledge results from the realization of the four noble truths and knowledge about the nature of the contaminants. The result is becoming an arhat freed from rebirth.
It’s in passages describing this series of realizations that ignorance has its most natural home. We can see this, for instance, in the description found in DĀ 20 (Ambāṣṭha):
“With a concentrated mind, they’re pure, undefiled, gentle, and disciplined, and they stand unmoved. Unified in mind, they cultivate realization of the knowledge of having no contaminants. They truly know the noble truth of suffering … They truly know the contaminants, the formation of the contaminants, the ending of the contaminants, and the path that leads to the end of the contaminants. They thus know and see the contaminants of desire, existence, and ignorance. Their mind is freed, and their knowledge is freed: ‘My births and deaths have been ended, the religious life has been established, and the task has been accomplished. I won’t be subject to a later existence.’
“It’s like wood, stones, fish, turtles, and other water-born things in a clear stream flowing from east to west. A person clearly sees them with their eyes: ‘That’s wood and stones … that’s fish and turtles.’
“Student, a monk is thus. With a concentrated mind, they’re pure and stand unmoved. They realize the knowledge of having no contaminants … ‘I won’t be subject to a later existence.’
“This is the monk’s attainment of the third insight. Eliminating their ignorance, wise insight arises. The darkness is dispelled, and the light of wisdom shines. This is the insight of the knowledge of having no contaminants. Why is that? These things come from diligence, mindfulness, and being undisturbed, which are gained from happily living in a quiet place.”
I can’t help but be reminded of Socrates’ quest for wisdom to eliminate his own ignorance about various subjects. Here, we find its parallel in a Buddhist context: The primordial, default ignorance that brought about all of one’s past foibles and torments is destroyed through the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom. One becomes a spiritually educated sage, otherwise known as an arhat. The story of the Buddha in later Buddhist storytelling mirrors this same triumph of wisdom and spiritual knowledge over the beginningless darkness of ignorance.
I naturally find myself wondering if this was not the initial entry of ignorance into Buddhist discourse, and it found other homes in other lists that describe in different ways the spiritual bonds that wisdom breaks: The contaminants, the higher bonds, the tendencies, and the yokes, to name a few.
There are certainly other passages and contexts that we could explore regarding the role of ignorance in early Buddhism, but I will stop here as an initial exploration with the hope that it can serve as a launching pad for further studies. In the next essay, I will explore the other major problem of life according to early Buddhism: Desire.
Until then, take care, everyone!