[ p. 293 ]
DR. MORRIS, who had borrowed the Phayre and Turnour MSS. of the Magghima Nikâya from the India Office Library, has been good enough to transcribe the text of this Sutta for me.
I had hoped from the Rev. David da Silva’s analysis of the Sutta in the Ceylon Friend for 1872, that it would determine the exact meaning of the difficult word Âsava as used in the theory of Arahatship, and in the important passage (the Faith, Reason, and Works paragraph) repeated so often in the Mahâparinibbâna Sutta. It will be seen that this is scarcely the case, but as it does throw light on the ideas wrapped up in the word, and contains a very interesting passage[1] on the especial value attached in Buddhism to the mental habit we should now call agnosticism, I have adhered to the intention of including it in this volume.
The word Âsava seems in this Sutta to be used in a general sense,—not confined only to the Âsavas of sensuality, individuality, delusion, and ignorance, but including the more various defilements or imperfections of mind, out of which those especial defilements will proceed.
Incidentally reference is made to the well-known Buddhist doctrine, that the right thing is to seek after the Nirvâna of a perfect life in Arahatship, and not to trouble and confuse oneself by the discussion of speculative questions as to past or future existence, or even as to the [ p. 294 ] presence within the body of a soul. Buddhism is not only independent of the theory of soul, but regards the consideration of that theory as worse than profitless, as the source of manifold delusions and superstitions. Practically this comes, however, to much the same thing as the denial of the existence of the soul; just as agnosticism is, at best, but an earnest and modest sort of atheism. And we have seen above that anattam, the absence of a soul or self as abiding principle, is one of the three parts of Buddhist wisdom (viggâ)[2] and of Buddhist perception (saññâ)[3]. The reconciliation of these two doctrines, of the agnosticism and of the denial, is, I think, that the absence of soul is only predicated of those five Aggregates of parts and powers to which a good Buddhist should confine his attention. These alone he should consider; and he does wrong to care whether beyond and beside them a soul has, or has not, any real existence.
I may add that the importance of the Âsavas appears from the fact that elsewhere the knowledge of them, of their origin, of their cessation, and of the way that leads to their cessation is placed on the road to Arahatship immediately after, and parallel to, the knowledge of Suffering, of its origin, of its cessation, and of the way that leads to its cessation—the knowledge, that is, of the four Noble Truths[4].
The Âsavas there meant are sensuality, individuality (or life), and ignorance; and the expressions ‘to him who knows, to him who sees’ (gânato passato) are used there much in the same way as they are in our § 3. Perhaps this was the passage which Burnouf had in his mind when he wrongly said[5] that he had found in the Mahâparinibbâna Sutta an enumeration of three classes of Âsavas, whereas that Sutta always divides them into four classes.
I am unable to suggest any good translation of the term itself—simple though it is. It means literally ‘a running or flowing,’ or (thence) ‘a leak;’ but as that figure is not [ p. 295 ] used in English in a spiritual sense, it is necessary to choose some other figure and it is not easy to find one that is appropriate. ‘Sin’ would be very misleading, the Christian idea of sin being inconsistent with Buddhist ethics. A ‘fault’ in the geological use of the word comes somewhat nearer. ‘Imperfection’ is too long, and for 'stain’ the Pâli has a different word[6]. In the Book of the Great Decease I have chosen ‘evil;’ here I leave the word untranslated.