Early Indian and Theravada Buddhism: Soteriological Controversy a ...

“yoked to doctrine” (dhammayogā bhikkhū) (AN III.355–356). In this text, those yoked to doctrine accuse the meditators of being utterly consumed by their practices, and the meditators criticize those yoked to the Dhamma for being proud and uncomposed. The arahant Mahācunda tries to settle the dispute by urging the two groups to support each other. The meditators should be praised, he says, because they are the only ones capable of touching the deathless realm with their bodies (amataṃ dhātuṃ kāyena phusitvā). By the same token, those yoked to doctrine are to be respected, for only they see the profound path to the goal, having penetrated it with insight (paññāya ativijjha). L. S. Cousins saw the two parties in this dialogue as representing meditator-monks and scholar-monks.²⁴ I see the two as those practicing the samatha-oriented path, who have the experience of attaining the highest jhānic states and thus can “touch the deathless realm with their bodies,”²⁵ and those practicing the vipassanā-oriented path, who can “penetrate the Dhamma with insight.” Cousins also saw no conflict in this passage but rather an example of early Buddhism accepting the value of both endeavors.²⁶ I agree that the figure of Mahācunda is such a voice of reconciliation here, but what is the opening of this dialogue if not a conflict, with very harsh accusations being cast by both sides at each other? Furthermore, there is no indication in the passage that the two groups accept Mahācunda’s attempt at peacemaking. If the practices of the two groups were meant to be complementary, why would Mahācunda urge them to praise each other but say nothing about the necessity of mutual practice? By simply urging praise, there is the implication that this was more a matter of keeping different factions within the saṅgha at peace. If the purpose of the sutta was just reconciliation, why was it not composed with only the praises included and the divisive accusations omitted? Certainly some division of the saṅgha is reflected here if this situation presents two alternative ways of practice, as Cousins suggested. Cousins said that those who see conflict here are being overly literal and speculative. I see no reason not to take the encounter as a literal account and fail to see why Cousins’s conclusions are any less speculative.