SD 30.8 Skillful means and its significance 110 http://dharmafarer.org UpƗya: Skillful means Bringing the truth to the level of the people for their benefit and liberation A study by Piya Tan ©2009 1 Scholarly observations 1.1 Western scholars who pioneered research into the early Buddhist texts were aware of the vital role that skillful means played in the success of the Buddha’s teaching. In 1899, the British Buddhism scholar and founder of the Pali Text Society, T W Rhys Davids, in the Introduction to his translation of the Kas- sapa SƯha,nƗda Sutta (D 8), observes (by way of a broad description) how the Buddha and the early Buddhists adapt the Teaching in a skillful manner so that it is effectively transmitted: When speaking on sacrifice to a sacrificial priest, on union with God to an adherent of the current theology, on Brahman claims to superior social rank to a proud Brahman, on mystic insight to a man who trusts in it, on the soul to one who believes in the soul theory, the method followed is always the same. Gotama puts himself as far as possible in the mental position of the questioner. He attacks none of his cherished convictions. He accepts as the starting-point of his own exposition the desirability of the act or condition prized by his opponent-of the union with God (as in the Tevijja), or of sacrifice (as in the Kūṭadanta), or of social rank (as in the Ambaṭṭha), or of seeing heavenly sights, etc (as in the εahƗli), or of the soul theory (as in the PoṭṭhapƗda). He even adopts the very phraseology of his questioner. And then, partly by putting a new and (from the Buddhist point of view) a higher meaning into the words; partly by an appeal to such ethical conceptions as are common ground between them; he gradually leads his opponent up to his conclusion. This is, of course, always Arahatship … There is both courtesy and dignity in the method employed. But no little dialectic skill, and an easy mastery of the ethical points involved, are required to bring about the result … . On the hypothesis, that he was an historical person, of that training and character he is repre- sented in the Piṭakas to have had, the method is precisely that which it is most probable he would have actually followed. Whoever put the Dialogues together may have had a sufficiently clear memory of the way he conversed, may well have even remembered particular occasions and persons. To the mental vision of the compiler, the doctrine taught loomed so much larger than anything else, that he was necessarily more concerned with that, than with any historical accuracy in the details of the story. He was, in this respect, in much the same position as Plato when recording the dialogues of Socrates. But he was not, like Plato, giving his own opinions. We ought, no doubt, to think of compilers, rather than of a compiler. The memory of co-disciples had to be respected, and kept in mind. And so far as the actual doctrine is concerned our Dialogues are probably a more exact reproduction of the thoughts of the teacher than the dialogues of Plato. However this may be, the method followed in all these Dialogues has one disadvantage. In accepting the position of the adversary, and adopting his language, the authors compel us, in order to follow what they give us as Gotama’s view, to read a good deal between the lines. The argumentum ad hominem can never be the same as a statement of opinion given without refer- ence to any particular person. That is strikingly the case with our present Sutta. (D:RD 1899 1: 206 f) 1.2 The same sentiment is echoed by the British scholar, Richard F Gombrich, in his How Bud- dhism Began, when he says, It is true that the term translated “skill in means,” upƗya-kauśalya , is post-canonical, but the exercise of skill to which it refers, the ability to adapt one’s message to the audience, is of enor- mous importance in the Pali Canon.” (1997: 17) 8