Teaching, Learning and the Buddha: Educative Principles from the Nidāna-Kathā

Abstract

This article investigates core ideas and principles of teaching and learning as found in the Nidāna-Kathā, a sacred Buddhist text that describes the lives and learning journeys of the Buddha. A three-tiered, exhaustive textual analysis revealed the following themes: resolve and responsibility, supererogatory effort, pabbajja, tradition, becoming, pedagogy and joy. Due in part to the noteworthy openness of a Buddhist conceptualization of canonicity, teachers have seldom drawn upon Buddhist sources (either living or written) to establish what might be termed Buddhist approaches to teaching and learning. While the purpose of this article is not to essentialize Buddhism nor its approach to education, by focusing on a single, primary source text detailing the Buddha’s teaching and learning journeys, we seek to put forth a few Buddhist educative principles that, though not representative of all Buddhisms, are at least grounded historically, mythically and archetypically. We hope this article acts as a call for future research to further explore Buddhist approaches to education based on either historical sources or the lived experiences of its generations of inheritor–practitioners.

1. Introduction

Teaching and learning the dhamma occupied a central place in the life and mission of the Buddha and members of the sangha. Embodying “Nibbana in human form (Armstrong 2004, p. 85)”, the Buddha “personally trained his disciples”, watching over them “as young plants which needed looking after by a gardener” (Chaterjee 1999, p. 188). In the years thereafter, centers of Buddhist learning “attracted students from distant lands for seeking knowledge and enhancement of mind” (Laha 2015, p. 141). Not only did this focus on education remain a central facet of Buddhism’s lived traditions (Scharfe 2002, p. 163), but it expanded to include “all branches of learning (Chaterjee 1999, p. 169), as well”. So central was learning to the dhamma that, “no period that one could spend for its acquisition was regarded as adequate for the purpose” (Altekar 1944, p. 88). Indeed, “A monastery without a library”, wrote one Indologist, “was like a castle without an armory” (Chand 2007, p. 100).

While it seems clear, then, that research in history, Indology and religious studies has depicted teaching and learning as central to the Buddha dhamma, the question of how such teaching and learning took place has come to the forefront in recent years, especially among educationalists.1 Due perhaps in part to growing globalization and multiculturalism in education generally, education researchers and practitioners have looked to Buddhism for additional approaches to teaching and learning. In answer, significant scholarship has explored the Buddha’s approach to teaching and learning, including, for example, Diamond’s (2021) textual analysis of pedagogy within the Nikayas, Mon’s (2012) anthropological exploration of Buddhist monks’ journal entries on teaching methods and Gombrich’s (2009) study of oral traditions in Buddhist contexts. In this article, we seek to add to this scholarly conversation by conducting a thematic textual analysis of the Nidāna-Kathā, a mythological and archetypal retelling of the learning journeys in the lives of the Buddha preparatory to his final incarnation and Enlightenment. In other words, in this article we approach the text of the Nidāna-Katha with this question: “Are there specific principles of or approaches to teaching and learning embodied by the Buddha in the Nidāna-Katha’s narrative retelling of his former lives? If so, what are these principles and approaches?”

2. Literature

The following section provides an overview of the various bodies of literature regarding Buddhist education. Because of Buddhism’s unique approach to the concept of canonicity in relation to its corpus of sacred texts, we begin here by outlining the nature of that approach as well as its effect upon scholarly reviews of Buddhist literatures. With this foundation, we then provide a review of two of the bodies of literature on Buddhist education: first, the application of Buddhist educative principles in contemporary contexts, and second, the investigation of these principles in antiquity.

2.1. On the Complexity of Canonicity within a Buddhist Frame

Much of the problematic nature of the question of Buddhist canonicity can be traced as far back as the edict of Ashoka. “‘Whatsoever,’ the edict says, ‘has been said by the exalted Buddha, all that is undoubtedly well said’” (Silk 2015, p. 7). Silk, however, further emphasizes the unwieldy implications of this statement upon canonicity, as it is often “reversed in Buddhist literature” to be cited as, “‘What has been well-said, all of that is the word of the Buddha.’ This inversion”, he argues, “effectively expands the scope of the ‘the word of the Buddha’ virtually without limit” (p. 7). McDaniel (2003) similarly discusses the effectively limitless bounds of the Buddhist canon, noting that the Tripitaka “leaves the library and penetrates society” in the medium of the sermon, “which adapts the ideas and ideals of the Tripitaka to suit the circumstances of audiences” (p. 449). He additionally relates the influence of apocryphal texts that, in providing commentary and context, have effectively become part of the Buddhist canon themselves (p. 446). In this sense, it seems that what some scholars may term “the Buddhist canon” is composed of an unlimited collection of texts.

Almost inevitably, then, it comes as little surprise that these criteria for the word of the Buddha have led to myriad discrepancies and debate among various denominations of Buddhism. Silk (2015) outlines the cyclical logic utilized by these sects to defend their views on the canon and reject other sects’ canonical claims (p. 15). Contributing to this doctrinal dissonance, figures of authority in Buddhist history “rejected materials some others were willing to accept as scripture” (p. 22). This noteworthy, if not unique, dimension of canonicity within a Buddhist frame is further problematized as consistency and continuity between sects and across historical periods often proves difficult to establish. Accordingly, attempts to make connections between texts across denominational canons frequently result in the juxtaposition of writings, which, in historical reality, were rarely, if ever, in communication with one another. “While this can promote a sophisticated diachronic view of Buddhist literature”, Silk warns, “it also runs the risk of creating a new and unprecedented form of imagining the Buddhist literary tradition, one which synchronically conflates historically distinct evidence” (p. 31).

McDaniel (2003) identified another issue in the concept of Buddhist canonicity, arguing that “local parameters of the canon were formed in response to the West” (p. 452). This dogmatic drive to identify a collection of authoritative texts, an approach often termed “Western Puritan bias,” at best lies outside a Buddhist approach and at worst is antithetical to it. McDaniel argues that the Buddhist canon is “wider than is commonly understood by Buddhist studies scholars” (p. 452) and that the fluidity of the Tipitaka was “even more prevalent before the introduction of the printing press and foreign notions of what constituted the Theravada canon” (p. 453). In short, not only is the corpus of Buddhist scripture more voluminous than most of its students are aware, but the very idea of Buddhist canonicity itself may represent a spurious superimposition of Western theological paradigms upon a tradition whose texts do not necessarily fit such a model.

Furthermore, it is essential at this juncture to note that Western notions of favoring fixed, historical texts as somehow more authentic or authoritatively representative of Buddhist thought than the lived and living experiences of Buddhists throughout history up to and including the present is neither an appropriate approach to understanding the Buddha Dharma nor the purpose or intent of this paper. In other words, in analyzing this text we do not seek to pit its content against that of any other Buddhist text nor certainly against the living experiences and interpretations of the Buddha’s followers past and present. This analysis of the Nidana Katha instead represents a modest contribution to the myriad literatures and lived experiences of Buddhists and Buddhism scholars which together can provide a rich, holistic perspective on the Buddha’s approaches to teaching and learning.

This more open-ended conceptualization of canonicity may rightly dissuade scholars from conducting comprehensive analyses of Buddhist sacred text in search of salient descriptions of “the Buddhist approach” to a given subject. This is, in our view, as it should be. However, while honoring the lived experiences and insights of the Buddha’s followers as being as central to his teachings as any of Buddhism’s ancient texts, teacher–scholars unfamiliar with Buddhist teachings have, at times, taken advantage of this canonic openness to inappropriately essentialize Buddhist educative principles. For example, while mindfulness certainly constitutes a central dimension of Buddha’s approach to his own learning journey, some educators have advocated for its decontextualized application within contemporary educative contexts in a way that seeks to extricate it from its Buddhist roots. Though certainly not true of all cases of applying Buddhist principles like mindfulness in contemporary classrooms, in some cases this can leave sacred Buddhist practices, both those anciently recorded as well as those contemporarily enacted, bereft of the rich traditions and communities that give them their unique depth of meaning. In the case of mindfulness, for example, such essentializing extrication can result in what one scholar called “McMindfulness” (McCaw 2020). In other words, for teachers to interpret the aforementioned Ashokan declaration that, “What has been well-said, all of that is the word of the Buddha”, as permission to invent Buddhist principles based on little more than cursory familiarity with the Buddha Dharma remains, in our view, not only poor scholarship, but disrespects the Buddhist tradition more generally. It is, again, among the primary purposes of this article to provide an in-depth analysis of Buddhist principles of education within the Nidana Katha not to juxtapose its insights against those of thousands of years of Buddha’s living followers, but to make a modest contribution to the corpus of literature that stands against this troubling McMindfulness trend.

2.2. Contemporary Literatures on Buddhism and Education

It seems, from a research perspective, that there are two sources to which one might go to understand Buddhist thought on education. The first of these is any of the myriad texts past and present that contribute to the Buddhist canon. The second is entering into conversation with the community of Buddhist practitioners either in the thousands of years since the Buddha or at present. Unfortunately, some teachers and education researchers unfamiliar with Buddhist ideas have gone to a third source, comprised of external interpretations that essentialize Buddhist thought to only a peripheral sampling. One prominent example of this is a trend among contemporary Western educators to adopt mindfulness practices in schools, at best unaware of the rich depth that they are missing and at worst intentionally excising the principle from its Buddhist roots. This approach is but one example of a trend of scholarship whose essentializing excisions of Buddhist thought from both the Buddha and the sangha disrespects the living tradition of Buddhism embodied in its multitude of practitioners. In this framing, we intend our article to be a modest contribution to the body of literature that does situate Buddhist perspectives of education within the rich context of what the Buddha began as well as what his followers have continued.

Contemporary research on Buddhism and education includes efforts ranging from exploring the application of Buddhist learning methodologies in public school classrooms to epistemological analyses of Buddhist learning philosophies. As with efforts to understand Buddhist ideas more generally, contemporary research on Buddhism and education is made more complex by Buddhism’s unique stance on canonicity. In light of this complexity, it is often the case that contemporary research regarding Buddhist education identifies particular approaches, philosophies or methods as Buddhist without substantiating their Buddhist origins by either connecting them to the rich tradition of Buddhist sacred texts or the words and practices of living inheritor–practitioners of Buddhist traditions and teachings. While, as demonstrated above, Buddhist canonicity allows for a kind of openness that might adopt such ideas not concretely linked to primary source documents in sacred Buddhist texts, again, such openness does not give researchers license to label particular educative methods as Buddhist without a defensible basis for doing so. Rather, this necessitates careful effort from the researcher to delve into the values, practices, and ideas of this long-standing tradition within which they are then able to contextualize their own thinking and research. In the section that follows, we outline noteworthy examples of such contemporary research on Buddhism and education while paying particular attention to the different approaches adopted by these researchers and the sources and means which they employ to contextualize their claims. It is our primary purpose in doing so to demonstrate the need for more concretely grounded approaches to Buddhist education research, a call which we hope to begin to answer in the methodology we adopt in this article.

It is perhaps in part because of these problems of canonicity that contemporary education researchers often use approaches other than the analysis of primary source material in order to arrive at what could be considered Buddhist approaches to education. While these alternative approaches include interactions with the contemporary sangha, they also at times superimpose certain methods upon Buddhist tradition, often resulting in broad brushstroke generalizations which extricate Buddhist pedagogies from the rich contexts in which they arise and in so doing run the risk of essentializing Buddhist ideas.

For example, Jarrow (2002) and Hart (2004) focus on walking and contemplation, respectively, as monolithic educative principles in Buddhism. In doing so, however, neither justifies their essentialization of Buddhist pedagogy with clear references either to source material from Buddha’s teachings or from those within the sangha or at other times in the intervening millennia. Alternatively, Ball (2015) contextualizes his research of walking meditation in an autoethnographic, fieldwork-based analysis, highlighting historical precedent and encountered methods as well as considering the experience further within the more Western philosophical frames of Descartes and Heidegger. On the other hand, Bandyopadhyay (2019) takes this issue one step further by superimposing the establishment of a democratic society as the Buddha’s primary purpose for creating both the dhamma and the sangha. While he does cite primary sources to illustrate Buddha’s establishment of his original learning community, his assertion that democracy was its core objective relies more upon his own scholarly conviction than any evidence in the material he cites. Nešković (2020) creates his claims regarding the integration of Buddhist principles in contemporary Kung-Fu education through the use of ethnographic interviews with participating students. These interviews, however, are not supported by any sort of textual triangulation that would provide validation for these claims, nor are those he interviews practicing Buddhists. Clarici (2011) extrapolates his findings upon Buddhism as a whole, evidenced by the usage of phrases such as “according to Buddhism” (p. 2) as the only means of justifying his far-reaching claims. Additionally, his cited source material, while including some references to the Pali canon, leans heavily upon sources of questionable legitimacy, such as a California elementary boarding school, for example.

Some contemporary research on Buddhism and education aims to put forth an appeal for the implementation of Buddhist practices in Western educational institutions. Ma Rhea (2018) leads out in this line of inquiry, advocating for the application of what she terms Buddhist approaches to education in public schools in Australasia. While she provides a multifaceted perspective on Buddhist education through the lenses of multiculturalism, wisdom traditions, and indigenous paradigms, her focus is to promote the inclusion of Buddhist principles of education. As a result, the establishment of said principles as authentically Buddhist takes on a secondary role in her research. Gravois (2005) similarly advocates for the implementation of Buddhist education practices in North American university classrooms. Yet, while he acknowledges that detractors of the implementation for which he advocates label it as “Buddhism Lite”, nowhere in his research does he provide sufficient scholarly grounding for his approach to prove otherwise.

One particularly prominent approach to education identified as having origins in Buddhist thought is mindfulness. Significant threads of education research, like that completed by Johnson (2022), for instance, focus so narrowly on mindfulness as the most noteworthy Buddhist approach to education that they risk essentializing Buddhism in a way that ignores both the multiplicity of its denominations and the rich complexity of its ideas on teaching, learning, and epistemology. This essentialization can become even more problematic when, in an effort to make its application more palatable to those working in a secular Western paradigm, it is excised from its religious origins and “commodified and repacked as a mere psychological training program—‘McMindfulness’” (McCaw 2020, p. 268; Hyland 2015; Kabat-Zinn 2015). In a review of 52 studies of education and mindfulness, McCaw (2020) found only 8 that “explicitly acknowledged the Buddhist roots of mindfulness” (p. 262). Yet even among these few, most deemphasized the Buddhist-ness of mindfulness, especially with regards to its application to education (see for example, Bernay 2014). Such shortcomings of contemporary research on mindfulness as a viable Buddhist method of teaching and learning indicate a need for an increase in research grounded in primary source material from antiquity or contemporary members of the sangha and historical Buddhist traditions and values.

Noteworthy research in education and Buddhism does establish its assertions of what constitutes Buddhist educational principles based on legitimate connections to either historical or contemporary sources within a Buddhist community. Mon (2012) addressed Buddhist perspectives on teaching and learning through the analysis of two 20th century Buddhist monks who left the community of the sangha in order to teach non-Buddhists the dhamma. This analysis outlines the lived experiences and success of Buddhist educators as they approached the teaching of the dhamma in ways that honor the ancient assignment from the Buddha and the wisdom garnered through the intervening millennia. Meshram (2013) and Mitsuda (1998) each draw upon primary source documents to describe Buddhist educative principles. They do so, however, only within a particular Buddhist denomination. The strength of this approach is that it gives a detailed glimpse into the teaching and learning practices of a specific sect of Buddhism (e.g., Zen). However, these authors problematically generalize these findings, taking specific educative insights from a particular context and extrapolating it to describe Buddhism as a whole.

Other educationalists, such as Taylor (2009) and Liu and Tee (2014), rather than focusing on a particular denomination, select a few key passages from the life of the Buddha himself upon which to construct an approach to Buddhist education. While this approach may be more appropriate to generalize across Buddhist denominations, neither of these authors justify their choice of representing their claims upon so few passages. Indeed, it is both the paucity of these sources as well as the lack of a justified systematic methodology to establish such source material that undermines the claims these authors wish to make. In summary, a large portion of efforts by non-Buddhists to develop claims of what constitutes Buddhist teaching and learning practices tends to present only a cursory analysis of limited source material, either from historic texts or the lived and living traditions of inheritor–practitioners of the Buddha dhamma. While the notion of Buddhist canonicity remains remarkably open-ended, it remains a researcher’s responsibility to substantiate claims to the “Buddha-ness” of any practice rather than simply create ideas and call them Buddhist with no basis for doing so.

2.3. Buddhism and Education in Antiquity

Literature regarding Buddhist education in antiquity is, in general, more established than its contemporary counterpart. Historians have addressed the vast topic of Buddhist education in antiquity with various approaches and perspectives. In this section, we survey the salient literature on ancient Buddhist education while focusing especially on the themes identified in these bodies of research. Similar to the previous section on contemporary Buddhist educative research, we also highlight the ways in which these authors substantiate their proposals for “Buddhist” approaches to teaching and learning, whether through ethnographic fieldwork, textual analysis, or some other method.

Historical research about ancient Buddhist education congregates around a few core themes, conceivably as a result of limited access to a wide variety of records. One such area of focus is the structure of the Buddhist sangha as a learning community. Educational historians outlining the configuration of the sangha meticulously detail aspects of monastic life in order to provide a broad picture of its functionality. Chaube and Chaube (2010), Bedekar (1991), and Mookerji (1951) include ceremonies for gaining entrance to the sangha, rules, descriptions of how discipleship to a certain monk was arranged, and daily teaching and learning routines. These historians, along with Chaterjee (1999), discuss subjects of study within the sangha and the order in which they were studied. Some additionally address the issue of authority in the sangha, with Mookerji (1951) noting issues that arose following the Buddha’s death and Scharfe (2002) engaging in a longstanding debate regarding the hierarchy of rank amongst monks. These scholars’ focus on a comprehensive list of rules and regulations often overshadows the practical pedagogic implications of said structures. In other words, while such research provides an in-depth look into the peripheral dimensions of sangha learning, readers are often left to wonder what the core everydayness of ancient Buddhist approaches to teaching and learning looked like in practice and what effect these dimensions had on the individual learner.

A number of historians additionally discuss teaching and learning methods adopted within the Buddhist sangha and monasteries. The most frequently delineated methods include oral instruction and debate (Chaube and Chaube 2010; Keay 1918; Mookerji 1951; Pruthi 2006) along with a teacher–student relationship of mutual service and discursive confrontation (Altekar 1944; Chaterjee 1999; Keay 1918; Mookerji 1951). These methods are listed repeatedly, but largely without further exploration. Exceptions to this lack of exploration, while more rare than common, include Mookerji’s (1951) description of the rules of debate (p. 454) and considerations of the criteria for providing and identifying evidence of truth within such debate (Chand 2007; Chaterjee 1999; Pruthi 2006). Less frequently mentioned methods include memorization, mindfulness, meditation (Anālayo 2019), and means of assessment (Altekar 1944). Again, these are described in relatively brief and broad terms.

The deficiencies of research on ancient Buddhist educational methods were ultimately described by Altekar (1933), who admitted, “our sources are more concerned with describing the main features of the educational system than with discussing its basic principles…writers of later times are more anxious to conceal than expound…changed methods and ideals” (p. 137). The resulting ramifications of this focus are evident in the scarcity of extended explorations into more practical dimensions of ancient Buddhist educational methodology. A number of historians have sought to address this through intensive study of the life (Mahathera 2012) and teaching methods (Diamond 2021; Gombrich 2009; Guruge 2003; Hecker 2009; Ven Nyanatiloka 1988) of the Buddha himself. Their contributions shed light on various pedagogic approaches to the search for truth adopted by the Buddha’s disciples, including the usage of simile, metaphor, analogy, and visual aids, and consideration of individual differences among learners.

Congruous with Altekar’s (1933) admission and the attention given to describing main features of the educational system, another body of research describes the role of Buddhist monasteries as learning centers in ancient and medieval India. Discussions on these learning centers address questions regarding the aims of Buddhist education, logistical particulars of the monasteries, and three well-known Chinese travelers to India: Fa-Hein, Hiuen Tsiang, and I-Tsing. These noteworthy academics documented their learning experiences in and observations of some of these monasteries, as recognized by Chaube and Chaube (2010), Keay (1918), Mookerji (1951), and Scharfe (2002).

Educationalists note a variety of motivations behind ancient Indian Buddhist efforts to expand the accessibility of learning centers. These include the need to garner support from public sympathy (Altekar 1944; Chand 2007; Chaterjee 1999), desires to encourage moral conduct, ethics, and whole-student development (Altekar 1933; Ghonge et al. 2020), as well as the estimation of truth and knowledge over money (Altekar 1933). Keay (1918), Mookerji (1951), and Scharfe (2002) additionally discuss differences in progress between those who entered these monasteries with the resolve to leave the world behind and those who came intending to return to their previous life after obtaining the education they sought. Yet again, these claims are made neither with sufficient historical evidence as support, nor reference to the teaching of the Buddha and his intention to guide others toward the discovery of truth and attainment of Enlightenment.

As for the monasteries themselves, historians have emphasized various concrete details. Laha (2015) organized information regarding the locations and occupancy capacity of numerous monasteries, noting significant figures who studied at each one. Banerjee (1977) focuses specifically on the University of Nalanda. Scharfe (2002) related not only the dimensions of these buildings, but also brief histories of their growth and downfall in the face of Muslim invasion. Sharma (2022) similarly relayed the history of several monasteries and listed morality as a prerequisite for entrance to Buddhist universities. While these articles record specific, tangible details, corresponding discussions respecting differences in purpose between monasteries or methods adopted within them are, in these publications, either vague, lacking sufficient supporting evidence, or simply not mentioned at all.

Scharfe (2002) identified one such gap in this research, observing that on the subject of differing schools of Buddhist thought developing within these monasteries, “there is little documentation of this…as far as the earlier periods are concerned” (p. 143). It seems that much is known with regards to the measurements, payment, and logistics of these centers of learning, while investigations concerning their educational approaches and the effects they had upon society are extraordinarily limited. Research that has been completed in this area has not yet provided a link between the recorded knowledge of monasteries as major centers of Buddhist learning and the experiences and teachings of the Buddha himself, the core of Buddhist traditions, or that of his disciples.

Nearly all research concerning ancient Buddhist education concurs that Buddhist educative thought stems from and is closely linked to the Brahmanical traditions and Vedic education of Hinduism. In their expansive explanations of ancient Indian education, some, such as Scharfe (2002) and Pruthi (2006), dedicate a large portion of their writings to understanding the relationship of Buddhist and Brahmanical education through comparison to other religious traditions and their interrelationships, such as Christianity and Judaism. Keay (1918) makes a direct comparison between the Brahmanical and Buddhist educational traditions and Ghosh (2001) similarly highlights aspects of both traditions and their contributions to the search for truth. Others, such as Raja (1950) and Choudhary (2008), disregard the differences and intricacies of these traditions in favor of providing a broad view of ancient Indian education generally while running the risk of overlooking the unique nuances of Buddhist traditions. Altekar (1944) took this a step further, going so far as to say that there “was no fundamental difference between Hindus and Buddhists as far as the general educational theory or practice was concerned” (p. 226).

While it is generally agreed that the Buddha’s search for truth and Nibbana began with his exploration of Brahmanical education practices and Vedic thought, records detailing his journey to Enlightenment explain that Gotama ultimately left this system behind. He extended beyond what was offered by his teachers in the Brahmanical tradition in favor of a middle path. Keay (1918) briefly acknowledges this, conceding that certain aspects of Buddhist belief and educative principles bring it into direct conflict with the Brahmanical system. In their eagerness to identify connections between the two religious traditions and address the broad picture of education in Ancient India, however, these publications largely neglect to address significant distinctions between them. As such, these sources often fall short of fully exploring unique dimensions of education and the search for truth interpolated by Buddha and his early disciples.

Armstrong’s (2004) biographical and mythical retelling of Buddha Gotama’s search for, discovery, and teaching of the path to Enlightenment is centered around the concept of epistemology. Armstrong’s research, supported by references to the Mahavagga, Nikayas, and Jatakas of the Pali canon, suggests that Buddha Gotama pursued the difference between notional verity, or intellectual apprehension, and direct knowledge, or application. Jayatilleke (1963) similarly engaged in a complex epistemological discussion about the criteria for truth from an ancient Buddhist perspective, delving into patterns of logic and the ways in which these patterns, when employed by the Buddha, enabled him to discover and teach the middle way along with other elusive truths.

Diamond (2021) provides perhaps the most noteworthy contribution to the discussion of teaching and learning truth within the Buddhist tradition. Through an extensive analysis of each of the five Nikayas within the Sutta Pitaka, Diamond identified significant aspects of the Buddha’s pedagogical approach as demonstrated throughout his teachings and patterns throughout the Nikayas. The particular method outlined in this text is the pedagogy of the “Middle Way approach to the development of wisdom” (p. 68). This approach consists of three interrelated elements, Pariyatti, learning the dhamma; Patipatti, practicing the dhamma; and Pativedha, understanding the dhamma through experience and insight. The vastness of this project necessitated an entire book to discuss and delineate it. This extends far beyond the scope of our paper. While Diamond’s exploration of each element is grounded in teachings attributed to the Buddha throughout the Nikayas, it is significant that the Nidāna-Kathā is not specifically referenced. Our intention in analyzing the Nidāna-Kathā, similar to what Diamond has accomplished, is to discover teaching and learning methods practiced and endorsed by the Buddha and his early followers. In doing so, we hope to add a modest contribution to the research that has already been completed in this field in a way that is accessible, grounded in the recounting of a central sacred story within the Buddhist tradition, and thus to bring a greater focus to a single text within the breadth of Diamond’s research.

3. Methods

Our goal in this article was to investigate core ideas regarding teaching and learning as found in central Buddhist sacred texts. This approach proved poorly suited to Buddhist traditions due to the multiplicity of sacred texts across a similar plurality of Buddhisms broadly considered, in addition to the problematic nature of canonicity as a concept within these traditions. Further, we sought to approach this topic in such a way as to avoid as much as possible an often-lamented Puritan bias—that is, the essentializing of Buddhist traditions with a single, central text as an authoritative voice. In an attempt to gain a broader perspective of foundational Buddhist principles of teaching and learning through a lens more consistent with Buddhist traditions, we began to read through pieces of the Pali Canon, delving into the Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka.

Our identification of these bodies of the primary source literature does not represent a tacit claim to their canonicity, but instead constitutes a richly contextualized starting point in our search for pedagogic principles in such texts. However, this course unfortunately proved unsuitable to our primary line of inquiry. The sheer quantity of text to examine, thematize, and analyze among those Suttas that touched upon our subject was beyond the scope of a single paper to examine with appropriate thoroughness. For example, Diamond (2021) conducted just such an analysis which encompassed an entire monograph in scope. As an exhaustive analysis of all Suttas within the Pali Canon was beyond the scope of this paper, and as significant and rigorous scholarship had already been completed of the educative texts of the Nikayas (again, see Diamond 2021), and a cursory analysis of a mere handful of Suttas would in no way constitute a substantive contribution to representing Buddhist perspectives on the subject, we chose another approach.

Ultimately, we surmised that an appropriate way forward would be, instead, to investigate the life of Buddha Gotama more directly in order to gain a more holistic understanding of his character and ideology, especially as regards teaching and learning. By closely examining a narrative account of the life of the Buddha as an archetype of Buddhist ideologies, we hoped to then identify principles of teaching and learning embedded in the experiences, choices and words of the Buddha himself. Our reading of Armstrong’s (2004) biography of the Buddha led us to the Nidāna-Kathā, a mythical account outlining the Buddha’s journey to Enlightenment from his first resolve for Buddhahood in an earlier life.

The Nidāna-Kathā serves as an introduction to the Jataka tales, a collection of five hundred and fifty stories told by the Buddha of his past births. The unknown author of this extensive introduction begins by quoting from the Buddhavamsa (or History of the Buddhas) the story of the Bodisat’s birth as Sumedha during which lifetime he developed the determination to become an Enlightened One. Throughout this versed quotation, the author injects his own commentary and prose retelling of the story. Following the story of Sumedha, the author briefly recounts other births in which the Bodisat encounters previous Buddhas before detailing in prose his life as Sidhatta Gotama. The Nidāna-Kathā culminates with Gotama’s attainment of Buddhahood and concludes with the presentation of the monastery in which the Buddha is believed to have recounted the majority of his birth-stories.

Rather than add our voices to Gombrich (2009) who maintains that the five Nikayas constitute the essential doctrines of Buddhism, we chose the text of the Nidāna-Kathā because it “contains a record of the every-day life, and every-day thought, of the people among whom the tales were told” (Rhys Davids et al. 1880, p. 6). In other words, it is a text which illustrates the lived embodiment and understanding of fundamental principles of Buddha’s teachings among those who practiced them at least before the Council of Vesāli, approximately 100 years after Gotama’s death (Rhys Davids et al. 1880, p. 45). In this sense, an analysis of the Nidāna-Kathā constitutes a way of honoring the lived and living character of Buddhism generally. Rather than seeking to supplant or trivialize the lived experiences of Buddhists throughout its long history, it honors the dynamic, living nature of Buddha’s teachings that has been inherited and embodied from antiquity to the present.

Set against the backdrop of the archetypal mythos of the Nidāna-Kathā’s narrative, and from the perspective of the Buddhists telling, hearing, and embodying that mythos, even the Buddha required lifetimes of effort to attain the dhamma which he inherited from those former lives. Perhaps, then, it is appropriate to illustrate the Nidāna-Kathā as a confluence of text and living inheritance that honors both dimensions of the Buddha’s teachings. In this sense, the Nidāna-Kathā describes Buddhism in a way that, rather than diminishing or maligning the value and authenticity of its constantly developing, lived manifestations, honors and legitimizes each of the lives of the dhamma’s myriad practitioners as following a pattern established by the Buddha himself. This text then, in essence, breaks down the too often enforced dyad of “ancient, authoritative, sacred text” vs. “less legitimate lived practice among laypeople who aren’t scholars of these texts”.

In our thematic analysis of this text, we do not address nor is our present inquiry concerned with the question of the Nidāna-Kathā’s historicity. Both the author and time period of this text are unknown, save that it almost certainly represents a later addition to the Buddhist Canon. Nor was this introduction of sorts to the Jataka tales necessarily written for a modern audience. It was, instead, intended to aid the “old-world orthodox Buddhist” (p. x) by shedding light on the Buddha’s life in a way that bridges the gap between “biographical fragments in the…chief Nikayas” and “highly embroidered” (p. xii) stories among the later Jataka tales and direct this “old world, orthodox Buddhist” to Enlightenment. As such, this text also does not encompass the entirety of Buddhist belief about education across its multitudinous denominational demarcations. What is recorded in the Nidāna-Kathā represents a significant piece of what in antiquity was considered beneficial for Buddha’s followers to know regarding his journey to ultimate knowledge. In this sense, together with its ancient audience, we consider the symbolic mythos of the Nidāna-Kathā to be a foundational piece of Buddhism’s approach to ultimate knowledge—in other words, to teaching and learning.

The translation of the Nidāna-Kathā we selected for our research is the 1880 translation of T.W. Rhys Davids and Robert Caesar Childers. It was originally published as a volume of Trubner’s Oriental Series before being reissued in its present edition. We compared this translation with that of Henry Clarke Warren published in its eighth issue in the Harvard Oriental Series in 1992. Our decision to favor the earlier translation is based on the 1992 translation’s omission of the prose throughout the story of Sumedha, while the 1880 translation contains both verse and the prose commentary of the author. In his introduction to the translated volume, Rhys Davids notes their attempts to translate sentence by sentence rather than word by word in order to preserve both the story and style of the Buddhist storyteller (p. iv).

Our analytical method was informed, much like Diamond’s (2021) content analysis approach to the Nikayas, by Gombrich (2009) and Sujato and Brahmali’s (2015) approaches to the analysis of Buddhist oral text more generally. Despite the notion maintained by some Buddhism scholars that textual analysis like Diamond’s is “inappropriate for oral materials” (Gombrich 2009, p. 8), the rigorous analysis of such texts can uncover “a remarkable coherence of key concepts” while honoring the inherently living dimensions of the texts both in their original as well as their contemporary forms (Diamond 2021, p. 58). In this sense, our content analysis of this text is not an original methodological contribution nor an aberration but instead constitutes the repetition of an established approach among scholars of Buddhism and education. We further draw upon Krippendorf (2013) and Neuendorf’s (2017) approaches to textual content analysis with a special focus on inductive, iterative thematic coding rather than frequency counts or delimiting term searches.

Within this methodological frame, our primary analysis of the Nidāna-Kathā consisted of an initial reading of the text followed by a second, more in-depth textual analysis. During this secondary analysis, we pulled from the narrative any text relating to the themes of teaching, learning, light, truth, and knowledge and other synonymous or derivative vocabularies. During this stage of research, we compiled a document of approximately 6000 words of quotations relating to these themes. During the secondary stage of our research, we conducted a thematic analysis of the identified passages. This was achieved by considering the quotes individually and placing them into fourteen general themes related to teaching and learning.

In our tertiary analysis of the text, we looked for overlap in these themes, compared and contrasted them, further honing them into seven themes illustrative of the educative idols in the Nidāna-Kathā’s mythological depiction of the Buddha’s lives. Finally, we combined these stages of analysis together as we recontextualized the identified quotes into a new narrative outlining our findings. The process of composing these findings enabled us to continue our thematic comparison and make further connections between our seven established themes.

4. Findings

In this section, we outline the results of our analysis of the Nidāna-Kathā. This analysis resulted in seven themes: resolve and responsibility, effort, pabbajja, tradition becoming, pedagogy, and joy. In our exploration of each theme, we define and explain the theme in context of Buddha Gotama’s search for Buddhahood. Our discussions of these themes are supported with citations from the Nidāna-Kathā which highlight the Buddha’s experience with each topic in his journey of teaching and learning. Finally, we describe how each theme contributes to an overarching understanding of Buddhist education as illustrated specifically within the Nidāna-Kathā. Again, we do not put forth the following themes as representative of educative thought among all Buddhist denominations as presently constituted nor of Buddhism’s development across historical periods. Insights from a specific text represent only one dimension of a rich and dynamic variety of approaches to the question of Buddhist educative practice including meditation, mindfulness, ritual cantillation of scripture, prayer, visual art, music, architecture, pilgrimage, and oral wisdom traditions, to name but a few. In other words, while the themes that follow represent a Buddhist approach to teaching and learning, it is certainly not meant to represent the Buddhist approach to the same.

4.1. Resolve and Personal Responsibility

Throughout his journey across lifetimes, as documented in the Nidāna-Kathā, Buddha Gotama repeatedly cultivated a resolve to become a Buddha and lead others to Enlightenment. Neither the path to Nibbana nor the more difficult course of becoming a Buddha were forced upon the Bodisat. Importantly, he determined the existence of both paths from his own pondering, developing the desire to walk those paths as he meditated upon them. As a result of choosing his own aspiration and jointly comprehending his own role in making that aspiration reality, the Bodisat was able to maintain his resolve and ultimately achieve his goal.

The Bodisat had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve and the reasons behind that desire. The Nidāna-Kathā records an inner dialogue the Bodisat had with himself in a past life as Sumedha. “I am subject to birth to decay to disease, therefore I will seek Nirvana…There is, there must be a road, it cannot but be. I will seek this road that I may obtain a release from becoming” (p. 85). Upon recognizing his enslavement to suffering and rebirth, he reasoned that there must be a means of escape and resolved to seek that path. His goal did not stop there, however. Sumedha later questioned, “Why should I cross the ocean resolute but alone? I will attain omniscience and enable men and devas to cross” (p. 95). Observing this determination, Rhys Davids, translator of the Nidāna-Kathā into English, commented, “This is the great act of renunciation by which the Bodhisattva, when Nirvana was within his grasp, preferred to endure ages of heroic trials in the exercise of the paramitas that he might be enabled to become a Buddha and so redeem humanity” (p. 94).

Not only did the Bodisat have a vision in mind, he also understood that achieving this vision would require action on his part. “So when there exists a lake of Nirvana that washes the stains of sin, if…[one]…seek not that lake, the fault is not in the lake Nirvana” (p. 86). As surely as he reasoned there must be a path, he likewise reasoned that the path would not fall into his lap. Seeking and walking the path would be an individual obligation requiring from him great effort and sacrifice. Here again, the Bodisat demonstrated choosing to learn and take action free from coercion. It is especially noteworthy within the context of teaching and learning that the Bodisat adopted both the vision and the responsibility to learn of his own volition.

This focus on his purpose, together with a commitment to his personal responsibility to pursue further knowledge, aided the Bodisat in overcoming tempting distractions and setbacks in his efforts to learn. “In me…there is no desire after wealth or sinful pleasures”, Gotama once expressed to a king who offered him his kingdom (p. 181). “It is not sovereignty that I desire”, he reproved his adversary, Mara (p. 175). Instead, he gradually gathered truths and approached enlightenment with determination and grit. After years spent seeking enlightenment without success, he came to the feet of the Bo-tree and reaffirmed his resolve. “May skin, indeed, and sinews, and bones wilt away, may flesh and blood in my body dry up, but till I attain to complete enlightenment this seat I will not leave!” And he sat “firm and immovable, as if welded with a hundred thunderbolts” (p. 190). While pondering upon the ten perfections, the Bodisat had thought within himself, “thou, if unswerving in thy resolution, shalt become Buddha” (p. 107). There, under the Bo-tree, his resolution came to fruition and Gotama at last attained Enlightenment, the first piece of his vision.

4.2. Supererogatory Effort

For the Bodisat, the resolution to become a Buddha and thus help redeem humankind was not a passing fancy to be quickly forgotten and set aside. Instead, he demonstrated commitment to his resolve through his willingness to put effort and action behind his determination. As one passage of the Nidāna-Kathā illustrated, “Exerting himself according to the resolve he had made…he came down through many births” (pp. 139–40). This section addresses the effort the Bodisat put forward in those many births as he prepared to become a Buddha, focusing particularly on the study of the ten Perfections.

Upon his first declaration of resolve to become a Buddha, devas of all the worlds came to the Bodisat to celebrate his ambition and entreat him to follow his resolve with action. “Venerable hermit Sumedha”, one said, “this day thou hast made a mighty resolve…mayest thou fulfill it without let or hindrance” (p. 111). Another simply adjured him, “Do thou make a strenuous effort” (p. 98). The pleas of the devas highlight the principle that intentions alone are not enough in the pursuit of learning. The advice to “hold not back, go forward” (p. 100) served as a reminder to the Bodisat of the work that lay before him and encouragement to step fully onto the path he had chosen.

The first step recorded in the Nidāna-Kathā that the Bodisat took on this path involved the discovery and study of the ten Perfections: giving, moral practice, self-abnegation, wisdom, exertion, patience, truth, resolution, goodwill, and equanimity. As the Bodisat meditated upon the means of fulfilling his resolve to become a Buddha, he identified these Perfections as requirements for doing so. Throughout the process of discerning and developing these perfections, the Bodisat exhibited his tendency to expend extraordinary effort to learn. It is this effort that characterizes each stage of his learning journey to Enlightenment, or Buddhahood.

As he realized the Perfections one by one, the Bodisat repeatedly thought, “the conditions of a Buddha cannot in sooth be so few, I will study the other conditions that bring Buddhaship to maturity” (p. 102). Rather than being satisfied upon discovering one or even a few of these Perfections, the Bodisat persistently sought more until he had discovered all ten, at which point he continued to study and develop them. “Grasping [the Perfections] again and again, he mastered them forwards and backwards” (p. 109). In later lives, the Bodisat is described not as a casual disciple, but as one who was “thoroughly” (p. 130) and “zealously learning” (p. 138) the Vedas and Pitakas. In short, the iron will of his resolve to become a Buddha was only matched by his consistent, effortful action to pursue and eventually fulfill that purpose. Learning itself comprised one of the primary vehicles whereby he accomplished this.

The Nidāna-Kathā identifies the Bodisat’s approach as “works of supererogation” (p. 138), or the performance of more work than duty requires. The Bodisat’s willingness to go beyond the basic requirements of duty is evident in his diligence in studying the conditions of Buddhahood, his devoted discipleship, and even in his decision to take the more difficult road of becoming a Buddha rather than seeking Nibbana alone. In many ways, this willingness to put in effort, to wrestle and struggle, was critical to the fulfillment of his goal.

As he meditated upon the fifth Perfection, Exertion, the Bodisat instructed himself, “As the lion…in every action strenuously exerts himself, so if thou in all rebirths and in all thy acts art strenuous in exertion, and not a laggard, thou shalt become a Buddha” (p. 104). Here, he recognized the value of exertion and the need to shun idleness. Such exertion came to fruition when, while sitting under the Bo-tree as Gotama, Mara challenged his seat. The Bodisat responded to this confrontation by relying on the efforts of his many past lives. “Mara! It is not by you that the ten Perfections have been perfected... It is not you who have sacrificed yourself in the five great acts of renunciation, who have perfected the way of good in knowledge nor the way of good for the world nor the way of understanding. This seat does not belong to thee, it is to me that it belongs” (p. 194). He thus claimed his right to the seat under the Bo-tree and the attainment of Nibbana. His wrestles with the Perfections, renunciation, and knowledge lent him the confidence that he could overcome Mara and achieve his goal of release.

In his own teaching, Buddha Gotama celebrated the Great Struggle as a part of the eight-fold path, right effort. Rhys Davids explains, “The Great Struggle played a great part in the Buddhist system of moral training; it was the wrestling with the flesh by which a true Buddhist overcame delusion and sin, and attained to Nirvana” (p. 181). The incomparable value of effort above the requirements of duty was so clear to Buddha Gotama that it was a central piece of the dhamma he taught his disciples. Similar to his own experience, it was not enough for them to listen and hear the dhamma, but action and effort were required in the attainment of Enlightenment. The next two sections will address more fully the ways in which this wrestle played out for the Bodisat according to the Nidāna-Kathā, particularly in his final birth as prince Siddhatta Gotama.

4.3. Pabbajja

One aspect of his journey that emphasizes the Bodisat’s supererogatory effort is a hallmark of the path to Enlightenment known as the Pabbajja, or renunciation of the world in favor of solitude and separation from that which hinders Enlightenment. In this section, we will discuss two layers of Buddha’s renunciation: the initial abandonment of worldly possessions because he did not see value in them, and a deeper consciousness that worldly possessions actively kept him from the attainment of Nibbana leading to an intentional, insistent renunciation. We will also highlight the additional struggle required by opposition to the Pabbajja.

Perhaps the most widely known instance of Pabbajja in the Bodisat’s journey is Gotama’s exodus from his father’s pleasure palace to live as a monk and eventually discover the path to Enlightenment. As recorded in the Nidāna-Kathā, however, a pattern of Pabbajja was established in his character before even his determination to become a Buddha. During his life as the brahmin Sumedha, he considered the wealth accumulated in his family, questioning, “my parents and ancestors, when they went to another world, took not a farthing with them. Can it be right that I should make it an object to take my wealth with me when I go?” As a result of his pondering, he gave his belongings away and “embraced the ascetic life of a hermit” (p. 83).

It seems that at first his decision to give up possessions was a result of the recognition that those possessions were of no worth to him. It is with this same perspective that he praised another Buddha’s “abandonment of human passion” (p. 124) and took “no pleasure in the spectacle” (p. 171) presented as a distraction in his father’s palace following his witness of the four omens. Further, he repeatedly offered his possessions, including money, the sunshade of Manarava flowers, and divine music, as gifts to the past Buddhas.

When the Bodisat intentionally utilized the Pabbajja in order to embark on the path to Enlightenment, however, it seems that he found a greater purpose in renouncing the world. In his birth as Sumedha, he embraced the life of a hermit due to his recognition that wealth would not last. When he later developed the determination to become a Buddha, he again renounced “all pleasures, both material and sensual”, but this time with the purpose of building “a hut and a cloister free from the five defects which are hindrances (to meditation)” (p. 88) in order to behold the conditions of Buddhahood. In another life, after hearing a prophecy of his future as a Buddha, he not only thought, “It seems that I am to become a Buddha, what good can a householder’s life do me? I will give up the world”, but also treated “all [his] prosperity like so much drivel” (p. 122). The shift evidenced in these instances suggests a realization that worldly possessions are not just unbeneficial, but actively stand in the way of the attainment of truth and Enlightenment.

Ultimately, as Siddhatta Gotama living in the palace of his father, “he became more and more unfain of sense-desires. To him, that magnificent apartment, as splendid as Sakka’s residence, began to seem like a great area laden with divers offal, like a charnel-field full of corpses. Life…seemed to him like staying in a house that had become the prey of devouring flames” (p. 172). The realization of the obstruction posed by his possessions overcame him until “an utterance of intense feeling broke from him—‘It all oppresses me! It is intolerable!’ and his mind turned ardently to the state of those who have renounced the world” (p. 172).

While the Nidāna-Kathā presents the Bodisat’s repeated decisions to go forth as instinctive, the text also hints at the opposition that accompanied these sacrifices. From one perspective, much of the exertion required by the Pabbajja is the overcoming of opposition. One main source of hindrance, Gotama’s adversary Mara, declared, “Prince Siddhatta wants to free himself from my dominion. I will not let him go free yet!” (p. 190). Mara contested Gotama throughout his Enlightenment journey, sending darkness, storms, and weapons to terrify him (p. 193), his daughters to tempt him (p. 203), and approaching with his hosts of devas under the Bo-tree to challenge Gotama’s claim to Nibbana (p. 191). Gotama also received opposition from peers and family due to their expectations and hopes for his worldly success. His father built Gotama’s early life around preventing him from embarking on the path to Enlightenment, declaring that, “so long as he continues in the enjoyment of pleasure, he will not turn his thoughts to forsaking the world” (p. 167). In response to these outside sources of opposition, Gotama had to emphatically reject the pleasure palace and stand alone against the host of Mara to “strike [it] with the sword of perfection, and thus overwhelm it” (p. 192).

Perhaps the most significant source of opposition to the Pabbajja was Gotama himself. Upon leaving his father’s home and first receiving offered food as a monk, Gotama had a violent reaction, and was “distressed by that revolting food” (p. 180). Later, while attempting to “perform the uttermost penance” (p. 182), he became as thin as a skeleton and fainted, causing devas to bring word to his father that he had died in the midst of his struggle. In both instances, Gotama had to overcome the barriers he had presented to himself. In the first, Gotama reminded himself of his purpose. “Ever since thou didst see one clad in a mendicant’s garb”, he said, “thou hast been thinking: When shall I become like him…? And now that thou has left all for that very purpose, what is this that thou art doing? And overcoming his feelings, he ate the food” (p. 180). In the second, Gotama acknowledged that this extreme path “was not the way to enlightenment” (p. 183) and accordingly sought out a middle way that would balance the pleasure of his past and the excessive austerity of his asceticism.

4.4. Continuing an Inherited Tradition

While the Bodisat was committed to putting action behind his resolution to become a Buddha, he also demonstrated intentionality in the expenditure of his effort. Rather than putting forth energy towards any random system or method that claimed to lead to Nibbana and Buddhahood, he allowed his learning path to be guided by the tradition of past Buddhas, the wisdom of respected teachers, and the knowledge he gained through his own meditation and experience. Combining and building upon the traditions he inherited both from his time and prior Buddhas, Gotama was able to find the path he sought. In this section, we will outline these inherited traditions and the ways in which the Bodisat tested, adapted, and applied them in his own journey towards Buddhahood.

The first of these teachers that played a significant role in his journey were the Buddhas who came before him. The Nidāna-Kathā records a number of births prior to his life as Gotama in which he studied and mastered the teachings of the contemporary Buddha. In one such instance, he took “the vows under the Teacher, learnt the three Pitakas, and preached the Doctrine to the people” (p. 134). In another, he “mastered the three Pitakas…obtained the six superknowledges, and…practiced Jhana without failure” (p. 115). His repeated effort across lives suggests that learning is an endeavor that requires a great deal of time, patience, and (perhaps most crucially) repetition. The Bodisat did not expect to quickly learn and become a Buddha immediately upon his resolution to do so, but instead was committed to the extended process, one that ultimately took “four asankheyyas and one hundred thousand ages” (p. 139).

Alongside his willingness to follow and learn from the Buddhas, the Bodisat dedicated himself to following the same path to Buddhahood as his predecessors. His first action upon making his resolution was to “search the Buddha-making conditions”, seeking them in “all the ten directions, as far as the principles of things extend” until his mind was opened to the ten Perfections “practiced and followed by former Bodhisattas” (p. 101). Embarking on this same path, the Bodisat perfected in himself the ten Perfections, and “combined in himself [the] eight qualifications” (p. 139) until he was at last prepared for his final birth as Gotama and the devas approached him, declaring, “Now has the moment come for thy Buddhahood; now, sir, has the time arrived!” (p. 146).

Throughout this final birth, he continued to meticulously follow the path of previous Buddhas, even so far as to seek the exact spot under the Bo-tree, “the steadfast spot chosen by all the Buddhas, the spot for the throwing down of the cage of sin” (p. 189). However, the emulation of the Buddhas did not stop here, upon his attainment of Buddhahood. Buddha Gotama continued to turn to the traditions of past Buddhas for guidance. On one such occasion, Buddha Gotama’s father neglected to extend an invitation for a meal. In response, Buddha Gotama considered the actions of former Buddhas in their native towns, perceiving that none of the Buddhas directly approached the house of the king. Thus he determined, “I, too, must accept this descent and tradition as my own” (p. 222) and began going from house to house for alms. When reproached by his father for this action, he declared to his father, “mine is the succession of the Buddhas” (p. 223).

During his meditation on the fourth Perfection of Wisdom, the Bodisat charged himself, “avoiding no subject of knowledge, great, small, or middling, do thou approach all wise men and ask them questions” (p. 103). Evidence of obedience to this instruction is visible throughout his life as Gotama. Recorded in the Nidāna-Kathā is one of the Bodisat’s lessons, learned during a parade from his father’s palace. Hearing a woman’s song of joy, he was led to question how his heart could be at peace, ultimately determining that peace could be gained only in the cessation of suffering through Nibbana. “Sweet is the lesson this singer makes me hear”, he declared, “for the going out which is Peace is that which I have been trying to find out. This very day I will break away from household cares!” (p.170). He further sent the woman pearls as a teacher’s fee, acknowledging her role in his attainment of wisdom. After going forth from the palace of his father, he studied under Alara Kalama and Uddaka and “acquired their systems of ecstatic trance” (p. 181).

While Gotama demonstrated a willingness, even an eagerness, to learn from others, he was also dedicated to testing their instruction, learning from himself through meditation, and adjusting his path accordingly. When he saw that the systems of Alara Kalama and Uddaka were not the way to Nibbana, “he left off applying himself to the realization of that system” (p. 181), instead devoting himself completely to asceticism. After years of commitment to that path, he ultimately “perceived that penance was not the way to enlightenment” (p. 183) and immediately adjusted to seek out a middle path. The Bodisat’s effort to act without hesitation upon the wisdom of others and his own knowledge as he gained it enabled him to continue the traditions he inherited from prior Buddhas and discover the path to Buddhahood.

4.5. Becoming

More than only intellectually apprehending the path to Enlightenment, the Bodisat wanted to walk it himself. More than achieving Nibbana alone, the Bodisat’s goal was Buddhahood, the ability to help others reach Nibbana with him. This vision required that he go beyond a theoretical comprehension of ideas to becoming and living in accordance with the truths he encountered. Truth could not remain outside of him, but had to enter into his being. This is why effort through action was so crucial to his learning narrative. The author of the Nidāna-Kathā labeled Buddha Gotama’s attainment of Buddhahood as “the result of the deeds of virtue fulfilled through such countless years” (p. 201). His efforts to embark on the Pabbajja, perfect the ten Perfections, and uphold the traditions of past Buddhas enabled him to learn the path to Enlightenment as he embodied truth and became the being he wanted to become.

The necessity of becoming as a part of learning is encapsulated in the distinction between direct knowledge and notional verity. Armstrong (2004) highlights the difference between these two forms of understanding, explaining that while the truths and path taught by Buddha Gotama can be comprehended logically, they do not have power in the life of the learner until they are also comprehended through action, “Without the meditation and morality prescribed by the Buddha, the Truths remain as abstract as a musical score, which for most of us cannot reveal its true beauty on the page but needs to be orchestrated and interpreted by a skilled performer” (p. 84). In this sense, the Bodisat became a skilled performer. He followed the identification of the truths and Perfections with action so that over the course of numerous lifetimes he gained a deep understanding not just of what they are, but different methods of integrating them and the effects they have on a life.

As he initially pondered the ten Perfections, the Bodisat continually prescribed to himself the becoming of the truths he encountered. “Be thou patient in praise and in reproach” (p. 105), “become unrivalled in kindness” (p. 107), and “become well balanced and firm” (p. 108). Upon establishing these mandates, he recognized that “these ten Perfections are neither in the heaven above nor in the earth below, nor are they to be found in the east, or the other quarters, but reside in my heart of flesh” (p. 108). The Perfections were not perfected until they were established in the Bodisat’s heart and proven through numerous births in which he offered his own life, forsook kingdoms, endured sorrow, observed truth, and held knowledge dear (p. 141). These orchestrations attested that he had not only understood, but become the personification of the ten Perfections.

Alongside the ten Perfections, other traditions of the Buddhas and the concept of the Pabbajja became core tenets of the Bodisat’s character. Over the course of his many lifetimes, the Bodisat repeatedly set aside kingdoms, wealth, and glory to go forth and follow the Buddha. This repetition solidified the renouncement of the world in his nature until, as Gotama, he was able to “[make] light of the kingdom of the world, thus within his reach—casting it away as one would spittle” (p. 175). He was similarly committed to emulating the prior Buddhas to the point that when faced with a dilemma, as in the case of begging alms, it was his instinct to consider the methods of former Buddhas and adopt their traditions in his own actions.

As a result of the Bodisat becoming these Perfections and truths, he was able to overcome Mara’s challenge under the Bo-tree. As he observed Mara and his hosts approaching, the Bodisat also recognized that he was alone standing against them. He could, however, depend on the Perfections and who he had become as a result of allowing them to enter into his being. “Those ten Perfections have long been to me as retainers fed from my store. So making the Perfections like a shield, I must strike this host with the sword of perfection and thus overwhelm it” (p. 192). In the conflict that followed, Gotama relied upon his experiences and efforts to perfect these Perfections in himself to legitimize his claim to the seat under the Bo-tree over Mara’s false claim. The author of the Nidāna-Kathā highlights this further in Mara’s contemplative monologue following the confrontation. “I did not attain to the Ten Perfections… the extraordinary knowledge of inclinations and latent tendencies, of the attainment of compassion, of the double miracle, of the removal of hindrances, and of all-knowing: therefore I have not become like him” (p. 202). It was the discrepancy in who they had become that allowed the Bodisat to triumph over Mara.

4.6. Pedagogy

Some of the strongest evidence of the lasting changes in Buddha Gotama and his process of becoming, however, is found not in his experience leading up to Enlightenment, but rather in his actions following his Release. His efforts and character qualified him both to achieve his own Enlightenment as well as to teach others to do the same. He was able to draw people to him and the Dhamma he taught, discern potential and needs, and empower his followers. This section will specifically focus on the ways in which the ten Perfections influenced the way Buddha Gotama interacted with others as a teacher and communicated the path to Nibbana.

Like his predecessors, Buddha Gotama amassed a large following. People were drawn to Buddha because of both his Dhamma and his character. Armstrong (2004) observed that Buddha Gotama had become “the human embodiment” of the Four Noble Truths he taught. “When people saw the way he behaved and responded to events”, she wrote, “they could see Nibbana in human form” (p. 85). Indeed, it was because of his embodiment of these truths and perfections that he chose to teach at all. As recorded in the Nidāna-Kathā, no sooner had he gained the doctrine than “there arose in his mind a doubt (felt by each of the Buddhas as he became aware of his having arrived at the Doctrine) that he had not that kind of ability necessary to explain that Doctrine to others” (p. 206). This fear was mitigated by the pleas of devas and the Ruler of the Brahma heavens as they exclaimed, “Alas! The world is lost”, (p. 207) and begged Buddha Gotama to teach the doctrine. Buddha Gotama had perfected the Perfection of Giving and the knowledge he had gained of the path to Nibbana was the only possession he had left to give. So, invoking the Perfections of Giving and Resolution, he conceded to their request and set out to teach the Dhamma.

From the beginning of his teaching career, people flocked to Buddha Gotama to hear his teaching and support him. When he approached the five elders in his first attempt to teach the dhamma, he directed his goodwill towards them. As this “diffused itself through their hearts”, they were unable to wait for him to finish his approach, but “rose from their seats, and bowed down before him, and welcomed him with every mark of reverence and respect” (p. 208). Mighty and respected thinkers “thought him worthy” (p. 212). His family was “delighted with the Master” (p. 219) because of his moral character, a character which he maintained even during the temptation of Mara’s daughters. “What have ye seen that ye thus strive?” he reprimanded the temptresses. “By the Tathagata lust is put away, ill-will is put away, delusion is put away” (p. 204). As a result of the preservation of his moral character and his extension of kindness and good-will, people were continually drawn to Buddha Gotama. Those who earnestly sought Nibbana were able to find it through the path he taught.

The Perfections and inherited traditions are also evident in the ways Buddha Gotama discerned and addressed the needs of his followers. When he taught the five elders, one, Kondanya, attained the path quickly. To help the others, Buddha Gotama relied on the Perfection of Patience and “sat in the vihara the next day, when the other four had gone a-begging, talking to Vappa: and Vappa that morning attained to the Fruit of the First Path” (p. 209). For the next three consecutive days, he sat one-on-one with each of the elders, helping them reach this level of understanding. While teaching later groups, he would become “aware of their…doubting within themselves” (p. 211), and address those doubts in discourses designed specifically for those concerns.

Buddha Gotama also relied heavily on the Perfection of Truth in his ministry. Rhys Davids points out that the author of the text “ascribes to Gotama from the beginning a knowledge of the whole Buddhist theory as afterwards elaborated. For, to the author, that theory had no development, it was Eternal and immutable Truth already revealed by innumerable previous Buddhas” (p. 182). Mimicking the traditions of past Buddhas, Buddha Gotama taught the Four Noble Truths and established a system of teaching and learning, all the while deflecting glory and honor towards the path and truths rather than himself according to the Perfection of Equanimity.

As a result of his perfecting the Perfection of Exertion, Buddha Gotama expended effort in identifying the potential of prospective students and provided opportunities for his followers to practice exertion, as well. He saw that a traveler nearby “was capable of entering the Paths” (p. 209) and called for him to come and learn. To those who listened to his discourses and sought salvation, requesting admission into the Order, Buddha Gotama stated simply, “Come mendicants” (p. 210). Later, he presented them with the words, “fare forth, mendicants” (p. 210), sending them out to “fulfill the duty… of journeying from place to place” (p. 218) and teaching others what they had learned.

As the Tathagata, Buddha Gotama had a wealth of knowledge regarding the path to Nibbana. According to the Perfection of Wisdom, however, he continued to seek wisdom and knowledge from others beginning with his first discourse to the five elders. “Kondanya the Believer [sent] forth insight as the discourse went on” (p. 209), and as a result arrived at the Fruit of the First Path upon the conclusion of the discourse. Buddha Gotama praised dwelling-places for monks “in safety and at ease to think and insight gain” (p. 230). As he gained further wisdom from his students and perceived their potential, he urged his disciples to test the path he taught and embark on the road to Nibbana with a renunciation of the world. On the day of celebration for the coronation and marriage of Nanda, the King’s son and Gotama’s brother, Buddha Gotama approached him, presented him with his bowl for begging food, “and with the object of making him abandon the world, he wished him true happiness” (p. 226). And when his own son came to request his inheritance of treasure, Buddha Gotama instead thought, “this wealth…which he is asking for, perishes in the using, and brings vexation with it! I will give him the sevenfold Ariyan wealth which I obtained under the Bo-tree, and make him the heir of a spiritual inheritance” (p. 227) and thus received him into the Order.

4.7. Joy in Learning and Teaching

This path of renunciation, effort, struggle, and sacrifice was not an easy one, yet the Bodisat sought after it with determination and further persuaded many others to join him on the path. Throughout every step of his difficult journey, however, the Nidāna-Kathā also outlines the juxtaposing joy in the Bodisat’s experience. This joy was the motivator and drive behind the Bodisat’s resolution and commitment to seek Buddhahood. As Gotama himself told Mara, “I shall become a Buddha, and make the ten thousand world-systems shout for joy” (p. 175). This section will highlight how joy carried the Bodisat through this whole process, inspiring his vision, bolstering him through struggle and failure, and prevailing as the reward at the end of the journey.

It was the infectious joy he experienced with the multitude preparing to receive Buddha Dipankara that first drew the Bodisat to the vision of Buddhahood. “When I heard the name of Buddha, joy sprang up forthwith within me” the Bodisat explained, “Repeating a Buddha, a Buddha! I gave utterance to my joy. Standing there I pondered, joyful and excited, here I will sow the seed, may the happy moment not pass away!” (p. 93). When Buddha Dipankara confirmed that he would become a Buddha, the Bodisat was “glad, joyous, delighted” (p. 100). In future births, he continued to find “great joy in meditating on the Buddha” (p. 136). The Nidāna-Kathā records one birth in particular when, as a lion, the Bodisat witnessed the contemporary Buddha in meditation. For a week, the lion “laid not aside the bliss arising from the thought of the Buddha, but through joy and gladness, seeking not after prey, he kept in attendance there, offering up his life” (p. 126).

The Bodisat not only found joy in the existence of Buddhas, but in the actions he took to emulate the Buddhas and perfect the Perfections. “The Boddhisattas feel joy at their self-renunciation when they sever the crowned head, put out the henna-anointed eyes, cut out the heart and give it away”, (p. 121) explains the author of the Nidāna-Kathā. As he perfected the Perfections, renouncing possessions and leaving the world behind in favor of a lifestyle that would lead him towards Buddhahood, his joy increased until he sat “experiencing the happiness of deliverance” (p. 201) and living on “Jhana-joy, on Path-joy, on Fruition-joy” (p. 204). Indeed, Buddha Gotama’s response to attaining Nibbana was to give “vent to his emotion in the hymn of triumph uttered by all the Buddhas” (p. 198). Buddha Gotama seemed content to remain alone enjoying the bliss of Nibbana for a time, but was ultimately reminded that his joy could not be absolute until he fulfilled his complete vision of opening the path to others.

The Nidāna-Kathā and other records contain few if any details regarding the thoughts and feelings of Buddha Gotama as he began teaching the Dhamma and establishing the doctrine. There are some clues, however, that hint at the additional joy he must have discovered in teaching the eightfold path. The Nidāna-Kathā reports repeated instances in which Buddha Gotama was able to perceive the thoughts and feelings of his students. This ability, in combination with the Perfection of Goodwill, leads to the conclusion that Buddha Gotama was not only aware of the suffering his followers endured as a result of their unenlightened state, but also empathized with them in that pain. Witnessing, then, the joy of his students upon their enlightenment and release would add to his own joy, as it was his desire from the moment he lay at the feet of Buddha Dipankara to bring others across the ocean (p. 95) and achieve Nibbana with them rather than doing so alone.

The Buddha balanced the sorrow of the passing of his disciples Sariputta and Mogallana with the joy of having had such magnificent students, declaring to the sangha, “most wonderful it is, bhikkhus…when such a pair of disciples has passed away there is no grief, no lamentation on the part of the Perfect One” (Ukkacela Sutta). He systematically sent disciples out to gather and teach others, highlighting that the joy of Nibbana is incomplete without the sharing of the path with others. Ultimately, that he chose to devote the final forty-five years of his life to teaching the dhamma—when he had power at any moment to enter his final Nibbana—suggests that this role was more than a duty, but something that added to his happiness. Thus, Buddha Gotama did not withhold the bliss of Nibbana, but made “the ten thousand world systems to shout for joy” (p. 197) through his teaching of the Path, intensifying his own joy in the process.

5. Conclusions

Beyond simply relaying the story of the Buddha’s path to Nibbana, the Nidāna-Kathā contains central messages in relation to the process of teaching and learning as demonstrated by Buddha Gotama. One such message is found in his intentionality over the course of his learning journey. Throughout his births, he explored and practiced the traditions of contemporary teachers and Buddhas with exactness and embarked on pabbajjas with purpose, understanding the need to set aside worldly pursuits in order to find truth. His search for truth was not a casual one, but rather one informed by the vision of becoming a Buddha. He adopted this vision of his own volition and pursued it doggedly, rejecting ideas, practices, and traditions that were untrue and refusing to be satisfied by incomplete truths. Ultimately the fulfillment of this vision invited Buddha Gotama to participate in a process of becoming as he took action to alter his very nature. Through such action, the truths he discovered entered into his person until he had become those truths personified. Joy characterized both his journey to this personification of truth as well as the journey he began thereafter to share the truths he had realized.

These messages from the mythical retelling of the Buddha’s journey to Enlightenment hold implications for contemporary approaches to teaching and learning. If truth is what teachers and students alike seek in the learning process, from the perspective of the Buddha as illustrated in the Nidāna-Kathā, a casual methodology is insufficient. Both teacher and student must be focused on a shared purpose, one that, of necessity, pushes them to action and likely out of what is known and comfortable. As demonstrated by the Buddha, learning at its deepest is not simply intellectual apprehension alone, but the adoption of truth into character and way of life. In order to apply this lesson from Buddha Gotama, teachers must push students beyond comprehension to doing and becoming.

That this one record, among hundreds of others that could be chosen and analyzed, contains such a level of profundity and depth is telling. There exists a need for further research examining the sacred historical texts of the Pali Canon and others from within various Buddhist traditions as a means of informing the burgeoning literature discussing Buddhist educative principles as well as their application in contemporary settings. We found in our study of the Nidāna-Kathā a partial answer to McCaw’s (2020) “McMindfulness” and Gravois’s (2005) “Buddhism Lite”, both problems referring to the shallowness of characteristic Western approaches to incorporating Buddhist educative principles. The Nidāna-Kathā provides evidence of the richness of Buddhist educative thought and the deep concern for discovering truth contained within this tradition. We believe further answers can be found as research regarding education among Buddhist traditions looks towards an increased grounding in historical primary source texts such as the Nidāna-Kathā.