Inner Authority and Sañjaya’s Method

The standard account of Sañjaya being stupid, foolish, dull, and confusing was obviously not true. In what are believed to be Sariputta’s own words, Sañjaya (spelled “Sañcayo” in this instance) was described in this way: “There was a learned mantra-knower who had mastered the three Vedas — a brahmin known as Sañcayo.” (Sāriputtāpadāna, Ap 3.1.1)

Usually, this kind of praise is read in terms of what a sage has accomplished, a mark of distinction on the spiritual path, but in Sañjaya’s case I believe it indicates where he began. He started as a master of the Vedas. That could be what initially gave him the authority to teach. It was conferred on him by traditional values and standards, and not due to a self-realization. Whether he had some kind of “realization” would forever be unknown, because he would not make a claim to awakening. His status as a teacher rested on this Vedic mastery, which Sāriputta's verse attests to.

I am extropolating here, but it then seems to me that Sañjaya knew enough of the Vedas to be an authority on them. When he created his method of analyzing views, he could state with authority that he knew the views found in the Vedas, and, having examined them carefully, did not take them up anymore. Then, when he encountered the various views held by wandering ascetics, he could learn those views to a high level of comprehension, and examine them through his method. He may have even learned the Buddha’s views to a degree that he could run them through his method as well, which is something I cannot prove conclusively, but I can point to evidence of Sañjaya’s method being used in a few early poems attributed to the Buddha (which will be the subject of some upcoming articles).

The more important question that this raises for us is: “Do we have the authority to examine doctrines we do not know all that well?” That is, “Are we qualified?” The answer is, “Probably not.” We may not be qualified to determine whether a doctrine (or philosophical view) is true, correct, or valid. Fortunately, Sañjaya’s method does not require us to be able to weigh in on the truth of a teaching. It only requires us to use the knowledge we have to explore that doctrine as to whether it is something for us to take up or not. We may then have to revisit that doctrine many times over the course of our life to examine it from where we are today, with the knowledge we have gained since the last time we looked at it.

This is one reason why some of us may need to keep studying different teachings, experiment with other practices and beliefs, reconsider our moral positions and use of precepts and vows, and examine our self-knowledge and any claims we have made over the years of meditating. Sañjaya’s method meets us at these periods when we are questioning everything, and many of us have probably been using parts of his method without knowing it. We have been doing something like it, but it has probably felt a bit disorganized, haphazard, hard to describe to others.

The question of being qualified never seems to go away completely, which is also why we keep learning more about the different teachings and listen to other teachers. We may still need to question an external authority as a prod us to keep exploring. We seem to be unable to believe in our own authority and then immediately feel confident in our own understandings — this is an ongoing process of transformation, from being someone who looks primarily outside for knowledge to someone who knows how inner knowledge arises.