5.5.5. Dilemma the Forty-Fifth. The Buddha’s Kindness ‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: |
5.5.5. Dilemma the Forty-Fifth. The Buddha’s Kindness**** |
|
But on the other hand it is said: |
^^^ |
|
‘Now, Nāgasena, if it is true what the Buddha said, that, in his former births as a man, he inflicted no hurt on living beings, then the saying that, as Lomasa Kassapa, he had hundreds of living creatures slain must be false. But if he had, then the saying that he inflicted no hurt on living beings must be false. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The Blessed One did say, O king, that already in former births, when he was a man, he had acquired the habit of inflicting no hurt on living beings. And Lomasa Kassapa, the Rishi, did have hundreds of living creatures slain, and offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph.” But that was done when he was out of his mind through lust, and not when he was conscious of what he was doing.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘There are these eight classes of men, Nāgasena, who kill living beings—the lustful man through his lust, and the cruel man through his anger, and the dull man through his stupidity, and the proud man through his pride, and the avaricious man through his greed, and the needy man for the sake of a livelihood, and the fool in joke, and the king in the way of punishment. These, Nāgasena, are the eight classes of men who, kill living beings. The Bodisat, venerable Nāgasena, must have been acting in accordance with his natural disposition when he did so.’ |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘No, it was not, O king, an act natural to him that the Bodisat did then. If the Bodisat had been led, by natural inclination, to offer the great sacrifice, he would not have uttered the verse: |
^^^^^ |
With all the seas and hills that girdle it, Would I desire to have, along with shame.” |
^^^^^ |
|
‘But though, O king, the Bodisat had said that, yet at the very sight of candavatī (Moon-face), the princess, he went out of his mind and lost command of himself through love. And it was when thus out of his mind, confused and agitated, that he, with his thoughts all perplexed, scattered and wandering, thus offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph,"—and mighty was the outpour of blood from the necks of the slaughtered beasts! |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘Just, O king, as a madman, when out of his senses, will step into a fiery furnace, and take hold of an infuriated venomous snake, and go up to a rogue elephant, and plunge forwards into great waters, the further shore of which he cannot see, and trample through dirty pools and muddy places, and rush into thorny brakes, and fall down precipices, and feed himself on filth, and go naked through the streets, and do many other things improper to be done—just so was it, O king, that at the very sight of candavatī, the princess, the Bodisat went out of his mind, and then only acted as I have said. |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘Now an evil act done, O king, by one out of his mind, is even in this present world not considered as a grievous offence, nor is it so in respect of the fruit that it brings about in a future life. Suppose, O king, that a madman had been guilty of a capital offence, what punishment would you inflict upon him?’ |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘What punishment is due to a madman? We should order him to be beaten and set free. That is all the punishment he would have.’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘So then, O king, there is no punishment according to the offence of a madman. It follows that there is no sin in the act done by a madman, it is a pardonable act. And just so, O king, is it with respect to Lomasa Kassapa, the Rishi, who at the mere sight of candavatī, the princess, went out of his mind, and lost command of himself through love. It was when thus out of his mind, confused and agitated, that he, with his thoughts all perplexed, scattered and wandering, thus offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph,"—and mighty was the outpour of blood from the necks of the slaughtered beasts! But when he returned again to his natural state, and recovered his presence of mind, then did he again renounce the world, and having regained the five powers of insight, became assured of rebirth in the Brahmā world.’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^^ |
5.5.6. Dilemma the Forty-Sixth. The Mocking Of the Buddha‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One of Six-tusks, the elephant king,
He perceived the yellow robe, the badge of a recluse, Then, though smarting with the pain, the thought possessed his heart— ’He who wears the outward garb the Arahats wear Must be scatheless held, and sacred, by the good.’” |
5.5.6. Dilemma the Forty-Sixth. The Mocking Of the Buddha^^^^^ |
|
‘But on the other hand it is said: |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now if, Nāgasena, the Bodisat, even when he was an animal, respected the yellow robe, Then the statement that as jotipāla, a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One of that time, must be false. But if as a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One, the statement that when he was Six-tusks, the elephant king, he respected the yellow robe, must be false. If when the Bodisat was an animal, though he was suffering severe and cruel and bitter pain, he respected the yellow robe which the hunter had put on, how was it that when he was a man, a man arrived at discretion, with all his knowledge mature, he did not pay reverence, on seeing him, to Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, one endowed with the ten powers, the leader of the world, the highest of the high, round whom effulgence spread a fathom on every side, and who was clad in most excellent and precious and delicate Benares cloth made into yellow robes? This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The verse you have quoted, O king, was spoken by the Blessed One. And Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, was abused and reviled by Gotipāla the young Brahman with vile and bitter words, with the epithets of shaveling and good-for-nothing monk. But that was owing to his birth and family surroundings. For jotipāla, O king, was descended from a family of unbelievers, men void of faith. His mother and father, his sisters and brothers, the bondswomen and bondsmen, the hired servants and dependents in the house, were worshippers of Brahmā, reverers of Brahmā; and harbouring the idea that Brahmans were the highest and most honourable among men, they reviled and loathed those others who had renounced the world. It was through hearing what they said that jotipāla, when invited by Ghaṭīkāra the potter to visit the teacher, replied: “What’s the good to you of visiting that shaveling, that good-for-nothing monk?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just, O king, as even nectar when mixed with poison will turn sour, just as the coolest water in contact with fire will become warm, so was it that jotipāla, the young Brahman, having been born and brought up in a family of unbelievers, men void of faith, thus reviled and abused the Tathāgata after the manner of his kind. And just, O king, as a flaming and burning mighty fire, if, even when at the height of its glory, it should come into contact with water, would cool down, with its splendour and glory spoilt, and turn to cinders, black as rotten blighted fruits-just so, O king, jotipāla, full as he was of merit and faith, mighty as was the glory of his knowledge, yet when reborn into a family of unbelievers, of men void of faith, he became, as it were, blind, and reviled and abused the Tathāgata. But when he had gone to him, and had come to know the virtues of the Buddhas which he had, then did he become as his hired servant; and having renounced the world and entered the Order under the system of the Conqueror, he gained the fivefold power of insight, and the eightfold power of ecstatic meditation, and became assured of rebirth into the Brahmā heaven.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.5.7. Dilemma the Forty-Seventh. The Helplessness Of A Buddha ‘Venerable Nāgasena, this too has been said by the Blessed One: |
5.5.7. Dilemma the Forty-Seventh. The Helplessness Of A Buddha^^^^ |
|
‘But on the other hand it is said: |
^^^^ |
|
‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are correct. Ghaṭīkāra the potter was a good man, beautiful in character, deeply rooted in merit, who supported his old and blind mother and father. And when he was absent, the people, without so much as asking his leave, took away the thatch from his dwelling to roof in with it the hut of the Tathāgata. Then, unmoved and unshaken at his thatch being thus removed, but filled rather with a well-grounded and great joy the like of which cannot be found, an immeasurable bliss sprang up in his heart at the thought: “May the Blessed One, the chief of the world, have full confidence in me.” And thereby did he obtain merit which brought forth its good result even in this present life. |
^^^^ |
|
And the Tathāgata, O king, was not disturbed by that temporary inconvenience (of the falling rain). Just, O king, as Sineru, the king of the mountains, moves not, neither is shaken, by the onslaught of innumerable gales —just as the mighty ocean, the home of the great waters, is not filled up, neither is disturbed at all, by the inflow of innumerable great rivers—just so, O king, is a Tathāgata unmoved at temporary inconvenience. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And that the rain fell upon the Tathāgata’s hut happened out of consideration for the great masses of the people. For there are two circumstances, O king, which prevent the Tathāgatas from themselves supplying (by creative power) any requisite of which they may be in need. And what are the two? Men and gods, by supplying the requisites of a Buddha on the ground that he is a teacher worthy of gifts, will thereby be set free from rebirth in states of woe. And lest others should find fault, saying: “They seek their livelihood by the working of miracles.” If, O king, Sakka had kept that hut dry, or even Brahmā himself, even then that action would have been faulty, wrong, and worthy of censure. |
^^^^ |
|
For people might then say: “These Buddhas by Their dexterity befool and lord it over the world.” That is the reason why such action would have been better left undone. The Tathāgatas, O king, do not ask for any advantage; and it is because they ask for nothing that they are held blameless.’ |
^^^ |
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.5.8. Dilemma the Forty-Eighth. Why Gotama Claimed To Be A Brahman ‘Venerable Nāgasena, this too was said by the Blessed One: |
5.5.8. Dilemma the Forty-Eighth. Why Gotama Claimed To Be A Brahman^^^^ |
|
‘If, Nāgasena, the Blessed One were a Brahman, then he must have spoken falsely when he said he was a king. But if he were a king, then he must have spoken falsely when he said he was a Brahman. He must have been either a Khattiya or a Brahman. For he could not have belonged, in the same birth, to two castes. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are correct. But there is good reason why the Tathāgata, should have been both Brahman and also king.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Pray what, Nāgasena, can be that reason?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Because all evil qualities, not productive of merit, are in the Tathāgata suppressed, abandoned, put away, dispelled, rooted out, destroyed, come to an end, gone out, and ceased, therefore is it that the Tathāgata is called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who has passed beyond hesitation, perplexity, and doubt. And it is because the Tathāgata has done all this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who has escaped from every sort and class of becoming, who is entirely set free from evil and from stain, who is dependent on himself, and it is because the Tathāgata is all of these things, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who cultivates within himself the highest and best of the excellent and supreme conditions of heart. And it is because the Tathāgata does this that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who carries on the line of the tradition of the ancient instructions concerning the learning and the teaching of sacred writ, concerning the acceptance of gifts, concerning subjugation of the senses, self-control in conduct, and performance of duty. And it is because the Tathāgata carries on the line of the tradition of the ancient rules enjoined by the Conquerors regarding all these things, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who enjoys the supreme bliss of the ecstatic meditation. And it is because the Tathāgata does this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who knows the course and revolution of births in all forms of existence. And it is because the Tathāgata knows this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. The appellation “Brahman,” O king, was not given to the Blessed One by his mother, nor his father, not by his brother, nor his sister, not by his friends, nor his relations, not by spiritual teachers of any sort, no, not by the gods. It is by reason of their emancipation that this is the name of the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones. From the moment when, under the Tree of Wisdom, they had overthrown the armies of the Evil One, had suppressed in themselves all evil qualities not productive of merit, and had attained to the knowledge of the Omniscient Ones, it was from the acquisition of this insight, the appearance in them of this enlightenment, that this true designation became applied to them—the name of “Brahman.” And that is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a Brahman.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then what is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘A king means, O king, one who rules and guides the world, and the Blessed One rules in righteousness over the ten thousand world systems, he guides the whole world with its men and gods, its evil spirits and its good ones, and its teachers, whether Samaṇas or Brahmans. That is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. A king means, O king, one who, exalted above all ordinary men, making those related to him rejoice, and those opposed to him mourn; raises aloft the Sunshade of Sovranty, of pure and stainless white, with its handle of firm hard wood, and its many hundred ribs—the symbol of his mighty fame and glory. And the Blessed One, O king, making the army of the Evil One, those given over to false doctrine, mourn; filling the hearts of those, among gods or men, devoted to sound doctrine, with joy; raises aloft over the ten thousand world systems the Sunshade of his Sovranty, pure and stainless in the whiteness of emancipation, with its hundreds of ribs fashioned out of the highest wisdom, with its handle firm and strong through long suffering—the symbol of his mighty fame and glory. That too is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. A king is one who is held worthy of homage by the multitudes who approach him, who come into his presence. And the Blessed One, O king, is held worthy of homage by multitudes of beings, whether gods or men, who approach him, who come into his presence. That too is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. A king is one who, when pleased with a strenuous servant, gladdens his heart by bestowing upon him, at his own good pleasure, any costly gift the officer may choose. And the Blessed One, O king, when pleased with any one who has been strenuous in word or deed or thought, gladdens his heart by bestowing upon him, as a selected gift, the supreme deliverance from all sorrow—far beyond all material gifts. That too is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. A king is one who censures, fines, or executes the man who transgresses The royal commands. And so, O king, the man who, in shamelessness or discontent, transgresses the command of the Blessed One, as laid down in the rules of his Order, that man, despised, disgraced and censured, is expelled from the religion of the Conqueror. That too is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. A king is one who in his turn proclaiming laws and regulations according to the instructions laid down in succession by the righteous kings of ancient times, and thus carrying on his rule in righteousness, becomes beloved and dear to the people, desired in the world, and by the force of his righteousness establishes his dynasty long in the land. And the Blessed One, O king, proclaiming in his turn laws and regulations according to the instructions laid down in succession by the Buddhas of ancient times, and thus in righteousness being teacher of the world—he too is beloved and dear to both gods and men, desired by them, and by the force of his righteousness he makes his religion last long in the land. That too is the reason why the Tathāgata is called a king. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Thus, O king, so many are the reasons why the Tathāgata should be both Brahman and also king, that the ablest of the brethren could scarcely in an aeon enumerate them all. Why then should I dilate any further? Accept what I have said only in brief.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.5.9. Dilemma the Forty-Ninth. Gifts To the Buddha ‘Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One:
Are gifts I must not take. All those who see into the Truth Do this their practice make. The Buddhas all refused to chaunt for wage; This was their conduct still Whene’er the Truth prevailed Through every age.” |
5.5.9. Dilemma the Forty-Ninth. Gifts To the Buddha^^^^ |
|
‘But on the other hand the Blessed One, when preaching the Truth, or talking of it, was in the habit of beginning with the so-called “preliminary discourse,” in which giving has the first place, and goodness only the second. So that when gods and men heard this discourse of the Blessed One, the lord of the whole world, they prepared and gave gifts, and the disciples partook of the alms thus brought about. Now if, Nāgasena, it be true what the Blessed One said, that he accepted no gifts earned by the chaunting of sacred words, then it was wrong that the Blessed One put giving thus into the foreground. But if he did rightly in so emphasizing the giving of gifts, then it is not true that he accepted no gifts earned by the utterance of sacred words. And why so? Because if any one worthy of offerings should praise to the laity the good results to them of the bestowal of alms, they, hearing that discourse, and pleased with it, will proceed to give alms again and again. And then, whosoever enjoy that gift, they are really enjoying that which has been earned by the utterance of sacred words. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The stanza you quote, O king, was spoken by the Blessed One. And yet he used to put the giving of alms into the forefront of his discourse. But this is the custom of all the Tathāgatas—first by discourse on almsgiving to make the hearts of hearers inclined towards it, and then afterwards to urge them to righteousness. This is as when men, O king, give first of all to young children things to play with— such as toy ploughs, tip-cat sticks, toy wind-mills, measures made of leaves, toy carts, and bows and arrows—and afterwards appoint to each his separate task. Or it is as when a physician first causes his patients to drink oil for four or five days in order to strengthen them, and to soften their bodies; and then afterwards administers a purge. The supporters of the faith, O king, the lordly givers, have their hearts thus softened, made tender, affected. Thereby do they cross over to the further shore of the ocean of transmigration by the aid of the boat of their gifts, by the support of the causeway of their gifts. And (the Buddha), by this (method in his teaching), is not guilty of “intimation.”’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Venerable Nāgasena, when you say “intimation” what are these intimations?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘There are two sorts, O king, of intimation—bodily and verbal. And there is one bodily intimation which is wrong, and one that is not; and there is one verbal intimation which is wrong, and one that is not. Which is the bodily intimation which is wrong? Suppose any member of the Order, in going his rounds for alms, should, when choosing a spot to stand on, stand where there is no room, that is a bodily intimation which is wrong. The true members of the Order will not accept any alms so asked for, and the individual who thus acts is despised, looked down upon, not respected, held blameworthy, disregarded, not well thought of, in the religion of the Noble Ones; he is reckoned as one of those who have broken their (vows as to) means of livelihood. And again, O king, suppose any member of the Order, in going his round for alms, should stand where there is no room, and stretch out his neck like a peacock on the gaze, in the hope: “Thus will the folk see me"—that too is a bodily intimation which is wrong. True brethren will not accept an alms so asked for, and he who thus acts is regarded like the last. And again, O king, suppose any member of the Order should make a sign with his jaw, or with his eyebrow, or with his finger— that too is a bodily intimation which is wrong. True brethren will not accept an alms so asked for, and he who thus acts is regarded the same way. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And which is the bodily intimation which is not wrong? If a brother, on going his round for alms, be self-possessed, tranquil, conscious of his acts; if he stand, wherever he may go, in the kind of spot that is lawful; if he stand still where there are people desirous to give, and where they are not so desirous, if he pass on ;—that is a bodily intimation which is not wrong. Of an alms so stood for the true members of the Order will partake; and the individual who thus asks is, in the religion of the Noble Ones, praised, thought highly of, esteemed, and reckoned among those whose behaviour is without guile, whose mode of livelihood is pure. For thus has it been said by the Blessed One, the god over all gods: |
^^^^ |
The good stand for their alms, thus only do they beg.” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Which is the verbal intimation which is wrong? In case, O king, a brother intimate his wish for a number of things, requisites of a member of the Order—robes and bowls and bedding and medicine for the sick—that is a verbal intimation which is wrong. Things so asked for the true members of the Order (Ariyā) will not accept; and in the religion of the Noble Ones the individual who acts thus is despised, looked down upon, not respected, held blameworthy, disregarded, not well thought of—reckoned rather as one who has broken his (vows as to) means of livelihood. And again, O king, in case a brother should, in the hearing of others, speak thus: “I am in want of such and such a thing;” and in consequence of that saying being heard by the others he should then get that thing—that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last. And again, O king, in case a brother, dilating in his talk, give the people about him to understand: “Thus and thus should gifts be given to the Bhikkhus,” and in case they, on hearing that saying, should bring forth from their store anything so referred to—that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last. For when Sāriputta, the Elder, O king, being ill in the night-time, after the sun had set, and being questioned by Moggallāna, the Elder, as to what medicine would do him good, broke silence; and through that breach of silence obtained the medicine—did not Sāriputta then, saying to himself: “This medicine has come through breach of silence; let not my (adherence to the rules regarding) livelihood be broken,” reject that medicine, and use it not ? So that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And what is the verbal intimation which is right? Suppose a brother, O king, when there is necessity for it, should intimate among families either related to him, or which had invited him to spend the season of Was with him, that he is in want of medicines—this is a verbal intimation which is not wrong. True members of the Order will partake of things so asked for; and the individual who acts thus is, in the religion of the Noble Ones, praised, thought highly of, esteemed, reckoned among those whose mode of livelihood is pure, approved of the Tathāgatas, the Arahats, the Supreme Buddhas. And the alms that the Tathāgata, O king, refused to accept of Kasī-Bhāradvāja, the Brahman, that was presented for the sake of testing him with an intricate puzzle which he would have to unwind, for the sake of pulling him away, of convicting him of error, of making him acknowledge himself in the wrong. Therefore was it that the Tathāgata refused that alms, and would not partake thereof.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Nāgasena, was it always, whenever the Tathāgata was eating, that the gods infused the Sap of Life from heaven into the contents of his bowl, or was it only into those two dishes—the tender boar’s flesh, and the rice porridge boiled in milk—that they infused it ? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Whenever he was eating, O king, and into each morsel of food as he picked it up—just as the royal cook takes the sauce and pours it over each morsel in the dish while the king is partaking of it. And so at Verañjā, when the Tathāgata was eating the cakes made of dried barley, the gods moistened each one with the Sap of Life, as they placed it near him. And thus was the body of the Tathāgata fully refreshed.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Great indeed was the good fortune, Nāgasena, of those gods that they were ever and always so zealous in their care for the body of the Tathāgata! Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the problem as to the Buddha’s mode of livelihood. |
^^^^ |
5.5.10. Dilemma the Fiftieth. On the Buddha’s After-Doubt ‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say: |
5.5.10. Dilemma the Fiftieth. On the Buddha’s After-Doubt^^^^ |
|
‘But on the other hand (they say): |
^^^^ |
|
‘So that, Nāgasena, just as if an archer, or an archer’s pupil, who had practised archery for many days with the object of fighting, should, when the day of the great battle had come, draw back—just so did the Tathāgata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth. just as if a wrestler who through many days had practised wrestling should, when the day of the wrestling match had come, draw back—just so did the Tathāgata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now was it from fear, Nāgasena, that the Tathāgata drew back, or was it from inability to preach, or was it from weakness, or was it because he had not, after all, attained to omniscience? What was the reason of this? Tell me, I pray, the reason, that my doubts may be removed. For if for so long a time he had perfected his wisdom with the object of saving the people, then the statement that he hesitated to announce the Truth must be wrong. But if that be true, then the other statement must be false. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you—a problem profound, a knot hard to unravel—which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The statements in both the passages you quote, O king, are correct. But that his heart inclined, not to the preaching of the truth, but to inaction, was because he saw, on the one hand, how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how hard to grasp and understand, how subtle, how difficult to penetrate into; and, on the other, how devoted beings are to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism. And so (he wavered) at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how can I teach him?"—his mind being directed to the idea of the powers of penetration which beings possessed. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just, O king, as an able physician, when called in to a patient suffering from a complication of diseases, might reflect: “What can be the treatment, what the drug, by which this man’s sickness can be allayed?"—just so, O king, when the Tathāgata called to mind how afflicted were the people by all the kinds of malady which arise from sin, and how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, then at the thought: “Whom can I teach? And how shall I teach him?” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching— his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed. |
^^^^ |
|
And just, O king, as a king, of royal blood, an anointed monarch, when he calls to mind the many people who gain their livelihood in dependence on the king—the sentries and the body-guard, the retinue of courtiers, the trading folk, the soldiers and the royal messengers, the ministers and the nobles —might be exercised at the thought: “How now, in what way, shall I be able to conciliate them all?"—just so when the Tathāgata called to mind how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, and how devoted beings were to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism, then at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how shall I teach him?” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching—his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed. |
^^^^ |
|
And this, too, is an inherent necessity in all Tathāgatas that it should be on the request of Brahmā that they should proclaim the Dhamma. And what is the reason for that? All men in those times, with the ascetics and the monks, the wandering teachers and the Brahmans, were worshippers of Brahmā, reverers of Brahmā, placed their reliance on Brahmā. And therefore, at the thought: “When so powerful and glorious, so famous and renowned, so high and mighty a one has shown himself inclined (to the Dhamma), then will the whole world of gods and men become inclined to it, hold it fitting, have faith in it"—on this ground, O king, the Tathāgatas preached the Dhamma when requested to do so by Brahmā. For just, O king, as what a sovran or a minister of state shows homage to, or offers worship to, that will the rest of mankind, on The ground of the homage of so powerful a personage, show homage to and worship—just so, O king, when Brahmā had paid homage to the Tathāgatas, so would the whole world of gods and men. For the world, O king, is a reverer of what is revered. And that is why Brahmā asks of all Tathāgatas that they should make known the Doctrine, and why, on so being asked, they make it known.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! the puzzle has been well unravelled, most able has been your exposition. That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the problem as to the Buddha’s hesitation to make the Doctrine known. |
^^^^ |
The Truth dispelling every grief, Which Truth when here a man perceives, He’s freed from stains, and dies away.’ |
^^^^ |
5.5.11. Dilemma the Fifty-First. Contradictory Statements As To the Buddha’s Teacher‘Venerable Nāgasena, this too has been said by the Blessed One:
Equal to me does not exist. No rival to me can be found In the whole world of gods and men.” ‘But on the other hand he said: |
5.5.11. Dilemma the Fifty-First. Contradictory Statements As To the Buddha’s Teacher^^^^ |
|
“Thus then, O brethren, Āḷāra Kālāma, when he was my teacher and I was his pupil, placed me on an equality with himself, and honoured me with exceeding great honour.” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now if the former of these statements be right, then the second must be wrong. But if the second be right, then the first must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are accurate. But when he spoke of Āḷāra Kālāma as his teacher, that was a statement made with reference to the fact of his having been his teacher while he (Gotama) was still a Bodisat and before he had attained to insight and to Buddhahood; and there were five such teachers, O king, under whose tuition the Bodisat spent his time in various places—his teachers when he was still a Bodisat, before he had attained to insight and to Buddhahood. And who were these five? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Those eight Brahmans who, just after the birth of the Bodisat, took note of the marks on his body— Rāma, and Dhaja, and Lakkhaṇa, and Mantī, and Yañña, and Suyāma, and Subhoja, and Sudatta —they who then made known his future glory, and marked him out as one to be carefully guarded-these were first his teachers. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And again, O king, the Brahman Sabbamitta of distinguished descent, who was of high lineage in the land of Udicca, a philologist and grammarian, well read in the six Vedaṅgas, whom Suddhodana the king, the Bodisat’s father, sent for, and having poured out the water of dedication from a golden vase, handed over the boy to his charge, to be taught—this was his second teacher. |
^^^^ |
|
And again, O king, the god who raised the agitation in the Bodisat’s heart, at the sound of whose speech the Bodisat, moved and anxious, that very moment went out from the world in his Great Renunciation—this was his third teacher. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And again, O king, Āḷāra Kālāma—he was his fourth teacher. |
^^^^ |
|
‘These, O king, are the five who were his teachers when he was still a Bodisat, before he had attained to insight and to Buddhahood. But they were teachers in worldly wisdom. And in this Doctrine that is transcendental, in the penetrating into the wisdom of the omniscient ones—in that there is no one who is above the Tathāgata to teach him. Self-dependent for his knowledge is the Tathāgata, without a master, and that is why it was said by the Tathāgata: |
^^^^ |
Equal to me does not exist.>br> No rival to me can be found In the whole world of gods and men.”’ ‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha’s teachers. |
^^^^ |
6.1.1. Dilemma the Fifty-Second. Why Must There Be Only One Buddha At A Time?‘Venerable Nāgasena, this too was said by the Blessed One: |
6.1.1. Dilemma the Fifty-Second. Why Must There Be Only One Buddha At A Time?^^^^ |
|
‘But, Nāgasena, when they are preaching, all the Tathāgatas preach (the Doctrine as to) the thirty-seven constituent elements of insight ; when they are talking, it is of the Four Noble Truths that they talk; when they are instructing, it is in the three Trainings that they instruct; when they are teaching, it is the practice of zeal that they teach. If, Nāgasena, the preaching of all the Tathāgatas is one, and their talk of the same thing, and their training the same, and their teaching one, why then should not two Tathāgatas arise at the same time? Already by the appearance of one Buddha has this world become flooded with light. If there should be a second Buddha the world would be still more illuminated by the glory of them both. When they were exhorting two Tathāgatas would exhort at ease; when they were instructing two Tathāgatas would instruct at ease. Tell me the reason of this, that I may put away my doubt.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘This world system, O king, is a one-Buddha-supporting world; that is, it can bear the virtue of only a single Tathāgata. If a second Tathāgata were to arise the world could not bear him, it would shake and tremble, it would bend, this way and that, it would disperse, scatter into pieces, dissolve, be utterly destroyed. just as a boat, O king, might be able to carry one passenger across. Then, when one man had got on board, it would be well trimmed and able to bear his weight. But if a second man were to come like to the first in age and caste and strength and size and stoutness of body and build of frame, and he too should get on board the boat—would that boat be able, O king, to carry them both? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! it would shake and tremble; it would bend, this way and that; it would break into pieces, be shattered, dissolved, and utterly destroyed; it would sink into the waves.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, with this world, if a second Tathāgata were to appear. Or suppose, O king, that a man had eaten as much food as he wanted, even so that he had filled himself with nourishment up to the throat, and he—thus satiated, regaled, filled with good cheer, with no room left for more, drowsy and stiff as a stick one cannot bend—were again to eat as much food as he had eaten before—would such a man, O king, then be at ease?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! If he were to eat again, but once more, he would die.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well, no more could this world bear a second Tathāgata, than that man could bear a second meal.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘But how is that, Nāgasena? Would the earth tremble at a too great weight of goodness?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, there were two carts quite filled with precious things up to the top, and people were to take the things from the one cart and pile them up on the other, would that one be able to carry the weight of both?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! the nave of its wheels would split, and the spokes would break, and the circumference would fall to pieces, and the axle-tree would break in twain.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘But how is that, O king? Would the cart come to pieces owing to the too great weight of goods?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, it would.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Hear a further reason, O king, why two Buddhas could not appear at the same time. If that were so, then the passage (of Scripture) that the Buddha is the chief would become false, and the passage that the Buddha takes precedence of all would become false, and the passage that the Buddha is the best of all would become false. And so all those passages where the Buddha is said to be the most excellent, the most exalted, the highest of all, the peerless one, without an equal, the matchless one, who hath neither counterpart nor rival—all would be proved false. Accept this reason too as in truth a reason why two Buddhas cannot arise at once. |
^^^^ |
|
‘But besides that, O king, this is a natural characteristic of the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, that one Buddha only should arise in the world. And why? By reason of the greatness of the virtue of the all-knowing Buddhas. Of other things also, whatever is mighty in the world is singular. The broad earth is great, O king, and it is only one. The ocean is mighty, and it is only one. Sineru, the king of the mountains, is great; and it is only one. Space is mighty, and it is only one. Sakka (the king of the gods) is great, and he is only one. Mara (the Evil One, Death) is great, and he is only one. Mahā-Brahmā is mighty, and he is only one. A Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, is great, and he is alone in the world. Wherever any one of these spring up, then there is no room for a second. And therefore, O king, is it that only one Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, can appear at one time in the world.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well has the puzzle, Nāgasena, been discussed by simile adduced and reason given. Even an unintelligent man on hearing this would be satisfied; how much rather one great in wisdom as myself. Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say. |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the dilemma as to why there should be only one Buddha at a time in the world. |
^^^^ |
6.1.2. Dilemma the Fifty-Third. Why Should Gifts Be Given To the Order Rather Than To the Buddha?‘Venerable Nāgasena, the Blessed One said to his mother’s sister, Mahā-Pajāpatī the Gotamī, when she was about to give him a cloth wrapper for use in the rainy season: |
6.1.2. Dilemma the Fifty-Third. Why Should Gifts Be Given To the Order Rather Than To the Buddha?^^^^ |
|
“Give it, O Gotamā, to the Order. If the Order is presented by you with it, then will you have paid homage: thereby alike to the Order and to me.” |
^^^^ |
|
‘But what, Nāgasena? Is not the Tathāgata of greater weight and importance, and more worthy of gifts than even the jewel treasure of the Order, that the Tathāgata should have told his aunt, when about to present him with a wrapper for the rainy season which she herself had carded and pressed and beaten and cut and woven, to give it to the Order! If, Nāgasena, the Tathāgata were really higher and greater and more excellent than the Order, then he would have known that a gift given to him would be most meritorious, and therefore would not have told her to give it to the Order. But inasmuch as the Tathāgata, Nāgasena, puts himself not in the way of gifts to himself, gives no occasion for such gifts, you see that he then told his aunt to give that wrapper rather to the Order.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The quotation you make, O king, is correct, and the Blessed One did so direct his aunt’s gifts. But that was not because an act of reverence paid to himself would bear no fruit, or because he was unworthy to receive gifts, but it was out of kindness and mercy that he, thinking: “Thus will the Order in times to come, when I am gone, be highly thought of;” magnified the excellence which the Order really had, in that he said: “Give it, O Gotamī, to the Order. If you present the Order with it, thus will you have paid homage alike to the Order and to me.” Just as a father, O king, while he is yet alive, exalts in the midst of the assembly of ministers, soldiers, and royal messengers, of sentries, body guards, and courtiers —yea, in the presence of the king himself—the virtues which his son really possesses, thinking: “If established here he will be honoured of the people in times to come;” so was it out of mercy and kindness that the Tathāgata, thinking: “Thus will the Order, in times to come, when I am gone, be highly thought of;” magnified the excellence which the Order really had, in that he said: “Give it, O Gotamī, to the Order. If you present the Order with it, thus will you have paid homage alike to the Order and to me.” |
^^^^ |
|
‘And by the mere gift of a wrapper for the rainy season, the Order, O king, did not become greater than, or superior to, the Tathāgata. just, O king, as when parents anoint their children with perfumes, rub them, bathe them, or shampoo them, does the son by that mere service of theirs become greater than, or superior to, his parents?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, sir! Parents deal with their children as they will, whether the children like it or not. And therefore do they anoint them with perfumes, shampoo, or bathe them.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘And just so, O king, the Order did not become greater than, or superior to, the Tathāgata merely by the fact of that gift; and although the Tathāgata, whether the Order liked it or not, told his aunt to give the wrapper to the Order. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Or suppose, O king, some man should bring a complimentary present to a king, and the king should present that gift to some one else—to a soldier or a messenger, to a general or a chaplain—would that man become greater than, or superior to, the king, merely by the fact that it was he who got the present ?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! That man receives his wage from the king, from the king he gains his livelihood; it was the king who, having placed him in that office, gave him the present.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘And just so, O king, the Order did not become greater than, or superior to, the Tathāgata merely by the fact of that gift. The Order is, as it were, the hired servant of the Tathāgata, and gains its livelihood through the Tathāgata. And it was the Tathāgata who, having placed it in that position, caused the gift to be given it. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And further the Tathāgata, O king, thought thus: “The Order is by its very nature worthy of gifts. I will therefore have this thing, my property though it be, presented to it,” and so he had the wrapper given to the Order. For the Tathāgata, O king, magnifies not the offering of gifts to himself, but rather to whomsoever in the world is worthy of having gifts presented to him. For this was said, O king, by the Blessed One, the god over all gods, in the most excellent Majjhima Nikāya, in the religious discourse entitled Dhamma-dāyāda, when he was exalting the attainment of being content with little: |
^^^^ |
|
“He would become the first of my Bhikkhus, the most worthy of presents and of praise.” |
^^^^ |
|
‘And there is not, O king, in the three worlds any being whatever more worthy of gifts, greater or more exalted or better, than the Tathāgata. It is the Tathāgata who was greatest and highest and best. As it was said, O king, by Māṇava-gāmika the god, in the most excellent Samyutta Nikāya, as he stood before the Blessed One in the midst of the assembly of gods and men: |
^^^^ |
Of the Himalayas Mount White, of planetary orbs the sun, The ocean of all waters, of constellations bright the moon — In all the world of gods and men the Buddha’s the acknowledged Lord!” |
^^^^ |
|
And those verses of Māṇava the god, O king, were well sung, not wrongly sung, well spoken, not wrongly spoken, and approved by the Blessed One. And was it not said by Sāriputta, the Commander of the faith: |
^^^^ |
One Adoration of clasped hands stretched forth —That paid to Him who routs the Evil One, And helps us cross the ocean of our ills!” |
^^^^ |
|
‘And it was said by the Blessed One himself, the god over all gods: |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
6.1.3. Dilemma the Fifty-Fourth. Is It More Advantageous To Be A Layman, Or To Enter the Order?‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: |
6.1.3. Dilemma the Fifty-Fourth. Is It More Advantageous To Be A Layman, Or To Enter the Order?^^^^ |
|
‘Now, Nāgasena, if a layman, clad in white robes, enjoying the pleasures of sense, dwelling in a habitation encumbered with wife and children, making constant use of the sandal wood of Benares, of garlands and perfumes and unguents, accepting gold and silver, wearing a turban inlaid with jewels and gold, can, having reached the Supreme Attainment, win his way to the excellent condition of Arahatship—and if a recluse, with his shaven head and yellow robes, dependent for his livelihood on the alms of other men, perfectly fulfilling the fourfold code of morality, taking upon himself and carrying out the hundred and fifty precepts, conducting himself according to the thirteen extra vows without omitting any one of them, can also, having reached the Supreme Attainment, win his way to the excellent condition of Arahatship—then, Sir, what is the distinction between the layman and the recluse? Your austerity is without effect, your renunciation is useless, your observance of the precepts is barren, your taking of the extra vows is vain. What is the good of your therein heaping up woes to yourselves, if thus in comfort the condition of bliss can be reached?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The words you ascribe to the Blessed One, O king, are rightly quoted. And that is even so. It is the man who has reached to the Supreme Attainment who bears the palm. If the recluse, O king, because he knows that he is a recluse, should neglect the Attainments, then is he far from the fruits of renunciation, far from Arahatship—how much more if a layman, still wearing the habit of the world, should do so! But whether he be a layman, O king, or a recluse, he who attains to the supreme insight, to the supreme conduct of life, he too will win his way to the excellent condition of Arahatship. |
^^^^ |
|
‘But nevertheless, O king, it is the recluse who is the lord and master of the fruit of renunciation. And renunciation of the world, O king, is full of gain, many and immeasurable are its advantages, its profit can no man calculate. just, O king, as no man can put a measure, in wealth, on the value of a wish-conferring gem, Saying: “Such and such is the price of the gem"—just so, O king, is the renunciation of the world full of gain, many and immeasurable are its advantages, its profit can no man calculate—no more, O king, than he could count the number of the waves in the great ocean, and say: “So and so many are the waves in the sea!” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Whatsoever the recluse, O king, may have yet to do, all that doth he accomplish straightway, without delay. And why is that? the recluse, O king, is content with little, joyful in heart, detached from the world, apart from society, earnest in zeal, without a home, without a dwelling-place, righteous in conduct, in action without guile, skilled in duty and in the attainments—that is why whatsoever may lie before him yet to do, that can he accomplish straightway, without delay—just as, the flight of your javelin, O king, is rapid because it is of pure metal, smooth, and burnished, and straight, and without a stain.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
6.1.4. Dilemma the Fifty-Fifth. Asceticism‘Venerable Nāgasena, when the Bodisat was practising austerity, then there was found no other exertion the like of his, no such power, no such battling against evil, no such putting to rout of the armies of the Evil One, no such abstinence in food, no such austerity of life. But finding no satisfaction in strife like that, he abandoned that idea, saying: |
6.1.4. Dilemma the Fifty-Fifth. Asceticism^^^^ |
|
“Not even by this cruel asceticism am I reaching the peculiar faculty, beyond the power of man, arising from insight into the knowledge of that which is fit and noble. May there not be now some other way to wisdom ?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘But then, when weary of that path he had by another way attained to omniscience, he, on the other hand, thus again exhorted and instructed his disciple in that path (he had left, saying): |
^^^^ |
The Buddhas taught devote yourselves with zeal. As a strong elephant a house of reeds, Shake down the armies of the Evil One. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now what, Nāgasena, is the reason that the Tathāgata exhorted and led his disciples to that path which he had himself abandoned, which he loathed?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Both then also, O king, and now too, that is still the only path. And it is along that path that the Bodisat attained to Buddhahood. Although the Bodisat, O king, exerting himself strenuously, reduced the food he took till he had decreased it to nothing at all, and by that disuse of food he became weak in mind, yet when he returned little by little to the use of solid food, it was by that path that before long he attained to Buddhahood. And that only has been the path along which all the Tathāgatas reached to the attainment of the insight of omniscience. Just as food is the support of all beings, as it is in dependence on food that all beings live at ease, just so is that the path of all the Tathāgatas to the attainment of the insight of omniscience. The fault was not, O king, in the exertion, was not in the power, not in the battle waged against evil, that the Tathāgata did not then, at once, attain to Buddhahood. But the fault was in the disuse of food, and the path itself (of austerity) was always ready for use. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, that a man should follow a path in great haste, and by that haste his sides should give way, or he should fall a cripple on the ground, unable to move, would there then be any fault, O king, in the broad earth that that man’s sides had given way?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! the great earth is always ready. How should it be in fault? the fault was in the man’s own zeal which made him fail.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘And just even so, O king, the fault was not in the exertion, not in the power, not in the battle waged against evil, that the Tathāgata did not then, at once, attain to Buddhahood. But the fault was in the disuse of food, and the path itself was always ready— just as if a man should wear a robe, and never have it washed, the fault would not be in the water, which would always be ready for use, but in the man himself. That is why the Tathāgata exhorted and led his disciples along that very path. For that path, O king, is always ready, always right.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
6.1.5. Dilemma the Fifty-Sixth. The Backsliders‘Venerable Nāgasena, this doctrine of the Tathāgatas is mighty, essentially true, precious, excellent, noble, peerless, pure and stainless, clear and faultless. It is not right to admit a layman who is merely a disciple into the Order. He should be instructed as a layman still, till he have attained to the Fruit of the First Path, and then be admitted. And why is this? When these men, still being evil, have been admitted into a religion so pure, they give it up, and return again to the lower state, and by their backsliding the people is led to think: “Vain must be this religion of the Samaṇa Gotama, which these men have given up.” This is the reason for what I say.’ |
6.1.5. Dilemma the Fifty-Sixth. The Backsliders^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, there were a bathing tank, full of pure clear cold water. And some man, dirty, covered with stains and mud, should come there, and without bathing in it should turn back again, still dirty as before. Now in that matter whom would the people blame, the dirty man, or the bathing tank?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The dirty man, Sir, would the people blame, saying: “This fellow came to the bathing tank, and has gone back as dirty as before. How could the bathing tank, of itself, cleanse a man who did not care to bathe? What fault is there in the tank?”’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, has the Tathāgata constructed a bathing tank full of the excellent waters of emancipation—the bath of the good law. Whosoever of conscious discerning beings are polluted with the stains of sin, they, bathing in it, can wash away all their sins. And if any one, having gone to that bathing tank of the good law, should not bathe in it, but turn back polluted as before, and return again to the lower state, it is him the people would blame, and say: “This man entered religion according to the doctrine of the Conquerors, and finding no resting-place within it, has returned again to the lower state. How could the religion of the Conquerors, of itself, cleanse him who would not regulate his life in accordance with it? What fault is there in the system?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Or suppose, O king, that a man afflicted with dire disease should visit a physician skilled in diagnosis, knowing an efficacious and lasting method of cure, and that that man should then not let himself be treated, but go back again as ill as before. Now therein whom would the people blame, the sick man or the doctor?’ |
^^^^ |
|
It is the sick man, Sir, they would blame, saying: “How could the physician, of himself, cure this man, who would not let himself be treated? What fault is there in the doctor?”’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, has the Tathāgata deposited in the casket of his religion the ambrosial medicine (of Nirvāṇa) which is able to entirely suppress all the sickness of sin, thinking: “May all those of conscious sentient beings who are afflicted with the sickness of sin drink of this ambrosia, and so allay all their disease.” And if any one, without drinking the ambrosia, should turn back again with the evil still within him, and return once more to the lower state, it is he whom the people will blame, saying: “This man entered religion according to the doctrine of the Conquerors, and finding no resting-place within it, has returned again to the lower state. How could the religion of the Conquerors, of itself, cure him who would not regulate his life in accordance with it? What fault is there in the system?” |
^^^^ |
|
26. ‘Or suppose, O king, a starving man were to attend at a place where a mighty largesse of food given for charity was being distributed, and then should go away again, still starving, without eating anything. Whom then would the people blame, the starving man, or the feast of piety?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘It is the starving man, Sir, they would blame, saying: “This fellow, though tormented with hunger, still when the feast of piety was provided for him, partook of nothing, and went back as hungry as before. How could the meal, of which he would not eat, enter, of itself, into his mouth? What fault is there in the food? “’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, has the Tathāgata placed the most excellent, good, auspicious, delicate ambrosial food, surpassing sweet, of the realisation of the impermanency of all things, into the casket of his religion, thinking: “May all those of conscious sentient beings who feel within them the torment of sin, whose hearts are deadened by cravings, feeding upon this food, allay every longing that they have for future life in any form, in any world.” And if any one, without enjoying this food, should turn back, still dominated by his cravings, and return once more to the lower state, it is he whom the people will blame, saying: “This man entered religion according to the doctrine of the Conquerors, and finding no resting-place within it, has returned again to the lower state. How could the religion of the Conquerors, of itself, purify him who would not regulate his life in accordance with it? What fault is there in the system?”’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘If the Tathāgata, O king, had let a householder be received into the Order only after he had been trained in the first stage of the Excellent Way, then would renunciation of the world no longer indeed be said to avail for the putting away of evil qualities, for purification of heart—then would there be no longer any use in renunciation. It would be as if a man were to have a bathing tank excavated by the labour of hundreds (of workpeople), and were then to have a public announcement made: “Let no one who is dirty go down into this tank! Let only those whose dust and dirt have been washed away, who are purified and stainless, go down into this tank!” Now would that bath, O king, be of any use to those thus purified and stainless? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! the advantage they would have sought in going into the bath they would have already gained elsewhere. Of what use would the bath be to them then?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, had the Tathāgata ordained that only laymen who had already entered the first stage of the Excellent Way should be received into the Order, then would the advantage they seek in it have been already gained. Of what use would the renunciation be to them then? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Or suppose, O king, that a physician, a true follower of the sages of old, one who carries (in his memory) the ancient traditions and verses, a practical man, skilled in diagnosis, and master of an efficacious and lasting system of treatment, who had collected (from medicinal herbs) a medicine able to cure every disease, were to have it announced: “Let none, Sirs, who are ill come to visit me! Let the healthy and the strong visit me!” Now, would then, O king, those men free from illness and disease, healthy and jubilant, get what they wanted from that physician?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! What men want from a physician, that would they have already obtained otherwise. What use would the physician be to them?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, had the Tathāgata ordained that only those laymen who had already entered the first stage of the Excellent Way should be received into the Order, then would the advantages they seek in it have been already gained elsewhere. Of what use would the renunciation be to them then? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Or suppose, O king, that some had had many hundreds of dishes of boiled milk-rice prepared, and were to have it announced to those about him: ‘Let not, Sirs, any hungry man approach to this feast of charity. Let those who have well fed, the satisfied, refreshed, and satiated, those who have regaled themselves, and are filled with good cheer—let them come to the feast.” Now would any advantage, O king, be derived from the feast by those men thus well fed, satisfied, refreshed, satiated, regaled, and filled with good cheer?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir! the very advantage they would seek in going to the feast, that would they have already attained elsewhere. What good would the feast be to them?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, had the Tathāgata, ordained that only those laymen who had already entered the first stage of the Excellent Way should be received into the Order, thus would the advantages they seek in it have been already gained elsewhere. Of what use would the renunciation be to them? |
^^^^ |
|
‘But notwithstanding that, O king, they who return to the lower state manifest thereby five immeasurably good qualities in the religion of the Conquerors. And what are the five? They show how glorious is the state (which those have reached who have entered the Order), how purified it is from every stain, how impossible it is for the sinful to dwell within it together (with the good), how difficult it is to realise (its glory), how many are the restraints to be observed within it. |
^^^^ |
|
And how do they show the mighty glory of that state? just, O king, as if a man, poor, and of low birth, without distinction, deficient in wisdom, were to come into possession of a great and mighty kingdom, it would not be long before he would be overthrown, utterly destroyed, and deprived of his glory. For he would be unable to support his dignity. And why so? Because of the greatness thereof. just so is it, O king, that whosoever are without distinction, have acquired no merit, and are devoid of wisdom, when they renounce the world according to the religion of the Conquerors, then, unable to bear that most excellent renunciation, overthrown, fallen, and deprived of their glory, they return to the lower state. For they are unable to carry out the doctrine of the Conquerors. And why so? Because of the exalted nature of the condition which that doctrine brings about. Thus is it, O king, that they show forth the mighty glory of that state. |
^^^^ |
|
And how do they show how purified that state is from every stain? just, O king, as water, when it has fallen upon a lotus, flows away, disperses, scatters, disappears, adheres not to it. And why so? Because of the lotus being pure from any spot. Just so, O king, when whosoever are deceitful, tricky, crafty, treacherous, holders of lawless opinions, have been admitted into the religion of the Conquerors, it is not long before they disperse, and scatter, and fall from that pure and stainless, clear and faultless, most high and excellent religion, and finding no standing-place in it, adhering no longer to it, they return to the lower state. And why so? Because the religion of the Conquerors has been purified from every stain. Thus is it, O king, that they show forth the purity of that state from every stain. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And how do they show how impossible it is for the sinful to dwell within it together with the good? just, O king, as the great ocean does not tolerate the continuance in it of a dead corpse, but whatever corpse may be in the sea, that does it bring quickly to the shore, and cast it out on to the dry land. And why so? Because the ocean is The abode of mighty creatures. Just so, O king, when whosoever are sinful, foolish, with their zeal evaporated, distressed, impure, and bad, have been admitted into the religion of the Conquerors, it is not long before they abandon that religion, and dwelling no longer in it—the abode of the mighty, the Arahats, purified, and free from the Great Evils —they return to the lower state. And why so? Because it is impossible for the wicked to dwell in the religion of the Conquerors. Thus is it, O king, that they show forth the impossibility of the sinful to abide within it together with the good. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And how do they show how difficult a state it is to grasp? just, O king, as archers who are clumsy, untrained, ignorant, and bereft of skill, are incapable of high feats of archery, such as hairsplitting, but miss the object, and shoot beyond the mark. And why so? Because of the fineness and minuteness of the horse-hair. just so, O king, when foolish, stupid, imbecile, dull, slow-minded fellows renounce the world according to the doctrine of the Conquerors, then they, unable to grasp the exquisitely fine and subtle distinctions of the Four Truths, missing them, going beyond them, turn back before long to the lower state. And why so? Because it is so difficult to penetrate into the finenesses and subtleties of the Truths. This is how they show forth the difficulty of its realisation. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And how do they show how many are the restraints to be observed within it? just, O king, as a man who had gone to a place where a mighty battle was going on, when, surrounded on all sides by the forces of the enemy, he sees the armed hosts crowding in upon him, will give way, turn back, and take to flight. And why so? Out of fear lest he should not be saved in the midst of so hot a fight. Just so, O king, when whosoever are wicked, unrestrained, shameless, foolish, full of ill-will, fickle, unsteady, mean and stupid, renounce the world under the system of the Conquerors, then they, unable to carry out the manifold precepts, give way, turn back, and take to flight, and so before long return to the lower state. And why so? Because of the multiform nature of the restraints to be observed in the religion of the Conquerors. Thus is it, O king, that they show forth the manifoldness of the restraints to be observed. |
^^^^ |
|
‘As on that best of flowering shrubs, O king, the double jasmine, there may be flowers that have been pierced by insects, and their tender stalks being cut to pieces, they may occasionally fall down. But by their having fallen is not the jasmine bush disgraced. For the flowers that still remain upon it pervade every direction with their exquisite perfume. Just so, O king, whosoever having renounced the world under the system of the Conquerors, return again to the lower state, are, like jasmine flowers bitten by the insects and deprived of their colour and their smell, colourless as it were in their behaviour, and incapable of development. But by their backsliding is not the religion of the Conquerors put to shame. For the members of the Order who remain in the religion pervade the world of gods and men with the exquisite perfume of their right conduct. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Among rice plants that are healthy and ruddy there may spring up a kind of rice plant called Karumbhaka, and that may occasionally fade. But by its fading are not the red rice plants disgraced. For those that remain become the food of kings. Just so, O king, whosoever having renounced the world under the system of the Conquerors return again to the lower state, they, like Karumbhaka plants among the red rice, may grow not, nor attain development, and may even occasionally relapse into the lower state. But by their backsliding is not the religion of the Conquerors put to shame, for the brethren that remain stedfast become fitted even for Arahatship. |
^^^^ |
|
‘On one side, O king, of a wish conferring gem a roughness may arise. But by the appearance of that roughness is not the gem disgraced. For the purity that remains in the gem fills the people with gladness. And just so, O king, whosoever having renounced the world under the system of the Conquerors return again to the lower state, they may be rough ones and fallen ones in the religion. But by their backsliding is not the religion of the Conquerors put to shame, for the brethren who remain stedfast are the cause of joy springing up in the hearts of gods and men. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Even red sandal wood of the purest sort, O king, may become in some portion of it rotten and scentless. But thereby is not the sandal wood disgraced. For that portion which remains wholesome and sweet scatters and diffuses its perfume all around. And just so, O king, whosoever having renounced the world under the system of the Conquerors return again to the lower state, they, like the rotten part of the sandal wood, may be as it were thrown away in the religion. But by their backsliding is not the religion of the Conquerors put to shame. For the brethren who remain stedfast pervade, with the sandal wood perfume of their right conduct, the world of gods and men.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! By one appropriate simile after another, by one correct analogy after another have you most excellently made clear the faultlessness of the system of the Conquerors, and shown it free from blame. And even those who have lapsed make evident how excellent that system is.’ |
^^^^ |
Đầu trang | 1 | 2 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | |