5.1.6. The Dilemma As To ConceptionThis dilemma goes into details which can be best consulted in the Pāli.] |
5.1.6. The Dilemma As To ConceptionThis dilemma goes into details which can be best consulted in the Pāli.] |
5.1.7. The Duration Of the Faith‘Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: “But now the good law, Ānanda, will only stand fast for five hundred years.” But on the other hand the Blessed One declared, just before his death, in response to the question put by Subhadda the recluse: “But if in this system the brethren live the perfect life, then the world would not be bereft of Arahats.” This last phrase is absolute, inclusive; it cannot be explained away. If the first of these statements be correct, the second is misleading, if the second be right the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed question, more confused than the jungle, more powerful than a strong man, more knotty than a knot. It is now put to you. Show the extent of the power of your knowledge, like a leviathan in the midst of the sea.’ |
5.1.7. The Duration Of the Faith^^^ |
|
‘The Blessed One, O king, did make both those statements you have quoted. But they are different one from the other both in the spirit and in the letter. The one deals with the limit of the duration of the doctrine, the other with the practice of a religious life—two things widely distinct, as far removed one from the other as the zenith is from the surface of the earth, as heaven is from purgatory, as good is from evil, and as pleasure is from pain. But though that be so, yet lest your enquiry should be vain, I will expound the matter further in its essential connection.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘When the Blessed One said that the good law would only endure for five hundred years, he said so declaring the time of its destruction, limiting the remainder of its existence. For he said: “The good law, Ānanda, would endure for a thousand years if no women had been admitted to the Order. But now, Ānanda, it will only last five hundred years.” But in so saying, O king, did the Blessed One either foretell the disappearance of the good law, or throw blame on the clear understanding thereof?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir.’ |
^^^^^^ |
‘Suppose, O king, there were a reservoir quite full of fresh cool water, overflowing at the brim, but limited in size and with an embankment running all round it. Now if, when the water had not abated in that tank, a mighty cloud were to rain down rain continually, and in addition, on to the water already in it, would the amount of water in the tank decrease or come to an end?’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir.’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘Now suppose again, O king, that people were to continually supply a mighty fiery furnace with dried cow-dung, and dry sticks, and dry leaves—would that fire go out?’ |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘No indeed, Sir. Rather would it blaze more fiercely, and burn more brightly.’ |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, does the glorious teaching of the Conqueror blaze and shine over the ten thousand world systems by the practice of duty and virtue and morality and purity of life. And if, O king, in addition to that, the children of the Buddha, devoting themselves to the five kinds of spiritual exertion, continue zealous in effort—if cultivating a longing for the threefold discipline, they train themselves therein— if without ceasing they carry out to the full the conduct that is right, and absolutely avoid all that is wrong, and practise righteousness of life—then will this glorious doctrine of the Conqueror stand more and more stedfast as the years roll on, and the world will not be bereft of Arahats. It was in reference to this, O king, that the Master spake when he said: “But if, Subhadda, in this system the brethren continue in perfectness of life, then will the world not be bereft of Arahats.”’ |
^^^^^^ |
|
‘Again, O king, suppose people were to continually polish with fine soft red powder a stainless mirror that was already bright and shining, well polished, smooth, and glossy, would dirt and dust and mud arise on its surface?’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘No indeed—Sir. Rather would it become to a certainty even more stainless than before.’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, is the glorious doctrine of the Conqueror stainless by nature, and altogether free from the dust and dirt of evil. And if the children of the Buddha cleanse it by the virtue arising from the shaking off, the eradication of evil, from the practice of duty and virtue and morality and purity of life, then will this glorious doctrine endure for long, and the world will not be bereft of Arahats. It was in reference to this that the Blessed One spake when he said: “But if, Subhadda, in this system the brethren continue in righteousness of life, then will not the world be bereft of Arahats.” For the teaching of the Master, O king, has its root in conduct, has conduct as its essence, and stands fast so long as conduct does not decline.’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘Venerable Nāgasena, when you speak of the disappearance of the good law, what do you mean by its disappearance?’ |
^^^^^ |
|
‘There are three modes of the disappearance, O king, of a system of doctrine. And what are the three? the decline of attainment to an intellectual grasp of it, the decline of conduct in accordance with it, and the decline of its outward form. When the attainment of it ceases, then even the man who conducts himself aright in it has no clear understanding of it. By the decline of conduct the promulgation of the rules of discipline ceases, only the outward form of the religion remains. When the outward form has ceased, the succession of the tradition is cut off. These are the three forms of the disappearance of a system of doctrine.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘You have well explained, venerable Nāgasena, this dilemma so profound, and have made it plain. You have loosed the knot; you have destroyed the arguments of the adversary, broken them in pieces, proved them wrong—you, O best of the leaders of schools!’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the dilemma as to the duration of the faith. |
^^^^ |
5.1.8. The Buddha’s Sinlessness‘Venerable Nāgasena, had the Blessed One, when he became a Buddha, burnt out all evil in himself, or was there still some evil remaining in him?’ |
5.1.8. The Buddha’s Sinlessness^^^^ |
|
‘He had burnt out all evil. There was none left.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, O king. At Rājagaha a splinter of rock pierced his foot, and once he suffered from dysentery, and once when the humours of his body were disturbed a purge was administered to him, and once when he was troubled with wind the Elder who waited on him (that is Ānanda) gave him hot water.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then, Sir, if the Tathāgata, on his becoming a Buddha, has destroyed all evil in himself—this other statement that his foot was pierced by a splinter, that he had dysentery, and so on, must be false. But if they are true, then he cannot have been free from evil, for there is no pain without Karma. All pain has its root in Karma, it is on account of Karma that suffering arises. This double-headed dilemma is put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, O king. It is not all suffering that has its root in Karma. There are eight causes by which sufferings arise, by which many beings suffer pain. And what are the eight? Superabundance of wind, and of bile, and of phlegm, the union of these humours, variations in temperature, the avoiding of dissimilarities, external agency, and Karma. From each of these there are some sufferings that arise, and these are the eight causes by which many beings suffer pain. And therein whosoever maintains that it is Karma that injures beings, and besides it there is no other reason for pain, his proposition is false.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘But, Sir, all the other seven kinds of pain have each of them also Karma as its origin, for they are all produced by Karma.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘If, O king, all diseases were really derived from Karma then there would be no characteristic marks by which they could be distinguished one from the other. When the wind is disturbed, it is so in one or other of ten ways—by cold, or by heat, or by hunger, or by thirst, or by over eating, or by standing too long, or by over exertion, or by walking too fast, or by medical treatment, or as the result of Karma. Of these ten, nine do not act in a past life or in a future life, but in one’s present existence. Therefore it is not right to say that all pain is due to Karma. When the bile, O king, is deranged it is so in one or other of three ways—by cold, or by heat, or by improper food. When the phlegm is disturbed it is so by cold, or by heat, or by food and drink. When either of these three humours are disturbed or mixed, it brings about its own special, distinctive pain. Then there are the special pains arising from variations in temperature, avoidance of dissimilarities, and external agency. And there is the act that has Karma as its fruit, and the pain so brought about arising from the act done. So what arises as the fruit of Karma is much less than that which arises from other causes. And the ignorant go too far when they say that every pain is produced as the fruit of Karma. No one without a Buddha’s insight can fix the extent of the action of Karma.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now when the Blessed One’s foot was torn by a splinter of rock, the pain that followed was not produced by any other of the eight causes I have mentioned, but only by external agency. For Devadatta, O king, had harboured hatred against the Tathāgata during a succession of hundreds of thousands of births. It was in his hatred that he seized hold of a mighty mass of rock, and pushed it over with the hope that it would fall upon his head. But two other rocks came together, and intercepted it before it had reached the Tathāgata; and by the force of their impact a splinter was torn off, and fell upon the Blessed One’s foot, and made it bleed. Now this pain must have been produced in the Blessed One either as the result of his own Karma, or of some one else’s act. For beyond these two there can be no other kind of pain. It is as when a seed does not germinate—that must be due either to the badness of the soil, or to a defect in the seed. Or it is as when food is not digested—that must be due either to a defect in the stomach, or to the badness of the food.’ |
^^^ |
‘But although the Blessed One never suffered pain which was the result of his own Karma, or brought about the avoidance of dissimilarity, yet he suffered pain from each of the other six causes. And by the pain he could suffer it was not possible to deprive him of life. There come to this body of ours, O king, compounded of the four elements, sensations desirable and the reverse, pleasant and unpleasant. Suppose, O king, a clod of earth were to be thrown into the air, and to fall again on to the ground. Would it be in consequence of any act it had previously done that it would so fall?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir. There is no reason in the broad earth by which it could experience the result of an act either good or evil. It would be by reason of a present cause independent of Karma that the clod would fall to earth again.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well, O king, the Tathāgata should be regarded as the broad earth. And as the clod would fall on it irrespective of any act done by it, so also was it irrespective of any act done by him that that splinter of rock fell upon his foot.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Again, O king, men tear up and plough the earth. But is that a result of any act previously done?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! It is so; and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.1.9. On the Advantages Of Meditation‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say that everything which a Tathāgata has to accomplish that had the Blessed One already carried out when he sat at the foot of the Tree of Wisdom. There was then nothing that he had yet to do, nothing that he had to add to what he had already done. But then there is also talk of his having immediately afterwards remained plunged for three months in ecstatic contemplation. If the first statement be correct, then the second must be false. And if the second be right, then the first must be wrong. There is no need of any contemplation to him who has already accomplished his task. It is the man who still has something left to do, who has to think about it. It is the sick man who has need of medicine, not the healthy; the hungry man who has need of food, not the man whose hunger is quenched. This too is a double-headed dilemma, and you have to solve it!’ |
5.1.9. On the Advantages Of Meditation^^^^ |
|
‘Both statements, O king, are true. Contemplation has many virtues. All the Tathāgatas attained, in contemplation, to Buddhahood, and practised it in the recollection of its good qualities. And they did so in the same way as a man who had received high office from a king would, in the recollection of its advantages, of the prosperity he enjoyed by means of it, remain constantly in attendance on that king—in the same way as a man who, having been afflicted and pained with a dire disease, and having recovered his health by the use of medicine, would use the same medicine again and again, calling to mind its virtue.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘And there are, O king, these twenty and eight good qualities of meditation in the perception of which the Tathāgatas devoted themselves to it. And which are they? Meditation preserves him who meditates, it gives him long life, and endows him with power, it cleanses him from faults, it removes from him any bad reputation giving him a good name, it destroys discontent in him filling him with content, it releases him from all fear endowing him with confidence, it removes sloth far from him filling him with zeal, it takes away lust and ill-will and dullness, it puts an end to pride, it breaks down all doubt, it makes his heart to be at peace, it softens his mind, it makes him glad, it makes him grave, it gains him much advantage, it makes him worthy of reverence, it fills him with joy, it fills him with delight, it shows him the transitory nature of all compounded things, it puts an end to rebirth, it obtains for him all the benefits of renunciation. These, O king, are the twenty and eight virtues of meditation on the perception of which the Tathāgatas devote themselves to it. But it is because The Tathāgatas, O king, long for the enjoyment of the bliss of attainment, of the joy of the tranquil state of Nirvāna, that they devote themselves to meditation, with their minds fixed on the end they aim at. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And there are four, reasons for which the Tathāgatas, O king, devote themselves to meditation. And what are the four? That they may dwell at ease, O king—and on account of the abundance of the advantages of meditation, advantages without drawback—and on account of its being the road to all noble things without exception-and because it has been praised and lauded and exalted and magnified by all the Buddhas. These are the reasons for which the Tathāgatas devote themselves to it. So it is not, great king, because they have anything left to do, or anything to add to what they have already accomplished, but because they have perceived how diversified are the advantages it possesses, that they devote themselves to meditation.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.1.10. The Limit Of Three Months‘Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: “The Tathāgata, Ānanda, has thought out and thoroughly practised, developed, accumulated, and ascended to the very height of the four paths to saintship, and so mastered them as to be able to use them as a means of mental advancement, and as a basis for edification—and he therefore, Ānanda, should he desire it, might remain alive for a Kalpa, or for that portion of a Kalpa which has yet to run.” And again he said: “At the end of three months from this time the Tathāgata will die.” If the first of these statements were true, then the limit of three months must have been false. If the second were true, Then the first must have been false. For the Tathāgatas boast not without an occasion, the Blessed Buddhas speak no misleading words, but they utter truth, and speak sincerely. This too is a double-headed dilemma, profound, subtle, hard to expound. It is now put to you. Tear in sunder this net of heresy, put it on one side, break in pieces the arguments of the adversary!’ |
5.1.10. The Limit Of Three Months^^^^ |
|
‘Both these statements, O king, were made by the Blessed One. But Kalpa in that connection means the duration of a man’s life. And the Blessed One, O king, was not exalting his own power when he said so, but he was exalting the power of Saintship. It was as if a king were possessed of a horse most swift of foot, who could run like the wind. And in order to exalt the power of his speed the king were to say in the presence of all his court-townsfolk and country folk, hired servants and men of war, brahmins, nobles, and officers: “If he wished it this noble steed of mine could cross the earth to its ocean boundary, and be back here again, in a moment!” Now though he did not try to test the horse’s speed in the presence of the court, yet it had that speed, and was, really able to go along over the earth to its ocean boundary in a moment. Just so, O king, the Blessed One spake as he did in praise of the power of saintship, and so spake seated in the midst of gods and men, and of the men of the threefold wisdom and the sixfold insight—the Arahats pure and free from stain—when he said: “The Tathāgata, Ānanda, has thought out and practised, developed, accumulated, and ascended to the very height of the four powers of saintship, and so mastered them as to be able to use them as a means of mental advancement, as a basis for edification. And he therefore, Ānanda, should he desire it, might remain alive for a Kalpa, or the part of a Kalpa that has yet to run.” And there was that power, O king, in the Tathāgata, he could have remained alive for that time: and yet he did not show that power in the midst of that assembly. The Blessed One, O king, is free from desire as respects all conditions of future life, and has condemned them all. For it has been said, O king, by the Blessed One: “Just, O Bhikkhus, as a very small quantity of excrement is of evil smell, so do I find no beauty in the very smallest degree of future life, not even in such for the time of the snapping of the fingers.” Now would the Blessed One, O king, who thus looked upon all sorts and conditions of future life as dung have nevertheless, simply because of his power of Iddhi, harboured a craving desire for future life?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Certainly not, Sir.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! It is so, and I accept it as you say. |
^^^^ |
5.2.1. The Abolition Of Regulations‘Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: “It is by insight, O Bhikkhus, that I preach the law, not without insight.” On the other hand he said of the regulations of the Vinaya: “When I am gone, Ānanda, let the Order, if it should so wish, abolish all the lesser and minor precepts.” Were then these lesser and minor precepts wrongly laid down, or established in ignorance and without due cause, that the Blessed One allowed them to be revoked after his death? If the first statement had been true, the second would have been wrong. If the second statement were really made, Then the first was false. This too is a double-headed problem, fine, subtle, abstruse, deep, profound, and hard to expound. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
5.2.1. The Abolition Of Regulations^^^^ |
|
‘In both cases, O king, the Blessed One said as you have declared. But in the second case it was to test the Bhikkhus that he said it, to try whether, if leave were granted them, they would, after his death, revoke the lesser and minor regulations, or still adhere to them. It runs as if a king of kings were to say to his sons: “This great country, my children, reaches to the sea on every side. It is a hard thing to maintain it with the forces we have at our disposal. So when I am gone you had better, my children, abandon the outlying districts along the border.” Now would the princes, O king, on the death of their father, give up those outlying districts, provinces already in their power?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No indeed, Sir. Kings are grasping. The princes might, in the lust of power, subjugate an extent of country twice or thrice the size of what they had, but they would never give up what they already possessed.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so was it, O king, that the Tathāgata to test the Bhikkhus said: “When I am gone, Ānanda, let the Order, if it should so wish, abolish all the lesser and minor precepts.” But the sons of the Buddha, O king, in their lust after the law, and for emancipation from sorrow, might keep two hundred and fifty regulations, but would never give up any one that had been laid down in ordinary course.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Venerable Nāgasena, when the Blessed One referred to “lesser and minor precepts,” this people might therein be bewildered, and fall into doubt, and find matter for discussion, and be lost in hesitation, as to which were the lesser, and which the minor precepts.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The lesser errors in conduct, O king, are the lesser precepts, and the lesser errors in speech are the minor precepts: and these two together make up therefore “the lesser and minor precepts.” the leading Elders too of old, O king, were in doubt about this matter, and they were not unanimous on the point at the Council held for the fixing of the text of the Scriptures. And the Blessed One foresaw that this problem would arise.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then this dark saying of the Conquerors, Nāgasena, which has lain hid so long, has been now to-day uncovered in the face of the world, and made clear to all.’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the problem as to the revocation of rules. |
^^^^ |
5.2.2. Esoteric Teaching‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “In respect of the truths, Ānanda, the Tathāgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher who keeps something back.” But on the other hand he made no reply to the question put by the son of the Māluṅkya woman. This problem, Nāgasena, will be one of two ends, on one of which it must rest, for he must have refrained from answering either out of ignorance, or out of wish to conceal something. If the first statement be true it must have been out of ignorance. But if he knew, and still did not reply, then the first statement must be false. This too is a double-pointed dilemma. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
5.2.2. Esoteric Teaching^^^^ |
|
‘The Blessed One, O king, made that first statement to Ānanda, and he did not reply to Māluṅkya-putta’s question. But that was neither out of ignorance, nor for the sake of concealing anything. There are four kinds of ways in which a problem may be explained. And which are the four? There is the problem to which an explanation can be given that shall be direct and final. There is the problem which can be answered by going into details. There is the problem which can be answered by asking another. And there is the problem which can be put on one side. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And which, O king, is the problem to which a direct and final solution can be given? It is such as this—"Is form impermanent?” “Is sensation impermanent?” “Is idea impermanent?” “Are the conditions impermanent?” “Is consciousness impermanent?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘And which is the problem which can be answered by going into details? It is such as this—"Is form thus impermanent?” and so on. |
^^^^ |
|
‘And which is the problem which can be answered by asking another? It is such as this—"What then? Can the eye perceive all things?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘And which is the problem which can be put on one side? It is such as this—"Is the universe everlasting?” “Is it not everlasting?” “Has it an end?” “Has it no end?” “Is it both endless and unending?” “Is it neither the one nor the other?” “Are the soul and the body the same thing?” “Is the soul distinct from the body?” “Does a Tathāgata exist after death?” “Does he not exist after death?” “Does he both exist and not exist after death?” “Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?” |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now it was to such a question, one that ought to be put on one side, that the Blessed One gave no reply to Māluṅkya-putta. And why ought such a question to be put on one side? Because there is no reason or object for answering it. That is why it should be put aside. For the Blessed Buddhas lift not up their voice without a reason and without an object.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! Thus it is, and I accept it as you say?’ |
^^^^ |
5.2.3. Death‘Venerable Nāgasena, this too was said by the Blessed One: “All men tremble at punishment, all are afraid of death.” But again he said: “The Arahat has passed beyond all fear.” How then, Nāgasena? does the Arahat tremble with the fear of punishment? Or are the beings in purgatory, when they are being burnt and boiled and scorched and tormented, afraid of that death which would release them from the burning fiery pit of that awful place of woe ? If the Blessed One, Nāgasena, really said that all men tremble at punishment, and all are afraid of death, then the statement that the Arahat has passed beyond fear must be false. But if that last statement is really by him, then the other must be false. This double-headed problem is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
5.2.3. Death^^^^ |
|
‘It was not with regard to Arahats, O king, that the Blessed One spake when he said: “All men tremble at punishment, all are afraid of death.” the Arahat is an exception to that statement, for all cause for fear has been removed from the Arahat. He spoke of those beings in whom evil still existed, who are still infatuated with the delusion of self, who are still lifted up and cast down by pleasures and pains. To the Arahat, O king, rebirth in every state has been cut off, all the four kinds of future existence have been destroyed, every re-incarnation has been put an end to, the rafters of the house of life have broken, and the whole house completely pulled down, the conditions have altogether lost their roots, good and evil have ceased, ignorance has been demolished, consciousness has no longer any seed (from which it could be renewed), all sin has been burnt away, and all worldly conditions have been overcome. Therefore is it that the Arahat is not made to tremble by any fear.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, a king had four chief ministers, faithful, famous, trustworthy, placed in high positions of authority. And the king, on some emergency arising, were to issue to them an order touching all the people in his realm, saying: “Let all now pay up a tax, and do you, as my four officers, carry out what is necessary in this emergency.” Now tell me, O king, would the tremor which comes from fear of taxation arise in the hearts of those ministers?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir, it would not.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, is it with the statement that all men tremble at punishment, all are afraid of death. In that way is it that the Arahat is removed from every fear.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘But, Nāgasena, the word “all” is inclusive, none are left out when it is used. Give me a further reason to establish the point.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, that in some village the lord of the village were to order the crier, saying: “Go, crier, bring all the villagers quickly together before me.” And he in obedience to that order were to stand in the midst of the village and were thrice to call out: “Let all the villagers assemble at once in the presence of the lord!” And they should assemble in haste, and have an announcement made to the lord, saying: “All the villagers, Sire, have assembled. Do now whatsoever you require.” Now when the lord, O king, is thus summoning all the heads of houses, he issues his order to all the villagers, but it is not they who assemble in obedience to the order; it is the heads of houses. And the lord is satisfied therewith, knowing that such is the number of his villagers. There are many others who do not come—women and men, slave girls and slaves, hired workmen, servants, peasantry, sick people, oxen, buffaloes, sheep, and goats, and dogs—but all those do not count. It was with reference to the heads of houses that the order was issued in the words: “Let all assemble.” just so, O king, it is not of Arahats that it was said that all are afraid of death. The Arahat is not included in that statement, for the Arahat is one in whom there is no longer any cause that could give rise to fear.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘There is the non-inclusive expression, O king, whose meaning is non-inclusive, and the non-inclusive expression whose meaning is inclusive; there is the inclusive expression whose meaning is non-inclusive, and the inclusive expression whose meaning is inclusive. And the meaning, in each case, should be accepted accordingly. And there are five ways in which the meaning should be ascertained-by the connection, and by taste, and by the tradition of the teachers, and by the meaning, and by abundance of reasons. And herein “connection” means the meaning as seen in the Sutta itself, “taste” means that it is in accordance with other Suttas, “the tradition of the teachers” means what they hold, “the meaning” means what they think, and “abundance of reasons” means all these four combined.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very well, Nāgasena! I accept it as you say. The Arahat is an exception in this phrase, and it is the rest of beings who are full of fear. But those beings in purgatory, of whom I spoke, who are suffering painful, sharp, and severe agonies, who are tormented with burnings all over their bodies and limbs, whose mouths are full of lamentation, and cries for pity, and cries of weeping and wailing and woe, who are overcome with pains too sharp to be borne, who find no refuge nor protection nor help, who are afflicted beyond measure, who in the worst and lowest of conditions are still destined to a certainty to further pain, who are being burnt with hot, sharp, fierce, and cruel flames, who are giving utterance to mighty shouts and groans born of horror and fear, who are embraced by the garlands of flame which intertwine around them from all the six directions, and flash in fiery speed through a hundred leagues on every side—can those poor burning wretches be afraid of death?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, they can.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, indeed. They like it not. They long to be released from it. It is the power of death of which they are afraid.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now this, Nāgasena, I cannot believe, that they, who want to be released, should be afraid of rebirth. They must surely, Nāgasena, rejoice at the prospect of the very condition that they long for. Convince me by some further reason.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Death, great king, is a condition which those who have not seen the truth are afraid of. About it this people is anxious and full of dread. Whosoever is afraid of a black snake, or an elephant or lion or tiger or leopard or bear or hyena or wild buffalo or gayal, or of fire or water, or of thorns or spikes or arrows, it is in each case of death that he is really in dread, and therefore afraid of them. This, O king, is the majesty of the essential nature of death. And all being not free from sin are in dread and quake before its majesty. In this sense it is that even the beings in purgatory, who long to be released from it, are afraid of death.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, a boil were to arise, full of matter, on a man’s body, and he, in pain from that disease, and wanting to escape from the danger of it, were to call in a physician and surgeon. And the surgeon, accepting the call, were to make ready some means or other for the removal of his disease—were to have a lancet sharpened, or to have sticks put into the fire to be used as cauterisers, or to have something ground on a grindstone to be mixed in a salt lotion. Now would the patient begin to be in dread of the cutting of the sharp lancet, or of the burning of the pair of caustic sticks, or of the application of the stinging lotion?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, he would.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘And suppose, O king, a man who had committed an offence against the crown, when bound with a chain, and cast into a dungeon, were to long for release. And the ruler, wishing to release him, were to send for him. Now would not that man, who had thus offended, and knew it, be in dread of the interview with the king?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, Sir.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Give me another illustration by which I may be able to harmonise (this apparent discrepancy).’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Suppose, O king, a man bitten by a poisonous snake should be afraid, and by the action of the poison should fall and struggle, and roll this way and that. And then that another man, by the repetition of a powerful charm, should compel that poisonous snake to approach to suck the poison back again. Now when the bitten man saw the poisonous snake coming to him, though for the object of curing him, would he not still be in dread of it?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, Sir.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.2.4. Pirit‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One:
Not in the most secluded mountain cleft, Not in the whole wide world is found the spot Where standing one could ‘scape the snare of death.” |
5.2.4. Pirit^^^^ |
|
But on the other hand the Pirit service was promulgated by the Blessed One —that is to say, the Ratana Sutta and the Khanda-parittā and the Mora-parittā and the Dhajagga-parittā and the Āṭānāṭiya-parittā and the Aṅguli-mala-parittā. If, Nāgasena, a man can escape death’s snare neither by going to heaven, nor by going into the midst of the sea, nor by going to the summits of lofty palaces, nor to the caves or grottoes or declivities or clefts or holes in the mountains, then is the Pirit ceremony useless. But if by it there is a way of escape from death, then the statement in the verse I quoted is false. This too is a double-headed problem, more knotty than a knot. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘The Blessed One, O king, said the verse you have quoted, and he sanctioned Pirit. But that is only meant for those who have some portion of their life yet to run, who are of full age, and restrain themselves from the evils of Karma. And there is no ceremony or artificial means for prolonging the life of one whose allotted span of existence has come to an end. just, O king, as with a dry and dead log of wood, dull, and sapless, out of which all life has departed, which has reached the end of its allotted period of life—you might have thousands of pots of water poured over it, but it would never become fresh again or put forth sprouts or leaves. Just so there is no ceremony or artificial means, no medicine and no Pirit, which can prolong the life of one whose allotted period has come to an end. All the medicines in the world are useless, O king, to such a one, but Pirit is a protection and assistance to those who have a period yet to live, who are full of life, and restrain themselves from the evil of Karma. And it is for that use that Pirit was appointed by the Blessed One. just, O king, as a husbandman guards the grain when it is ripe and dead and ready for harvesting from the influx of water, but makes it grow by giving it water when it is young, and dark in colour like a cloud, and full of life—just so, O king, should the Pirit ceremony be put aside and neglected in the case of one who has reached his allotted term of life, but for those who have a period yet to run and are full of vigour, for them the medicine of Pirit may be repeated, and they will profit by its use.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘But, Nāgasena, if he who has a term of life yet to run will live, and he who has none will die, then medicine and Pirit are alike useless.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Have you ever seen, O king, a case of a disease being turned back by medicine?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, several hundred times.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘I have seen, Nāgasena, doctors administer medicines by way of draughts or outward applications, and by that means the disease has been assuaged.’ |
^^^^ |
|
And when, O king, the voice of those who are repeating Pirit is heard, the tongue may be dried up, and the heart beat but faintly, and the throat be hoarse, but by that repetition all diseases are allayed, all calamities depart. Again, have you ever seen, O king, a man who has been bitten by a snake having the poison resorbed under a spell (by the snake who gave the bite) or destroyed (by an antidote) or having a lotion applied above or below the spot ?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, that is common custom to this day in the world.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then what you said that Pirit and medicine are alike useless is wrong.. And when Pirit has been said over a man, a snake, ready to bite, will not bite him, but close his jaws—the club which robbers hold aloft to strike him with will never strike; they will let it drop, and treat him kindly—the enraged elephant rushing at him will suddenly stop—the burning fiery conflagration surging towards him will die out—the malignant poison he has eaten will become harmless, and turn to food—assassins who have come to slay him will become as the slaves who wait upon him—and the trap into which he has trodden will hold him not. |
^^^^ |
|
‘Again, have you never heard, O king, of that hunter who during seven hundred years failed to throw his net over the peacock who had taken Pirit, but snared him the very day he omitted to do so ?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, I have heard of it. The fame of it has gone through all the world.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then what you said about Pirit and medicine being alike useless must be wrong. And have you never heard of the Dānava who, to guard his wife, put her into a box, and swallowing it, carried her about in his stomach. And how a Vidyādhara entered his mouth, and played games with his wife. And how the Dānava when he became aware of it, vomited up the box, and opened it, and the moment he did so the Vidyādhara escaped whither he would ? |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, I have heard that. The fame of it too has gone throughout the world.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well, did not the Vidyādhara escape capture by the power of Pirit?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, that was so.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Yes, I heard that story.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Inasmuch as some, eating too much of that same food, die of cholera.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘So it does not keep all men alive?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, is Pirit a protection to some and not to others. And there are three reasons for its failure—the obstruction of Karma, and of sin, and of unbelief. That Pirit which is a protection to beings loses its protecting power by acts done by those beings themselves. just, O king, as a mother lovingly nourishes the son who has entered her womb, and brings him forth with care. And after his birth she keeps him clean from dirt and stains and mucus, and anoints him with the best and most costly perfumes, and when others abuse or strike him she seizes them and, full of excitement, drags them before the lord of the place. But when her son is naughty, or comes in late, she strikes him with rods or clubs on her knee or with her hands. Now, that being so, would she get seized and dragged along, and have to appear before the lord?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! the problem has been solved, the jungle made clear, the darkness made light, the net of heresy unravelled—and by you, O best of the leaders of schools!’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the dilemma as to Pirit. |
^^^^ |
5.2.5. Māra, the Evil One‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say thus: “The Tathāgata was in the constant receipt of the things necessary for a recluse-robes, food, lodging, and the requisites for the sick.” And again they say: “When the Tathāgata entered the Brahman village called the Five Sāla trees he received nothing, and had to return with his bowl as clean as before.” If the first passage is true the second is false, and if the second passage is true The first is false. This too is a double-headed problem, a mighty crux hard to unravel. It is now put to you. It is for you to solve it.’ |
5.2.5. Māra, the Evil One^^^^ |
|
‘Both statements are true, but when he received nothing that day, that was the work of Māra, the evil one.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Then, Nāgasena, how was it that the merit laid up by the Blessed One through countless aeons of time came to end that day? How was it that Māra, who had only just been produced, could overcome the strength and influence of that merit? In that case, Nāgasena, the blame must fall in one of two ways—either demerit must be more powerful than merit, or the power of Māra be greater than that of the Buddha. The root of the tree must be heavier than the top of it, or the sinner stronger than he who has heaped up virtue.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Great king, that is not enough to prove either the one or the other of your alternatives. Still a reason is certainly desirable in this matter. |
^^^^ |
|
Suppose, O king, a man were to bring a complimentary present to a king of kings—honey or honeycomb or something of that kind. And the king’s doorkeeper were to say to him: “This is the wrong time for visiting the king. So, my good fellow, take your present as quickly as ever you can, and go back before the king inflicts a fine upon you.” And then that man, in dread and awe, should pick up his present, and return in great haste. Now would the king of kings, merely from the fact that the man brought his gift at the wrong time, be less powerful than the doorkeeper, or never receive a complimentary present any more?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir. The doorkeeper turned back the giver of that present out of the surliness of his nature, and one a hundred thousand times as valuable might be brought in by some other device.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Just so, O king, it was out of the jealousy of his nature that Māra, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees. And hundreds of thousands of other deities came up to offer the Buddha the strength-giving ambrosia from heaven, and stood reverencing him with clasped hands and thinking to themselves that they would thus imbue him with vigour.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘That may be so, Nāgasena. The Blessed One found it easy to get the four requisites of a recluse—he, the best in the world—and at the request of gods and men he enjoyed all the requisites. But still Māra’s intention to stop the supply of food to the Blessed One was so far carried out. Herein, Sir, my doubt is not removed. I am still in perplexity and hesitation about this. My mind is not clear how the Tathāgata, the Arahat, the supreme Buddha, the best of all the best in the world of gods and men, he who had so glorious a treasure of the merit of virtue, the unequalled one, unrivalled and peerless—how so vile, mean, insignificant, sinful, and ignoble a being as Māra could put any obstacle in the way of gifts to Him.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘There are four kinds, O king, of obstacles—the obstacle to a gift not intended for any particular person, to a gift set apart for some one, to the gift got ready, and to the enjoyment of a gift. And the first is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the actual gift of a thing put ready to be given away, but not with a view to or having seen any particular donee—an obstacle raised, for instance, by saying: “What is the good of giving it away to any one else?” the second is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the actual gift of food intended to be prepared to be given to a person specified. The third is when any one puts an obstacle in the way when such a gift has been got ready, but not yet accepted. And the fourth is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the enjoyment of a gift already given (and so the property of the donee).’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Now when Māra, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees, the food in that case was neither the property of, nor got ready for, nor intended to be prepared specially for the Blessed One. The obstacle was put in the way of some one who was yet to come, who had not arrived, and for whom no gift was intended. That was not against the Blessed One alone. But all who had gone out that day, and were coming to the village, failed to receive an alms. I know no one, O king, in the world of men and gods, no one among Māras or Brahmas, no one of the class of Brahmans or recluses, who could put any obstacle in the way of an alms intended for, or got ready for, or already given to the Blessed One. And if any one, out of jealousy, were to raise up any obstacle in that case, then would his head split into a hundred or into a thousand pieces.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘There are four things, O king, connected with the Tathāgatas, to which no one can do any harm. And what are the four? To the alms intended for, and got ready for the Blessed One—to the halo of a fathom’s length when it has once spread out from him-to the treasure of the knowledge of his omniscience—and to his life. All these things, O king, are one in essence—they are free from defect, immovable, unassailable by other beings, unchangeable by other circumstances. And Māra, the evil one, lay in ambush, out of sight, when he possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees. It was as when robbers, O king, hiding out of sight in the inaccessible country over the border, beset the highways. But if the king caught sight of them, do you think those robbers would be safe?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir, he might have them cut into a hundred or a thousand pieces with an axe.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well, just so it was, hiding out of sight, that Māra possessed them. It was as when a married woman, in ambush, and out of sight, frequents the company of her paramour. But if, O king, she were to carry on her intrigues in her husband’s presence, do you think she would be safe?’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘No, Sir, he might slay her, or wound her, or put her in bonds, or reduce her to slavery.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Well. It was like that, hiding out of sight, that Māra possessed them. But if, O king, he had raised any obstacle in the case of an alms intended for, got ready for, or in possession of the Blessed One, then his head would have split into a hundred or a thousand pieces.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘That is so, Nāgasena. Māra, the evil one, acted after the manner of robbers, he lay in ambush, possessing the Brahmans and householders of the Five Sāla trees. But if the same Māra, the evil one, had interfered with any alms intended for, or made ready for the Blessed One, or with his partaking thereof, then would his head have been split into a hundred or a thousand pieces, or his bodily frame have been dissipated like a handful of chaff.’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
5.2.6. Unconscious Crime‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say: “Whosoever deprives a living being of life, without knowing that he does so, he accumulates very serious demerit.” But on the other hand it was laid down by the Blessed One in the Vinaya: “There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance.” If the first passage is correct, the other must be false; and if the second is right, the first must be wrong. This too is a double-pointed problem, hard to master, hard to overcome. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ |
5.2.6. Unconscious Crime^^^^ |
|
‘Both the passages you quote, O king, were spoken by the Blessed One. But there is a difference between the sense of the two. And what is that difference? There is a kind of offence which is committed without the co-operation of the mind, and there is another kind which has that co-operation. It was with respect to the first of the two that the Blessed One said: “’There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance.”’ |
^^^^ |
|
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ |
^^^^ |
|
Here ends the dilemma as to sins in ignorance. |
^^^^ |
Đầu trang | 1 | 2 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|
Cập nhập ngày:
Thứ Năm 1-9-2022 |
|