The Questions of King Milinda 4.2

The Abolition of Regulations Chapter 2

‘Venerable Nâgasena, 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, Ânanda, 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? Ifthe 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.’

‘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 Tathagata to test the Bhikkhus said: When I am gone, Ânanda, 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.’ 3. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, 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 204 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 2, 4. 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, Nagasena, 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.

Esoteric Teaching

‘Venerable Nagasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “In respect of the truths, Ananda, the Tathagata 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 Mâlunkya woman. This problem, Nâgasena, 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.’

‘The Blessed One, O king, made that first statement to Ananda, and he did not reply to Malunky4-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 Confections 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" “Hasitnoend” “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 Tathâgata 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 Mâlunkyâ-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, Nâgasena! Thus it is, and I accept it as you say' [Here ends the dilemma as to keeping some things back.]

Death

Venerable Nagasena, 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, Nagasena? 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, Nâgasena, 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.’

‘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 Confections 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.’ ‘But why not’. ‘They have been appointed by the king to high office. Taxation does not affect them, they are beyond taxation. Itwas the rest that the king referred to when he gave the order: Let all pay tax.”’ ‘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, Nâgasena, 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 thelord" 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.’ IO. 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, Nagasena! 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,’ ‘But, venerable Nagasena, is not purgatory a place of certain pain? And, if so, why should the beings in it be afraid of death, which would release them from that certain pain? What! Are they fond of purgatory’ ‘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, Nagasena, I cannot believe, that they, who want to be released, should be afraid of rebirth. They must surely, Nâgasena, rejoice at the prospect of the very condition that they long for. Convince me by some further reason V’

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 ina 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.’ ‘But if the sick man, who wants to be free from his ailment, can fall into dread by the fear of pain, just so can the beings in purgatory, though they long to be released from it, fall into dread by the fear of death.'

‘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.' ' ‘But if so, then can also the beings in purgatory, though they long to be released from it, yet be afraid of death.’ ‘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. Well, it is just so with the beings in purgatory. = ? On this belief the 69th Gâtaka is founded. See Fausboll, vol i, pp. 310, 311 (where, as Mr. Trenckner points out, we must read in the verse the same word pa££4âAam as we have here). MEE A eui c om Death is a thing disliked by all beings. And therefore are they in dread of it though they want to be released from purgatory.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I m it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the fear of death.]

PrRIT

‘Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “Not in the sky, not in the ocean's midst, 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 1." But on the other hand the Pirit service was promulgated by the Blessed One—that is to say, the. Ratana Sutta and the Khanda-paritta and the Moraparittà and the Dhaagga-paritta and the Atânâtiya-parittà and the Anguli-mala-paritta. If, Nâgasena, 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 onewhose 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, Nâgasena, 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.’ ‘Then, O king, your statement as to the inefficiency of Pirit and medicine must be wrong.’ ‘I have seen, Nâgasena, 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 Dânava? who, to guard his wife, put her into a box, and swallowing it, carried her about in his stomach. And how a Vidyâdhara! entered his mouth, and played games with his wife. And how the Dânava when he became aware of it, vomited up the box, and opened it, and the moment he did so the Vidyâdhara escaped whither he would 2?’ ‘Yes, I have heard that. The fame of it too has gone throughout the world.’ ‘Well, did not the' Vidyadhara escape capture by Yes, that was so.’ ‘Then there must be power in Pirit. And have you heard of that other Vidyâdhara who got into the harem of the king of Benares, and committed adultery with the chief queen, and was caught, and then became invisible, and got away?' ‘Yes, I heard that story.’ ‘Well, did not he too escape capture by the power of Pirit? Yes, Sir’ ‘Then, O king, there must be power in Pirit.’

‘Venerable Nagasena, is Pirit a protection to everybody’ ‘To some, not to others.’ ‘Then it is not always of use’ ‘Does food keep all people alive’ ‘Only some, not others.’ ‘But why not’ ‘Inasmuch as some, eating too much of that same food, die of cholera.’ ‘So it does not keep all men alive’ ‘There are two reasons which make it destroy life—over-indulgence in.it, and weakness of digestion. And even life-giving food may be made poisonous by an evil spell.’ 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/’ But why not' ‘Because the boy was in fault.’ ‘Just in the same way, O king, will Pirit which is a protection to beings, yet, by their own fault, turn against them.’ ‘Very good, Nâgasena! The problem has been solved, the jungle made clear, the darkness made light, the net of heresy of the leaders of schools—!’ [Here ends the dilemma as to Pirit.]

Mâra, the Evil One

‘Venerable Nâgasena, your people say thus: “The Tathagata was in the constant receipt of the things necessary for a recluse—robes, food, lodging, and the requisites for the sick." And again "ee say: “When the Tathagata entered the Brahman village called the Five Sala 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 E to.‘solve it.’ 21. 'Both statements are true, but when he re- Ed nothing that day, that was the work of Mâra, the evil one.’ ‘Then, Nagasena, 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 Mâra, who had only just been produced, could overcome the strength and influence of that merit? In that case, Nâgasena, the blame must fall in one of two ways—either demerit must be more powerful than merit, or the power of Mâra 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 toa 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 Mâra, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sâla 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, Nâgasena. 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 Mâra'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 Tathagata, 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 Mara 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 Mara, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sâla 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 Mâras 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 Tathagatas, 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 Mara, the evil one, lay in ambush, out of sight, when he possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sala 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 Mara 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 Mara 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, Nâgasena. Mara, the evil one, acted after the manner of robbers, he lay in ambush, possessing the Brahmans and householders of the Five Sala trees. But if the same Mara, 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, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.' [Here ends the dilemma as to Mâra's interference with alms.]

Unconscious Crime

‘Venerable Nâgasena, 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.’

‘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, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.' [Here ends the dilemma.as to sins in ignorance.]

The Buddha and His Followers

‘Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “Now the Tathagata thinks not, Ananda, that is he who should lead the brotherhood, or that the Order is dependent upon him." But on the other hand when describing the virtues and the nature of Metteyya, the Blessed One, he said thus: “He will be the leader of a brotherhood several thousands in number, as I am now the leader of a brotherhood several hundreds in number." If the first statement be right, then the second is wrong. If the second passage is right, the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.'

‘You quote both passages correctly, O king. But in the dilemma that you put the sense in the one passage is inclusive, in the other it is not. It is not the Tathâgata, O king, who seeks after a following, but the followers who seek after him. It is a mere commonly received opinion, O king, that “This is I,” or “This is mine,” it is not a transcendental truth! Attachment is a frame of mind put away by the Tathagata, he has put away clinging, he is free from the delusion that “This is mine,” he lives only to be a help to others’. Just as the earth, O king, is a support to the beings in the world, and an asylum to them, and they depend -upon it, but the broad earth has no longing after them in the idea that “These belong to me "—just so is the Tathâgata a support and an asylum to all beings, but has no longing after them in the idea that “These belong to me." And just as a mighty rain cloud, O king, pours out its rain, and gives nourishment to grass and trees, to cattle and to men, and maintains the lineage thereof, and all these creatures depend for their livelihood upon its rain, but the cloud has no feelings of longing in the idea that “These are mine "—just so does the Tathâgata give all beings to know what are good qualities and maintains them in goodness, and all beings have their life in him, but the Tathâgata has no feelings of longing in the idea that These are mine. And why is it so? Because of his having abandoned all self-regard. ‘Very good, Nâgasena! The problem has been well solved by variety of examples. The jungle has been made open, the darkness has been turned 32. SCHISM. 227 to light, the arguments of the adversaries have been broken down, insight has been awakened in the sons of the Conqueror.' [Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha and his following:.]

ScHIsM

‘Venerable Nagasena, your people say: “The Tathagata is a person whose following can never be broken up." And again they say: “At one stroke Devadatta seduced five hundred of the brethren V.” If the first be true the second is false, but if the second be correct then the first is wrong. This too is a double-pointed problem, profound, hard to unravel, more knotty than a knot. By it these people are veiled, obstructed, hindered, shut in, and enveloped. Herein show your skill as against the arguments of the adversaries.’

Both statements, O king, are correct. But the latter is owing to the power of the breach maker. Where there is one to make the breach, a mother will be separated from her son, and the son will break with the mother, or the father with the son and the son with the father, or the brother from the sister and the sister from the brother, or friend from friend. A ship pieced together with timber of all sorts is broken up by the force of the violence of the waves, and a tree in full bearing and full of sap is broken down by the force of the violence of the wind, and gold of the finest sort is divided by bronze. But it is not the intention of the wise, it is not the will of the Buddhas, it is not the desire of those who are learned that the following of the Tathagata should be broken up. And there is a special sense in which it is said that that cannot be. It is an unheard-of thing, so far as I know, that his following could be broken up by anything done or taken, any unkindly word, any wrong action, any injustice, in all the conduct, wheresoever or whatsoever, of the Tathagata himself. In that sense his following is invulnerable. And you yourself, do you know of any instance in all the ninefold word of the Buddha of anything done by a Bodisat which broke up the following of the Tathagata’ ‘No, Sir. Such a thing has never been seen or heard in the world. It is very good, Nâgasena, what you say: and I accept it so.' [Here ends the dilemma as to schism.] Here ends the Second Chapter. [Precedence of the Dharma] I. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “For it is the Dhamma, O Vâsettha, which is ‘the best in the world) as regards both what we now see, and what is yet to come" But again (according to your people) the devout layman who has entered the Excellent Way; for whom the possibility of rebirth in any place of woe has passed away, who has attained to insight, and to whom the doctrine is known, even such a one ought to salute and to rise from his seat in token of respect for, and to revere, any member of the Order,though a novice,and though he be unconverted. Now if the Dhamma be the best that rule of conduct is wrong, but if that be right then the first statement must be wrong. This too is a double-pointed problem. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 2. ‘The Blessed One said what you have quoted, and you have rightly described the rule of conduct. But there is a reason for that rule, and that is this. There are these twenty personal qualities, making up the Sama;aship of a Samaza, and these two outward signs, by reason of which the Samaza is worthy of salutation, and of respect, and of reverence. And what are they? The best form of self-restraint, the—highest kind of self-control, right conduct, calm manners 3, mastery over (his deeds and words *), subjugation (of his senses), long-suffering *, sympathy’, ! Lingani. See above, IV, 1, 61. ? Aggo niyamo. Hinati-kumburé takes agga in the sense of Arahatship: ‘Niwan dena pratipattiyen yukta bawa’ Niyama is a self-imposed vow. ? Vihâra, which the Sinhalese glosses by: ‘Sansun iriyâpatha wiharazayen yukta ba wa, (‘because he continues in the practice of tranquil deportment.") t Samyama. ‘Kaya wâk samyamayen yukta bawa’ ë Samvaro. ‘Indriya samvarayen yukta bawa’ € Khanti, which the Sinhalese repeats. 3. ‘And moreover, O king, it is because he knows that not only are all these twenty personal qualities which go to make a Samara, and the two outward signs, found in the Bhikkhu, but that he carries them ! N’atthi me so samayo ti: E sâmâgri lâbhaya mata noetoeyi sitâ, on, and trains others in them, that the converted layman, realising that he has no part in that tradition 1, in that maintenance of the faith, thinks it right to reverence and to show respect to the converted Bhikkhu. Just, O king, as a royal prince who learns his knowledge, and is taught the duties of a Khattiya, at the feet of the Brahman who acts as family chaplain, when after a time he is anointed king, pays reverence and respect to his master in the thought of his being the teacher, and the carrier on of the traditions of the family, so is it right for the converted Bhikkhu to do reverence and to pay respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu.’ 4. ‘And moreover, O king, you may know by this fact the greatness and the peerless glory of the condition of the Bhikkhus—that if a layman, a disciple of the faith, who has entered upon the Excellent Way, should attain to the realisation of Arahatship, one of two results must happen to him, and there is no other—he must either die away on that very day, or take upon himself the condition of a Bhikkhu. For immovable, O king, is that state of renunciation, glorious, and most exalted—I mean the condition of being a member of the Order’ ‘Venerable Nâgasena, this subtle problem has been thoroughly unravelled by your powerful and great wisdom. No one else could solve it so unless he were wise as you.’ [Here ends the problem as to the precedence of the Dharma.] f 234 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. TV, 3, 5. [The Harm of Preaching] 5. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, you Bhikkhus say that the Tathâgata averts harm from all beings, and does them good. And again you say that when he was preaching the discourse based on the simile of the burning fire? hot blood was ejected from the mouths of about sixty Bhikkhus. By his delivery of that discourse he did those Bhikkhus harm and not good. So if the first statement is correct, the second is false; and if the second is correct, the first is false. This too is a double-pointed problem put to you, which you have to solve.’ 6. ‘Both are true. What happened to them was not the Tathâgata's doing, but their own.’ But, Nâgasena, if the Tathâgata had not delivered that discourse, then would they have vomited up hot blood’ ‘No. When they took wrongly what he said, then was there a burning kindled within them, and hot blood was ejected from their mouths.' ‘Then.that must have happened, Nâgasena, through the act of the Tathâgata, it must have been the Tathâgata who was the chief cause? to destroy them. Suppose a serpent, Nâgasena, had crept into an anthill, and a man in want of earth were to break into the anthill, and take the earth of it away. And by his doing so the entrance-hole to the anthill were closed up, and the snake were to die in consequence from want of air. Would not the serpent have been killed by that man’s action’ ‘Yes, O king.’ ‘Just so, Nagasena, was the Tathagata the prime cause of their destruction.’ 7. ‘When the Tathagata delivered a discourse, O king, he never did so either in flattery or in malice. In freedom both from the one and from the other did he speak. And they who received it aright were made wise’, but they who received it wrongly, fell. Just, O king, as when a man shakes a mango tree or a jambu tree or a mee tree, such of the fruits on it as are full of sap and strongly fastened to it remain undisturbed, but such as have rotten stalks, and are loosely attached, fall to the ground—so was it with his preaching. It was, O king, as when a husbandman, wanting to grow a crop of wheat, ploughs the field, but by that ploughing many hundreds and thousands of blades of grass are killed—or it was as when men, for the sake of sweetness, crush sugarcane in a mill, and by their doing so such small creatures as pass into the mouth of the mill are crushed also—so was it that the Tathâgata making wise those whose minds were prepared, preached the Dhamma without flattery and without malice. And they who received it aright were made wise, but they who received it wrongly, fell.' 8. Then did not those Bhikkhus fall, Nâgasena, just because of that discourse’ ‘How, then, could a carpenter by doing nothing to a piece of timber, and simply laying it by’, make it straight and fit for use’ ‘No, Sir. He would have to get rid of the bends out of it, if he wanted it straight and ready for use.’ ‘Just so, O king, the Tathagata could not, by merely watching over his disciples, have opened the eyes of those who were ready to see. But by getting rid of those who took the word wrongly he saved those prepared to be saved. And it was by their own act and deed, O king, that the evil-minded fell; just as a plantain tree, or a bambu, or a she-mule are destroyed by that to which they themselves give birth. And just, O king, as it is by their own acts that robbers come to have their eyes plucked out, or to impalement, or to the scaffold, just so were the evil-minded destroyed by their own act, and fell from the teaching of the Conqueror.’ 9. ‘And so with those sixty Bhikkhus, they fell neither by the act of the Tathagata nor of any one else, but solely by their own deed *. Suppose, O king, a man were to give ambrosia to all the people, and they, eating of it, were to become healthy and long-lived and free from every bodily ill. But one man, on eating it, were by his own bad digestion, to die. Would then, O king, the man who gave away the ambrosia be guilty therein of any offence' ‘No, Sir.’ ‘Just so, O king, does the Tathagata present the gift of his ambrosia to the men and gods in the ten thousand world systems; and those beings who are capable of doing so are made wise by the nectar of his law, while they who are not are destroyed and fall. Food, O king, preserves the lives of all beings. But some who eat of it die of cholera. Is the man who feeds the hungry guilty therein of any offence’ 4 No, Sir,’ ‘Just so, O king, does the Tathagata present the gift of his ambrosia to the men and gods in the ten thousand world systems; and those beings who are capable of doing so are made wise by the nectar of his law, while they who are not are destroyed and fall.’ ‘Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma on the harm resulting from preaching.] [The Secrets of a Tathâgata] 11. [This dilemma treats of one of the thirty bodily signs of a 'great man' (Mahâpurusha) supposed to be possessed by every Tathâgata, but as it deals with matters not usually spoken of in this century, it is best read in the original.] [The Foolish Fellow] 15. Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Elder Sâriputta, the commander of the faith: “The 18. 238 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 16. Tathagata, brethren, is perfect in courtesy of speech. There is no fault of speech in the Tathagata concerning which he should have to take care that no one else should know it," And on the other hand the Tathagata, when promulgating the first Paraika on the occasion of the offence of Sudinna the Kalanda 2, addressed him with harsh words, calling him a useless fellow?*. And that Elder, on being so called, terrified with the fear of his teacher *, and overcome with remorse, was unable to comprehend the Excellent Way *. Now if the first statement be correct, the allegation that the Tathâgata called Sudinna the Kalanda a useless fellow must be false. But if that be true, then the first statement must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 16. ‘What Sâriputta the Elder said is true, O king. And the Blessed One called Sudinna a useless fellow on that occasion. But that was not out of rudeness of disposition *, it was merely pointing out the real nature (of his conduct) in a way that would do him no harm", And what herein is meant by “pointing out the real nature.” If any man, O king, in this birth does not attain to the perception of the Four Truths, then is his manhood (his being born as a man) in vain, but if he acts differently he will become different. Therefore is it that he is called a useless fellow And so the Blessed One addressed Sudinna the Kalanda with words of truth, and not with words apart from the facts.’ 17. ‘But, Nagasena, though a man in abusing another speaks the truth, still we should inflict a small’ fine upon him. For he is guilty of an offence, inasmuch as he, although for something real, abused him by the use of words that might lead to a breach (of the peace) *.' Have you ever heard, O king, of a people bowing down before, or rising up from their seats in respect for, or showing honour to, or bringing the complimentary presents (usually given to officials) to a criminal' No, if a man have committed a crime of whatever sort or kind, if he be really worthy of reproof and punishment, they would rather behead him, or tor- 240 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3,18. ture him, or bind him with bonds, or put him to death, or deprive him of his goods *.’ ‘Did then the Blessed One, O king, act with justice or not’ ‘With justice, Sir, and in a most fit and proper way. And when, Nâgasena, they hear of it the world of men and gods will be made tender of conscience, and afraid of falling into sin, struck with awe at the sight of it, and still more so when they themselves associate with wrong-doers, or do wrong.’ 18. Now would a physician, O king, administer pleasant things as a medicine in a case where all the humours of the body were affected, and the whole frame was disorganised and full of disease' ‘No. Wishing to put an end to the disease he would give sharp and scarifying drugs.’ ‘In the same way, O king, the Tathagata bestows admonition for the sake of suppressing all the diseases of sin. And the words of the Tathagata, even when stern, soften men and make them tender. Just as hot water, O king, softens and makes tender anything capable of being softened, so are the words of the Tathagata, even when stern, yet as full of benefit, and as full of pity as the words of a father would be to his children. Just, O king, as the drinking of evil-smelling decoctions, the swallowing of nasty drugs, destroys the weaknesses of men’s bodies, so are the words of the Tathagata, even when stern, bringers of advantage and laden with pity. And just, O king, as a ball of cotton falling on a man raises no bruise, so do the words of the Tathâgata, even when stern, do no harm.’ ‘Well have you made this problem clear by many a simile. Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [End of the dilemma as to the Buddha’s harsh words to Sudinna.] [The Tree Talking] 19. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, the Tathâgata said: Brahman! why do you ask an unconscious thing, Which cannot hear you, how it does to-day? Active, intelligent, and full of life, How can you speak to this so senseless thing— This wild Palâsa tree? And on the other hand he said: And thus the Aspen tree then made reply: ‘I, Bhâradvâga, can speak too. Listen to me. 325 Now if, Nâgasena, a tree is an unconscious thing, it must be false that the Aspen tree spoke to Bharadvaa. But if that is true, it must be false to say that a tree is unconscious. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 20. ‘The Master said, Nagasena, that a tree is unconscious. And the Aspen tree conversed with Bhâradvâga. But that last is said, O king, by a common form of speech. For though a tree being unconscious cannot talk, yet the word “tree” is used as a designation of the dryad who dwells therein, and in that sense that “the tree talks” is a well-known expression. Just, O king, as a waggon laden with corn is called a corn-waggon. But it is not made of corn, it is made of wood, yet because of the corn being heaped up in it the people use the expression “corn-waggon.” Or just, O king, as when a man is churning sour milk the common expression is that he is churning butter. But it is not butter that he is churning, but milk, Or just, O king, as when a man is making something that does not exist the common expression is that he is making that thing which all the while as yet is not, but people talk of the work as accomplished before it is done. And the Tathagata, when expounding the Dhamma, does so by means of the. phraseology which is in common use among the people.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the talking tree.] [The Buddha's Last Illness] 21. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Elders who held the Recitation: “When he had eaten Aunda’s alms, The coppersmith’s,—thus have I heard,— 'The Buddha felt that sickness dire, That sharp pain even unto death." And afterwards the Blessed One said: “These two offerings of food, Ananda, equal, of equal fruit, and of equal result, are of much greater fruit and much greater result than any others" Now if sharp sickness fell upon the Blessed One, Nagasena, after he had partaken of Kunda’s alms, and sharp pains arose within him even unto death, then that other statement must be wrong. But if that is right then the first must be wrong. How could that alms, Nâgasena, be of great fruit when it turned to poison, gave rise to disease, put an end to the period of his then existence, took away his life? Explain this to me to the refutation of the adversaries. The people are in bewilderment about this, thinking that the dysentery must have been caused by his eating too much, out of greediness.’ 22. ‘The Blessed One said, O king, that there were two almsgivings equal, of equal fruit, and equal result, and of much greater fruit, and much greater result than any others,—that which, when a Tathagata has partaken of it, he attains tó supreme and perfect Buddhahood (Enlightenment), and that when he has partaken of which, he passes away by that utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind. For that alms is full of virtue, full of advantage. The gods, O king, shouted in joy and gladness at the thought: “This is the last meal the Tathâgata will take," and communicated a divine power of nourishment to that tender 244. THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV; 35 223 pork! And that was itself in good condition, light, pleasant, full of flavour, and good for digestion. It was not because of it that any sickness fell upon ` the Blessed One, but it was because of the extreme weakness of his body, and because of the period of life he had to live having been exhausted, that the disease arose, and grew worse and worse—just as when, O king, an ordinary fire is burning, if fresh fuel be supplied, it will burn up still more—or as when a stream is flowing along as usual, if a heavy rain falls, it will become a mighty river with a great rush of water—or as when the body is of its ordinary girth, if more food be eaten, it becomes broader than before. So this was not, O king, the fault of the food that was presented, and you can not impute any harm to it.’ 23. ‘But, venerable Nâgasena, why is it that those two gifts of food are so specially meritorious? ‘Because of the attainment of the exalted conditions which resulted from them ',' ‘Of what conditions, Nâgasena, are you speaking’ ‘Of the attainment of the nine successive states which were passed through at first in one order, and then in the reverse order.' ‘It was on two days, was it not, Nâgasena, that the Tathâgata attained to those conditions in the highest degree’ ‘Yes, O king? ‘It is a most wonderful thing, Nâgasena, and a most strange, that of all the great and glorious gifts which were bestowed upon our Blessed One not one can be compared with these two almsgivings. Most marvellous is it, that even as those nine successive conditions are glorious, even so are those gifts made, by their glory, of greater fruit, and of greater advantage than any others. Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha’s last illness.] [Adoration of Relics] 24. ‘Venerable Nagasena, the Tathagata said: “Hinder not yourselves, Ananda, by honouring the remains of the Tathagata.” And on the other hand he said: “Honour that relic of him who is worthy of honour, Acting in that way you go from this world to heaven 2.” Now if the first injunction was right the second must be wrong, and if the second is right the first must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 25. ‘Both the passages you quote were spoken by the Blessed One. But it was not to all men, it was to the sons of the Conqueror? that it was said: “Hinder not yourselves, Ananda, by honouring the remains of the Tathâgata +” Paying reverence is not the work of the sons of the Conqueror, but rather the grasping of the true nature of all compounded things, the practice of thought, contemplation in accordance with the rules of Satipatthana, the seizing of the real essence of all objects of thought, the struggle against evil, and devotion to their own (spiritual) good. These are things which the sons of the Conqueror ought to do, leaving to others, whether gods or men, the paying of reverence V 26. And that is so, O king, just as it is the business of the princes of the earth to learn all about elephants, and horses, and chariots, and bows, and rapiers, and documents, and the law of property, to carry on the traditions of the Khattiya clans, and to fight themselves and to lead others in war, while husbandry, merchandise, and the care of cattle aré the business of other folk, ordinary Vessas and Suddas.—Or just as the business of Brahmins and their sons is concerned with the Rig-veda, the Yaur-veda, the Sâma-veda, the Atharva-veda, with the knowledge of lucky marks (on the body), of legends, Purâzas, lexicography *, prosody, phonology, verses, grammar, etymology, astrology, interpretation of omens, and of dreams, and of signs, study of the six Vedângas, of eclipses of the sun and moon, of the prognostications to be drawn from the flight of comets, the thunderings of the gods, the junctions of planets, the fall of meteors, earthquakes, conflagrations, and signs in the heavens and on the earth, the study of arithmetic, of cas- 248 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 27. uistry, of the interpretation of the omens to be drawn from dogs, and deer, and rats, and mixtures of liquids, and the sounds and cries of birds—while husbandry, merchandise, and the care of cattle are the business of other folk, ordinary Vessas and Suddas. So it was, O king, in the sense of “Devote not yourselves to such things as are not your business, but to such things as are so" that the Tathâgata was speaking when he said: “Hinder not yourselves, Ananda, by honouring the remains of the Tathagata.” And if, O king, he had not said so, then would the Bhikkhus have taken his bowl and his robe, and occupied themselves with paying reverence to the Buddha through them!’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you Say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to reverence to relics.] [The Splinter of Rock] 27. ‘Venerable Nagasena, you Bhikkhus say that: “When the Blessed One walked along, the earth, unconscious though it is, filled up its deep places, and made its steep places plain." And on the other hand you say that a splinter of rock 249 rock grazed his foot! When that splinter was falling on his foot why did it not, then, turn aside? If it be true that the unconscious earth makes its deep places full and its steep places plain for him, then it must be untrue that the splinter of rock hurt his foot. But if the latter statement be true, then the first must be false. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 28. Both statements, O king, are true. But that splinter of rock did not fall of itself, it was cast down through the act of Devadatta. "Through hundreds of thousands of existences, O king, had Devadatta borne a grudge against the Blessed One. It was through that hatred that he seized hold of a mighty mass of rock, and pushed it over with the hope that it would fall upon the Buddha's head. But two other rocks came together, and intercepted it before it reached the Tathâgata, and by the force of their impact a splinter was torn off, and fell in such a direction that it struck the Blessed One's foot.’ 29. But, Nâgasena, just as two rocks intercepted that mighty mass, so could the splinter have been intercepted.’ ‘But a thing intercepted, O king, can escape, slip through, or be lost—as water does, through the fingers, when it is taken into the hand—or milk, or buttermilk, or honey, or ghee, or oil, or fish curry, 250 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 30. ——2 or gravy—or as fine, subtle, minute, dusty grains of sand do, through the fingers, if you close your fist on them—or as rice will escape sometimes when you have taken it into your fingers, and are putting it into your mouth.’ 30. Well, let that be so, Nagasena. I admit that the rock was intercepted. But the splinter ought at least to have paid as much respect to the Buddha as the earth did.’ There are these twelve kinds of persons, O king, who pay no respect—the lustful man in his lust, and the angry man in his malice, and the dull man in his stupidity, and the puffed-up man in his pride, and the bad man in his want of discrimination, and the obstinate man in his want of docility, and the mean man in his littleness, and the talkative man in his vanity, and the wicked man in his cruelty, and the wretched man in his misery, and the gambler because he is overpowered by greed, and the busy man in his search after gain. But that splinter, just as it was broken off by the impact of the rocks, fell by chance! in such a direction that it struck against the foot of the Blessed One—just as fine, subtle, and minute grains of sand, when carried away by the force of the wind, are sprinkled down by chance in any direction they may happen to take. If the splinter, O king, had not been separated from the rock of which it formed a part, it too would have been intercepted by their meeting together. But, as it was, it was neither fixed on the earth, nor did it remain stationary in the air, but fell whithersoever chance directed it, and happened to strike against the Blessed One's foot—just as dried leaves might fall if caught up in a whirlwind. And the real cause of its so striking against his foot was the sorrowworking deed! of that ungrateful, wicked, Devadatta.’ ‘Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the splinter grazing the Buddha's foot.] [THE SAMAiVA] 31. *Venerable Nâgasena, the Blessed One said: A man becomes a Samaza by the destruction of the Âsavas" But on the other hand he said: “The man who has these dispositions four Is he whom the world knows as Samaza *." And in that passage these are the four dispositions referred to—long-suffering, temperance in food, renunciation, and the being without the attachments? (arising from lust, ill-will, and dulness). Now these four dispositions are equally found in those who are still defective, in whom the f 252 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 325 Asavas have not yet been completely destroyed. So that if the first statement be correct, the second is wrong, and if the second be right the first must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem: now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 32. Both statements, O king, were made by the Blessed One. But the second was said of the characteristics of such and such men; the first is an inclusive statement—that all in whom the Âsavas are destroyed are Samaras. And moreover, of all those who are made perfect by the suppression of evil, if you take them in regular order one after the other, then the Samara in whom the Asavas are destroyed'is acknowledged to be the chief—just, O king, as of all flowers produced in the water or on the land, the double jasmine! is ackowledged to be the chief, all other kinds of flowers of whatever sort are merely flowers, and taking them in order it is the double jasmine that people most desire and like. Or just, O king, as of all kinds of grain, rice is acknowledged to be the chief, all other kinds of grain, of whatever sort, are useful for food and for the support of the body, but if you take them in order, rice is acknowledged as the best.’ ‘Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to what constitutes a Samara.] [The Buddha's Exultation] 33. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, the Blessed One said: “If, O Bhikkhus, any one should speak in praise of me, or of our religion (Dhamma), or of the Order, you should not thereupon indulge in joy, or delight, or exultation of mind”. And on the other hand the Tathâgata was so delighted, and pleased, and exultant at the deserved praise bestowed on him by Sela the Brahman, that he still further magnified his own goodness in that he said: “A king am I, Sela, the king supreme Of righteousness. The royal chariot wheel In righteousness do I set rolling on— That wheel that no one can turn back again!” Now if the passage first quoted be right then must the second be wrong, but if that be right then must the first be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 34. ‘Both your quotations, O king, are correct. But the first passage was spoken by the Blessed One with the intention of setting forth truthfully, exactly, in accordance with reality, and fact, and f 254 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 35+ sense, the real nature, and essence, and characteristic marks of the Dhamma. And the second passage was not spoken for the sake of gain or fame, nor out of party spirit, nor in the lust of winning over men to become his followers. But it was in mercy and love, and with the welfare of others in view, conscious that thereby three hundred young Brahmans would attain to the knowledge of the truth, that he said: “A king am I, Sela, the king supreme of righteousness ‘Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you Say.’ [Here ends the problem as to exultation of mind.] [Kindness and Punishment] 35. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, the Blessed One said: “Doing no injury to any one Dwell full of love and kindness in the world V.” And on the other hand he said: “Punish him who deserves punishment, favour him who is worthy of favour. Now punishment, Nagasena, means the cutting off of hands or feet, flogging, casting into bonds, torture, execution, degradation in rank. Such a saying is therefore not worthy of the Blessed One, and he ought not to have made use of it. For if the first injunction be right then this must be wrong, and if this be right then the injunction to do no injury to any one, but to dwell full of love and kindness in the world, must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 36. ‘The Blessed One, great king, gave both the commands you quote. As to the first, to do no injury to any one, but to live full of love and kindness in the world—that is a doctrine approved by all the Buddhas. And that verse is an injunction, an unfolding of the Dhamma, for the Dhamma has as its characteristic that it works no ill. And the saying is thus in thorough accord with it. But as to the second command you quote that is a special use of terms [which you have misunderstood. The real meaning of them is: “Subdue that which ought to be subdued, strive after, cultivate, favour what is worthy of effort, cultivation, and approval"] The proud heart, great king, is to be subdued, and the lowly heart cultivated—the wicked heart to be subdued, and the good heart to be cultivated—carelessness of thought is to be subdued, and exactness of thought to be cultivated—he who is given over to wrong views is to be subdued, and he who has attained to right views is to be cultivated—he who is not noble! is to be subdued, and the noble one is r 256 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3, 37. to be cultivated—the robber! is to be subdued, and the honest brother is to be cultivated.’ 37. ‘Let that be so, Nâgasena. But now, in that last word of yours, you have put yourself into my power, you have come round to the sense in which I put my question. For how, venerable Nâgasena, is the robber to be subdued by him who sets to work to subdue him’ ‘Thus, great king—if deserving of rebuke let him be rebuked, if of a fine let him be fined, if of banishment let him be banished, if of death let him be put to death.’ ‘Is then, Nâgasena, the execution of robbers part of the doctrine laid down by the Tathâgatas’ ‘Certainly not, O king.’ ‘Then why have the Tathâgatas laid down that the robber is to be taught better' ‘Whosoever, great king, may be put to death, he does not suffer execution by reason of the opinion put forth by the Tathâgatas. He suffers by reason of what he himself has done. But notwithstanding that the doctrine of the Dhamma has been taught (by the Buddhas)?, would it be possible, great king, for a man who had done nothing wrong, and was walking innocently along the streets, to be seized and put to death by any wise person' ‘Certainly not.’ “But why’ ‘Because of his innocence.’ ‘Just so, great king, since the thief is not put to death through the word of the Tathagata, but only through his own act, how can any fault be rightly found on that account with the Teacher’ ‘It could not be, Sir.’ ‘So you see the teaching of the Tathâgatas is a righteous teaching.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you Say.’ [Here ends the problem as to kindness and punishment. [The Dismissal of the Elders] 38. ‘Venerable Nâgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “Anger I harbour not, nor sulkiness.” But on the other hand the Tathâgata dismissed the Elders Sâriputta and Moggallâna, together with the brethren who formed their company of disciples *. How now, Nagasena, was it in anger that the Tathagata sent away? the disciples, or was it in pleasure? Be so good as to explain to me how this was, For if, Nâgasena, he dismissed them in anger, then had the Tathâgata not subdued all liability to anger in himself. But if it was in pleasure, then he did so ignorantly, and without due. cause. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 39. ‘The Blessed One did say, O king: “Anger I harbour not, nor sulkiness." And he did dismiss the Elders with their disciples. But that was not in anger. Suppose, O king, that a man were to stumble against some root, or stake, or stone, or potsherd, or on uneven ground, and fall upon the broad earth. Would it be that the broad earth, angry with him, had made him fall' No, indeed, Sir. The broad earth feels neither anger against any man nor delight. It is altogether free from ill-will, neither needs it to fawn on any one, It would be by reason of his own carelessness that that man stumbled and fell.’ ‘Just so, great king, do the Tathâgatas experience neither anger against, nor pride in any man. Altogether free are the Tathâgatas, the Arahat-Buddhas, alike from ill-will, and from the need to fawn on any one. And those disciples were sent away by reason of what they themselves had done. So also the great ocean endures not association with any corpse. Any dead body there may be in it that does it promptly cast up, and leave high and dry on the shore’, But is it in anger that it casts it up’ ‘Certainly not, Sir. The broad ocean feels neither anger against any, nor does it take delight in any. It seeks not in the least to please any, and is altogether free from the desire to harm. ‘Just so, great king, do the Tathâgatas feel neither anger against any man, nor do they place their faith in any man. The Tathâgatas, the Arahat-Buddhas, are quite set free from the desire either to gain the goodwill of any man, or to do him harm. And it was by reason of what they themselves had done that those disciples were sent away. Just as a man, great king, who stumbles against the ground is made to fall, so is he who stumbles in the excellent teaching of the Conqueror made to go away. Just as a corpse in the great ocean is cast up, so is he who stumbles in the excellent teaching of the Conqueror sent away. And when the Tathagata sent those disciples away it was for their good, and their gain, their happiness, and their purification, and in order that in that way they should be delivered from birth, old age, disease, and death.’ ‘Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you Say. [Here ends the problem as to the dismissal of the Elders.] Here ends the Third Chapter.