The Questions of King Milinda 4.5

Chapter 5

Both the passages you have quoted, O king, were spoken by the Tathagata. And the former is a statement as to the nature of things, an inclusive statement, a statement which leaves no room for anything to be supplemented to it, or to be added to it in the way of gloss, as to what is seemly and appropriate and proper for a recluse, and as to the mode of life which a recluse should adopt, the path he should walk along, and the practice he should follow. For just, O king, as a deer in the forest, wandering in the woods, sleeps wherever he desires, having no home and no dwelling-place, so also should the recluse be of opinion that “In friendship of the world anxiety is born, In household life distraction’s dust springs up.”

‘But when the Blessed One said: “Have pleasant dwelling-places built, And lodge there learned men,” that was said with respect to two matters only. And what are those two? The gift of a dwellingplace (Wihara) has been praised and approved, esteemed and highly spoken of, by all the Buddhas. And those who have made such a gift shall be delivered from rebirth, old age, and death. This is the first of the advantages in the gift of a dwelling-place. And again, if there be a common dwelling-place (a Wihara) the sisters of the Order will have a clearly ascertained place of rendezvous, and those who wish to visit (the brethren of the Order)’ will find it an easy matter to do so. Whereas if there were no homes for the members of the Order it would be difficult to visit them. This is the second of the advantages in the gift of a dwelling-place (a Wihara). It was with reference to these two matters only that it was said by the Blessed One: “Have pleasant dwelling-places built, And lodge there learned men.” ‘And it does not follow from that that the sons of the Buddha? should harbour longings after the household life.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to dwelling-places.

Dilemma the Forty-Second Moderation in Food

‘Venerable Nagasena, the Blessed One said: “Be not remiss as to (the rules to be observed) when standing up (to beg for food). Be restrained in (matters relating to) the stomach V,” ‘But on the other hand he said: “Now there were several days, Udayin, on which I ate out of this bowl when it was full to the brim, and ate even more,” ‘Now if the first rule be true, then the second statement must be false, But if the statement be true, then the rule first quoted -must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘Both the passages you have quoted, O king, were spoken by the Blessed One. But the former passage is a statement as to the nature of things, an inclusive statement, a statement which leaves no room for anything to be supplemented to it, or added to it in the way of gloss, a statement of what is true and real and in accordance with the facts, and that cannot be proved wrong, a declaration made by the prophets, and sages, and teachers, and Arahats, and by the Buddhas who are wise for themselves alone (Pa/('/eka-Buddhas), a declaration made by the Conquerors, and by the All-wise Ones, a declaration made too by the Tathagata, the Arahat, the Supreme Buddha himself. He who has no self-control as regards the stomach, O king, will destroy living creatures, will take possession of what has not been given to him, will be unchaste, will speak lies, will drink strong drink, will put his mother or his father to death, will slay an Arahat, will create a schism in the Order, will even with malice aforethought wound a Tathagata. Was it not, O king, when without restraint as to his stomach, that Devadatta by breaking up the Order, heaped up for himself karma that would endure for a kalpa? It was on calling to mind this, O king, and many other things of the same kind, that the Blessed One declared: “Be not remiss as to (the rules to be observed) when standing up (to beg for food). Be restrained in (matters relating to) the stomach.”;

‘And he who has self-control as regards the stomach gains a clear insight into the Four Truths, realises the Four Fruits of the life of renunciation’, and attains to mastery over the Four Discriminations’, the Eight Attainments *, and the Six Modes of Higher Knowledge, and fulfils all that goes to constitute the life of the recluse. “Did not the parrot fledgling, O king, by self-restraint as to his stomach, cause the very heaven of the great Thirty-Three to shake, and bring down Sakka, the king of the gods, to wait upon him? It was on calling to mind this, O king, and many other things of a similar kind, that the Blessed One declared: “Be not remiss as to (the rules to be observed) when standing up (to beg for food). Be restrained in (matters relating to) the stomach.”

‘But when, O king, the Blessed One said: “Now there were several days, Udayi, on which I ate out of this bowl when it was full to the brim, and ate even more,” that was said by him who had completed his task, who had finished all that he had to do, who had accomplished the end he set before him, who had overcome every obstruction, by the selfdependent Tathagata himself about himself. Just, O king, as it is desirable that a sick man to whom an emetic, or a purge, or a clyster has been administered, should be treated with a tonic; just so, O king, should the man who is full of evil, and who has not perceived the Four Truths, adopt the practice of restraint in the matter of eating. But just, O king, as there is no necessity of polishing, and rubbing down, and purifying a diamond gem of great brilliancy, of the finest water, and of natural purity; just so, O king, is there no restraint as to what actions he should perform, on the Tathagata, on him who hath attained to perfection in all that lies within the scope of a Buddha 2.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you-say.’

Dilemma the Forty-Third Bakkula’s Superiority to the Buddha

‘Venerable NAgasena, it was said by the Blessed One: A Brahman am I, O brethren, devoted to selfsacrifice pure-handed at every time; this body that I bear with me is my last, I am the supreme Healer and Physician *.” ‘But on the other hand the Blessed One said: “The chief, O brethren, among those who are disciples of mine, in the matter of bodily health, is Bakkula .” ‘Now it is well known that diseases arose several times in the body of the Blessed One. So that if, Nagasena, the Tathagata was supreme, then the statement he made about Bakkula’s bodily health must be wrong. But if the Elder named Bakkula was really chief among those who were healthy, then that statement which I first quoted must be wrong. ‘This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are correct’, But what the Blessed One said about Bakkula was said of those disciples who had learnt by heart the sacred words, and studied them, and handed down the tradition, which in reference to the characteristics (each of them in some one point) had in addition to those which were found in him himself. For there were certain of the disciples of the Blessed One, O king, who were “meditators on foot,” spending a whole day and night in walking up and down in meditation. But the Blessed One was in the habit of spending the day and night in meditation, not only walking up and down but also sitting and lying down. So such, O king, of the disciples as were “meditators on foot” surpassed him in that particular. And there were certain of the disciples of the Blessed One, O king, who were “eaters at one sitting,’ who would not, even to save their lives, take more than one mealaday. But the Blessed One was in the habit of taking a second, or even a third. So such, O king, of the disciples as were “eaters at one sitting” surpassed him in that particular. And in a similar way, O king, a number of different things have been told, each one of one or other of the disciples. But the Blessed One, O king, surpassed them all in respect of uprightness, and of power of meditation, and of wisdom, and of emancipation, and of that insight which arises out of the knowledge of emancipation, and in all that lies within the scope ofa Buddha. It was with reference to that, O king, that he said: “A Brahman am I, O brethren, devoted to selfsacrifice, pure-handed at every time; this body that I bear with me is my last, I am the supreme Healer and Physician.”

Now one man, O king, may be of good birth, and another may be wealthy, and another full of wisdom, and another well educated, and another brave, and another adroit; but a king, surpassing all these, is reckoned supreme. Just in that way, O king, is the Blessed One the highest, the most worthy of respect, the best of all beings. And in so far as the venerable Bakkula was healthy in body, that was by reason of an aspiration (he had formed in a previous birth)". For, O king, when Anoma-dassi, the Blessed One, was afflicted with a disease, with wind in his stomach, and again when Vipassi, the Blessed One, and sixty-eight thousand of his disciples, were afflicted with a disease, with greenness of blood 2, he, being at those times an ascetic, had cured that disease with various medicines, and attained (thereby) to such healthiness of body (in this life) that it was said of him: “The chief, O brethren, among those who are disciples of mine, in the matter of bodily health, is Bakkula.”

‘But the Blessed One, O king, whether he be suffering, or not suffering, from disease; whether he have taken, or not taken, upon himself the observance of special vows,—there is no being like unto the Blessed One. For this, O king, has been said by the Blessed One, the god of gods, in the most excellent Sayutta Nikaya: ‘““Whatsoever beings, O brethren, there may be—whether without feet, or bipeds, or four-footed things, whether with a body, or without a body, whether conscious or unconscious, or neither conscious nor not—the Tathagata is acknowledged to be the chief of all, the Arahat, the Buddha Supreme.” ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say %’ [Here ends the problem as to the superiority of Bakkula to the Buddha.] [Dilemma the Forty-Fourth] THE ORIGINALITY OF THE BUDDHA’S TEACHING.

‘Venerable Nagasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: “The Tathagata, O brethren, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme}, is the discoverer of a way that was unknown”,” ‘But on the other hand he said: “Now I perceived, O brethren, the ancient way, the ancient path, along which the previous Buddhas walked”.” ‘If, Nagasena, the Tathâgata be the discoverer of a way not previously found out, then it must be wrong that it was an ancient way that he perceived, an ancient path along which previous Buddhas walked. But if the way he perceived were an ancient way, then the statement that it was unknown must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

Both the quotations you make, O king, are accurate. And both the statements so made are correct. When the previous Tathagatas, O king, had disappeared, then, there being no teacher left, their way too disappeared. And it was that way—though then broken up, crumbled away, gone to ruin, closed in, no longer passable, quite lost to view—that the Tathagata, having gained a thorough knowledge of it, saw by the eye of his wisdom, (and knew it) as the way that previous Buddhas trod. And therefore is it that he said: ‘Now I perceived, O brethren, the ancient way, the ancient path along which previous Buddhas walked.” ‘And it was a way which—there being, through the disappearance of previous Tathagatas, no teacher left—was a way then broken up, crumbled away, gone to ruin, closed in, and lost to view, that the Tathagata made now passable again. And therefore is it that he said: “The Tathagata, O brethren, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, is the discoverer of a way that was unknown.”

‘Suppose, O king, that on the disappearance of a sovran overlord, the mystic Gem of Sovranty lay concealed in a cleft on the mountain peak, and that on another sovran overlord arriving at his supreme dignity, it should appear to him. Would you then say, O king, that the Gem was produced by him??’ ‘Certainly not, Sir! The Gem would be in its original condition, But it has received, as it were,a new birth through him.’ ‘Just so, O king, is it that the Blessed One, gaining a thorough knowledge of it by the eye of his wisdom, brought back to life and made passable again the most excellent eightfold way in its original condition as when it was walked along by the previous Tathagatas,—though that way, when there was no teacher more, had become broken up, had crumbled away, had gone to ruin, was closed in, and lost to view. And therefore is it that he said: “The Tathagata, O brethren, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, is the discoverer of a way that was unknown.”

‘It is, O king, as when a mother brings forth from her womb the child that is already there, and the saying is that the mother has given birth to the child. Just so, O king, did the Tathagata, having gained a thorough knowledge of it by the eye of his wisdom, bring into life, and make passable again, a way that was already there, though then broken up, crumbled away, gone to ruin, closed in, and lost to view. ‘It is as when some man or other finds a thing that has been lost, and the people use the phrase: “He has brought it back to life.” And it is as when a man clears away the jungle, and sets free 1a piece of land, and the people use the phrase: “That is his land.” But that land is not made by him. Itis because he has brought the land into use that he is called the owner of the land. Just so, O king, did the Tathagata, having gained a thorough knowledge of it by the eye of his wisdom, bring back to life, and make passable again, a way that was already there, though then broken up, crumbled away, gone to ruin, closed in, no longer passable, and lost to view. And therefore is it that he said: “The Tathagata, O brethren, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, is the discoverer of a way that was unknown.” ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the way of Nirvana.

Dilemma the Forty-Fifth The Buddha's Kindness

‘Venerable Nagasena, it was said by the Blessed One: “Already in former births when I was a man had I acquired the habit of inflicting no hurt on living beings V.” ‘But on the other hand it is said: “When he was Lomasa Kassapa, the Rishi, he had hundreds of living creatures slain and offered the great sacrifice, the Drink of Triumph. 3?) ‘Now, Nagasena, if it is true what the Buddha said, that, in his former births as a man, he inflicted no hurt on living beings, then the saying’ that, as Lomasa Kassapa, he had hundreds of living creatures slain must be false. But if he had, then the saying that he inflicted no hurt on living beings must be false. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘The Blessed One did say, O king, that already in former births, when he was a man, he had acquired the habit of inflicting no hurt on living beings. And Lomasa Kassapa, the Rishi, did have hundreds of living creatures slain, and offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph.” But that was done when he was out of his mind through lust, and not when he was conscious of what he was doing.’ ‘There are these eight classes of men, Nagasena, who kill living beings—the lustful man through his lust, and the cruel man through his anger, and the dull man through his stupidity, and the proud man through his pride, and the avaricious man through his greed, and the needy man for the sake ofa livelihood, and the fool in joke, and the king in the way of punishment. These, Nagasena, are the eight classes of men who kill living beings. The Bodisat, venerable Nagasena, must have been acting in accordance with his natural disposition when he did so,’ ‘No, it was not, O king, an act natural to him that the Bodisat did then. If the Bodisat had been led, by natural inclination, to offer the great sacrifice, he would not have uttered the verse: of king Lomapâda’s sacrifice (Ramayawa I, 8, 1 1 foil.) it is the ajva-medha, the horse sacrifice, which is offered. c “Not the whole world, Sayha, the ocean girt, With all the seas and hills that girdle it, Would I desire to have, along with shame.” ‘But though, O king, the Bodisat had said that, yet at the very sight of A'andavati (Moon-face), the princess, he went out of his mind and lost command of himself through love. And it was when thus out of his mind, confused and agitated, that he, with his thoughts all perplexed, scattered and wandering, thus offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph,’—and mighty was the outpour of blood from the necks of the slaughtered beasts! ‘Just, O king, as a madman, when out of his senses, will step into a fiery furnace, and take hold of an infuriated venomous snake, and go up to a rogue elephant, and plunge forwards into great waters, the further shore of which he cannot see, and trample through dirty pools and muddy places *, and rush into thorny brakes, and fall down precipices, and feed himself on filth, and go naked through the streets, and do many other things improper to be done—just so was it, O king, that at the very sight of A'andavati, the princess, the Bodisat went out of his mind, and then only acted as I have said *.

Now an evil act done, O king, by one out of his mind, is even in this present world not considered as a grievous offence, nor is it so in respect of the fruit that it brings about in a future life. Suppose, O king, that a madman had been guilty of a capital offence, what punishment would you inflict upon him’ ‘What punishment is due to a madman? We should order him to be beaten and set free. That is all the punishment he would have.’ ‘So then, O king, there is no punishment according to the offence of a madman. It follows that there is no sin in the act done by a madman, it is a pardonable act. And just so, O king, is it with respect to Lomasa Kassapa, the Rishi, who at the mere sight of A'andavati, the princess, went out of his mind, and lost command of himself through love. It was when thus out of his mind, confused and agitated, that he, with his thoughts all perplexed, scattered and wandering, thus offered the great sacrifice, the “Drink of Triumph,”—and mighty was the outpour of blood from the necks of the slaughtered beasts! But when he returned again to his natural state, and recovered his presence of mind, then did he again renounce the world, and having regained the five powers of insight, became assured of rebirth in the Brahma world.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ {Here ends the dilemma about Lomasa Kassapa '.

Dilemma the Forty-Sixth The Mocking of the Buddha

‘Venerable Nagasena, it was said by the Blessed One of Six-tusks, the elephant king, ‘“When he sought to slay him, and had reached him with his trunk, He perceived the yellow robe, the badge of a recluse, Then, though smarting with the pain, the thought possessed his heart,—‘He who wears the outward garb the Arahats wear Must be scatheless held, and sacred, by the good” ‘But on the other hand it is said: ‘When he was Cotipala, the young Brahman, he reviled and abused Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, with vile and bitter words, calling him a shaveling and a good-for-nothing monk ,” ‘Now if, Nagasena, the Bodisat, even when he was an animal, respected the yellow robe, then the statement that as Gotipala, a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One of that time, must be false. But if as a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One, the statement that when he was Six-tusks, the elephant king, he respected the yellow robe, must be false, If when the Bodisat was an animal, though he was suffering severe and cruel and bitter pain, he respected the yellow robe which compare the hunter had put on, how was it that when he was a man, a man arrived at discretion, with all his knowledge mature, he did not pay reverence, on seeing him, to Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, one endowed with the ten powers, the leader of the world, the highest of the high, round whom effulgence spread a fathom on every side, and who was clad in most excellent and precious and delicate Benares cloth made into yellow robes? This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘The verse you have quoted, O king, was spoken by the Blessed One. And Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, was abused and reviled by Gotipala the young Brahman with vile and bitter words, with the epithets of shaveling and good-for-nothing monk. But that was owing to his birth and family surroundings. For Gotipala, O king, was descended from a family of unbelievers, men void of faith. His mother and father, his sisters and brothers, the bondswomen and bondsmen, the hired servants and dependents in the house, were worshippers of Brahma, reverers of Brahma; and harbouring the idea that Brahmans were the highest and most honourable among men, they reviled and loathed those others who had renounced the world. It was through hearing what they said that Gotipdla, when invited by Ghatikara the potter to visit the teacher, replied: “What’s the good to you of visiting that shaveling, that good-for-nothing monk”

‘Just, O king, as even nectar when mixed with poison will turn sour, just as the coolest water in contact with fire will become warm, so was it that Gotipdla, the young Brahman, having been born and brought up in a family of unbelievers, men void of faith, thus reviled and abused the Tathagata after the manner of his kind. And just, O king, as a flaming and burning mighty fire, if, even when at the height of its glory, it should come into contact with water, would cool down, with its splendour and glory spoilt, and turn to cinders, black as rotten blighted! 1 fruits—just so, O king, Gotipala, full as he was of merit and faith, mighty as was the glory of his knowledge, yet when reborn into a family of unbelievers, of men void of faith, he became, as it were, blind, and reviled and abused the Tathagata. But when he had gone to him, and had come to know the virtues of the Buddhas which he had, then did he become as his hired servant; and having renounced the world and entered the Order under the system of the Conqueror, he gained the fivefold power of insight, and the eightfold power of ecstatic meditation, and became assured of rebirth into the Brahma heaven.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma about Gotipala.]

Dilemma the Forty-Seventh The Helplessness of a Buddha

‘Venerable Nagasena, this too has been said by the Blessed One: “Ghatikara the potter’s dwelling-place remained, the whole of it, for three months open to the sky, and no rain fell upon it” ‘But on the other hand it is said: “Rain fell on the hut of Kassapa the Tathagata.” ‘How was it, venerable Nagasena, that the hut of a Tathagata, the roots of whose merits were so widely spread, got wet? One would think that a Tathagata should have the power to prevent that. If, Nagasena, Ghatikara the potter’s dwelling was kept dry when it was open to the sky, it cannot be true that a Tathagata's hut got wet. But if it did, then it must be false that the potter’s dwelling was kept dry. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’ “23. ‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are correct. Ghatikara the potter was a good man, beautiful in character, deeply rooted in merit, who supported his old and blind mother and father. And when he was absent, the people, without so much as asking his leave, took away the thatch from his dwelling to roof in with it the hut of the Tathagata. Then, unmoved and unshaken at his thatch being thus removed, but filled rather with a well-grounded and great joy the like of which cannot be found, an immeasurable bliss sprang up in his heart at the thought: ‘May the Blessed One, the chief of the world, have full confidence in me.” And thereby did he obtain merit which brought forth its good result even in this present life.

‘And the Tathagata, O king, was not disturbed by that temporary inconvenience (of the falling rain), Just, O king, as Sineru, the king of the mountains, moves not, neither is shaken, by the onslaught of innumerable gales‘—just as the mighty ocean, the home of the great waters, is not filled up, neither is disturbed at all, by the inflow of innumerable great rivers—just so, O king, is a Tathagata unmoved at temporary inconvenience. ‘And that the rain fell upon the Tathagata's hut happened out of consideration for the great masses of the people. For there are two circumstances, O king, which prevent the Tathagatas from themselves supplying (by creative power) any requisite of which they may be in need. And what are the two? Men and gods, by supplying the requisites of a Buddha on the ground that he is a teacher worthy of gifts, will thereby be set free from rebirth in states of woe. And lest others should find fault, saying: “They seek their livelihood by the working of miracles,” If, O king, Sakka had kept that hut dry, or even Brahma himself, even then that action would have been faulty, wrong, and worthy of censure. For people might then say: “These Buddhas by their dexterity! befool and lord it over the world.” That is the reason why such action would have been better left undone. The Tathagatas, O king, do not ask for any advantage; and it is because they ask for nothing that they are held blameless.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma about Ghatikara the potter.

Dilemma the Forty-Eighth WHY GOTAMA CLAIMED TO BE A brahman

‘Venerable Nagasena, this too was said by the Blessed One: “A Brahman am I, O brethren, devoted to selfsacrifice 2,” ‘But on the other hand he declared: A king am I, Sela =” ‘If, Nagasena, the Blessed One were a Brahman, then he must have spoken falsely when he said he was a king. But if he were a king, then he must have spoken falsely when he said he was a Brahman. He must have been either a Khattiya or a Brahman. For he could not have belonged, in the same birth, to two castes. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are correct. But there is good reason why the Tathagata should have been both Brahman and also king.’ ‘Pray what, Nagasena, can be that reason’ ‘Because all evil qualities, not productive of merit, are in the Tathagata suppressed, abandoned, put away, dispelled, rooted out, destroyed, come to an end, gone out, and ceased, therefore is it that the Tathagata is called a Brahman'. A Brahman’, O king, means one who has passed beyond hesitation, perplexity, and doubt. And it is because the Tathagata has done all this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who has escaped from every sort and class of becoming, who is entirely set free from evil and from stain, who is dependent on himself, and it is because the Tathagata is all of these things, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who cultivates within himself the highest and best of the excellent and supreme conditions of heart’. And it is because the Tathagata does this that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who carries on the line of the tradition of the ancient instructions concerning the learning and the teaching of sacred writ, concerning the acceptance of gifts, concerning subjugation of the senses, self-control in conduct, and performance of duty. And it is because the Tathagata carries on the line of the tradition of the ancient rules enjoined by the Conquerors regarding all these things, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who enjoys the supreme bliss of the ecstatic meditation. And it is because the Tathagata does this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. A Brahman, O king, means one who knows the course and revolution of births in all forms of existence. And it is because the Tathagata knows this, that therefore also is he called a Brahman. The appellation “Brahman,” O king, was not given to the Blessed One by his mother, nor his father, not by his brother, nor his sister, not by his friends, nor his relations, not by spiritual teachers of any sort, no, not by the gods. It is by reason of their emancipation that this is the name of the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones. From the moment when, under the Tree of Wisdom, they had overthrown the armies of the Evil One, had suppressed in themselves all evil qualities not productive of merit, and had attained to the knowledge of the Omniscient Ones, it was from the acquisition of this insight, the appearance in them of this enlightenment, that this true designation became applied to them,—the name of “Brahman.” And that is the reason why the Tathagata is called a Brahman,’

‘Then what is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king’ ‘A king means, O king, one who rules and guides the world, and the Blessed One rules in righteousness over the ten thousand world systems, he guides the whole world with its men and gods, its evil spirits and its good ones’, and its teachers, whether Samaras or Brahmans. That is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. A king means, O king, one who, exalted above all ordinary men, making those related to him rejoice, and those opposed to him mourn; raises aloft the Sunshade of Sovranty, of pure and stainless white, with its handle of firm hard wood 3, and its many hundred ribs+—the symbol of his mighty fame and glory. And the Blessed One, O king, making the army of the Evil One, those given over to false doctrine, mourn; filling the hearts of those, among gods or men, devoted to sound doctrine, with joy; raises aloft over the ten thousand world systems the Sunshade of his Sovranty, pure and stainless in the whiteness of emancipation, with its hundreds of ribs fashioned out of the highest wisdom, with its handle firm and strong through long suffering,—the symbol of his mighty fame and glory. That too is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. A king is one who is held worthy of homage by the multitudes who approach him, who come into his presence. And the Blessed One, O king, is held worthy of homage by multitudes of beings, whether gods or men, who approach him, who come into his presence. That too is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. A king is one who, when pleased with a strenuous servant, gladdens his heart by bestowing upon him, at his own good pleasure, any costly gift the officer may choose. And the Blessed One, O king, when pleased with any one who has been strenuous in word or deed or thought, gladdens his heart by bestowing upon him, as a selected gift, the supreme deliverance from all sorrow,—far beyond all material gifts’. That too is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. A king is one who censures, fines, or executes the man who trans- the royal commands. And so, O king, the man who, in shamelessness or discontent, transgresses the command of the Blessed One, as laid down in the rules of his Order, that man, despised, disgraced and censured, is expelled from the religion of the Conqueror. That too is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. A king is one who in his turn proclaiming laws and regulations according to the instructions laid down in succession by the righteous kings of ancient times, and thus carrying on his rule in righteousness, becomes beloved and dear to the people, desired in the world, and by the force of his righteousness establishes his dynasty long in the land. And the Blessed One, O king, proclaiming in his turn laws and regulations according to the instructions laid down in succession by the Buddhas of ancient times, and thus in righteousness being teacher of the world,—he too is beloved and dear to both gods and men, desired by them, and by the force of his righteousness he makes his religion last long in the land. That too is the reason why the Tathagata is called a king. ‘Thus, O king, so many are the reasons why the Tathagata should be both Brahman and also king, that the ablest of the brethren could scarcely in an aeon enumerate them all. Why then should I dilate any further? Accept what I have said only in brief,’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say. [Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha belonging to two castes.]

Dilemma the Forty-Ninth Gifts to the Buddha

‘Venerable Nagasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: “Gifts chaunted for in sacred hymns Are gifts I must not take. All those who see into the Truth Do this their practice make. The Buddhas all refused to chaunt for wage; This was their conduct still Whene’er the Truth prevailed Through every age.” ‘But on the other hand the Blessed One, when preaching the Truth, or talking of it, was in the habit of beginning with the so-called “preliminary discourse,” in which giving has the first place, and goodness only the second%. So that when gods and men heard this discourse of the Blessed One, the lord of the whole world, they prepared and gave gifts, and the disciples partook of the alms thus brought about. Now if, Nagasena, it be true what the Blessed One said, that he accepted no gifts earned by the chaunting of sacred words, then it was wrong that the Blessed One put giving thus into the foreground, But if he did rightly in so emphasizing the giving of gifts, then it is not true that he accepted no gifts earned by the utterance of sacred words. And why so? Because if any one worthy of offerings should praise to the laity the good results to them of the bestowal of alms, they, hearing that discourse, and pleased with it, will proceed to give alms again and again. And then, whosoever enjoy that gift, they are really enjoying that which has been earned by the utterance of sacred words. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’

‘The stanza you quote, O king, was spoken by the Blessed One. And yet he used to put the giving of alms into the forefront of his discourse. But this is the custom of all the Tathagatas—first by discourse on almsgiving to make the hearts of hearers inclined towards it, and then afterwards to urge them to righteousness, This is as when men, O king, give first of all to young children things to play with—such as toy ploughs, tip-cat sticks 2, toy wind-mills, measures made of leaves, toy carts, and bows and arrows—and afterwards appoint to each’ his separate task. Or it is as when a physician first causes his patients to drink oil for four or five days in order to strengthen them, and to soften their bodies; and then afterwards administers a purge. The supporters of the faith, O king, the lordly givers, have their hearts thus softened, made tender, affected. Thereby do they cross over to the further shore of the ocean of transmigration by the aid of the boat of their gifts, by the support of the causeway of their gifts. And (the Buddha), by this (method in his teaching), is not guilty of “intimation’.”’

‘Venerable Nagasena, when you say “intimation” what are these intimations’ ‘There are two sorts, O king, of intimation—bodily and verbal. And there is one bodily intimation which is wrong, and one that is not; and there is one verbal intimation which is wrong, and one that is not. Which is the bodily intimation which is wrong? Suppose any member of the Order, in going his rounds for alms, should, when choosing a spot to stand on, stand where there is no room’, that is a bodily intimation which is wrong. The true members of the Order will not accept any alms so asked for, and the individual who thus acts is despised, looked down upon, not respected, held blameworthy, disregarded, not well thought of, in the religion of the Noble Ones; he is reckoned as one of those who have broken their (vows as to) means of livelihood. And again, O king, suppose any member of the Order, in going his round for alms, should stand where there is no room, and stretch out his neck like a peacock on the gaze, in the hope: ‘“Thus will the folk see me”—that too is a bodily intimation which is wrong. True brethren will not accept an alms so asked for, and he who thus acts is regarded like the last. And again, O king, suppose any member of the Order should make a sign with his jaw, or with his eyebrow, or with his finger—that too is a bodily intimation which is wrong. ‘True brethren will not accept an alms so asked for, and he who thus acts is regarded the same way.

‘And which is the bodily intimation which is not wrong? If a brother, on going his round for alms, be self-possessed, tranquil, conscious of his acts; if he stand, wherever he may go, in the kind of spot that is lawful; if he stand still where there are people desirous to give, and where they are not so desirous, if he pass on;—that is a bodily intimation which is not wrong. Of an alms so stood for the true members of the Order will partake; and the individual who thus asks is, in the religion of the Noble Ones, praised, thought highly of, esteemed, and reckoned among those whose behaviour is without guile, whose mode of livelihood is pure. For thus has it been said by the Blessed One, the god over all gods: “The truly wise beg not, for Arahats scorn to beg. The good stand for their alms, thus only do they beg V.”

‘Which is the verbal intimation which is wrong? In case, O king, a brother intimate his wish for a number of things, requisites of a member of the Order—robes and bowls and bedding and medicine for the sick—that is a verbal intimation which is wrong. Things so asked for the true members of the Order (Ariya) will not accept; and in the religion of the Noble Ones the individual who acts thus is despised, looked down upon, not respected, held blameworthy, disregarded, not well thought of—reckoned rather as one who has broken his (vows as to) means of livelihood. And again, O king, in case a brother should, in the hearing of others, speak thus: “I am in want of such and such a thing;” and in consequence of that saying being heard by the others he should then get that thing—that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last. And again, O king, in case a brother, dilating in his talk 2, give the people about him to understand: “Thus and thus should gifts be given to the Bhik,” and in case they, on hearing that saying, should bring forth from their store anything so referred to—that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last. For when Sariputta, the Elder,.O king, being ill in the night-time, after the sun had set, and being questioned by Moggallana, the Elder, as to what medicine would do him good, broke silence; and through that breach of silence obtained the medicine—did not Sariputta then, saying to himself: “This medicine has come through breach of silence; let not my (adherence to the rules regarding) livelihood be broken,” reject that medicine, and use it not? So that too is a verbal intimation which is wrong. True members of the Order will not use a thing so obtained, and he who acts thus is regarded like the last.

‘And what is the verbal intimation which is right? Suppose a brother, O king, when there is necessity for it, should intimate among families either related to him, or which had invited him to spend the season of Was with him, that he is in want of medicines—this is a verbal intimation which is not wrong. True members of the Order will partake of things so asked for; and the individual who acts thus is, in the religion of the Noble Ones, praised, thought highly of, esteemed, reckoned among those whose mode of livelihood is pure, approved of the Tathagatas, the Arahats, the Supreme Buddhas. And the alms that the Tathagata, O king, refused to accept of Kasi-Bharadvaa, the Brahman, that was presented for the sake of testing him with an intricate puzzle which he would have to unwind, for the sake of pulling him away, of convicting him of error, of making him acknowledge himself in the wrong. Therefore was it that the Tathagata refused that alms, and would not partake thereof

‘Nagasena, was it always, whenever the Tathagata was eating, that the gods infused the Sap of Life from heaven into the contents of his bowl, or was it only into those two dishes—the tender boar’s flesh, and the rice porridge boiled in milk—that they infused it?’ ‘Whenever he was eating, O king, and into each morsel of food as he picked it up—just as the royal cook takes the sauce and pours it over each morsel in the dish while the king is partaking of it. And so at Verañga, when the Tathagata was eating the cakes made of dried barley, the gods moistened each one with the Sap of Life, as they placed it near him. And thus was the body of the Tathagata fully refreshed.’ ‘Great indeed was the good fortune, Nagasena, of those gods that they were ever and always so zealous in their care for the body of the Tathagata! Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the problem as to the Buddha's mode of livelihood.] [Dilemma the Fiftieth] [On the Buddha’s After-Doubt] oie ‘Venerable NAgasena, your people say: “The Tathagata gradually, through millions of years, through aeon after aeon 3, brought his omniscient wisdom to perfection for the sake of the salvation of the great masses of the people *.” ‘But on the other hand (they say) >: “Just after he had attained to omniscience his heart inclined, not to the proclamation of the Truth, but to rest in peace,” ‘So that, Nagasena, just as if an archer, or an archer’s pupil, who had practised archery for many days with the object of fighting, should, when the day of the great battle had come, draw back—just so did the Tathagata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth. Just as if a wrestler who through many days had practised wrestling should, when the day of the wrestling match? had come, draw back—just so did the Tathagata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth. ‘Now was it from fear, Nagasena, that the Tathagata drew back, or was it from inability to preach’, or was it from weakness, or was it because he had not, after all, attained to omniscience? What was the reason of this? Tell me, I pray, the reason, that my doubts may be removed. For if for so long a time he had perfected his wisdom with the object of saving the people, then the statement that he hesitated to announce the Truth must be wrong. But if that be true, then the other statement must be false. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you,—a problem profound, a knot hard to unravel,—which you have to solve.’

‘The statements in both the passages you quote, O king, are correct. But that his heart inclined, not to the preaching of the truth, but to inaction, was because he saw, on the one hand, how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine}, how hard to grasp and understand, how subtle, how difficult to penetrate into; and, on the other, how devoted beings are to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism. And so (he wavered) at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how can I teach him”—his mind being directed to the idea of the powers of penetration which beings possessed. ‘Just, O king, as an able physician, when called in to a patient suffering from a complication of diseases, might reflect: “What can be the treatment, what the drug, by which this man’s sickness can be allayed”—Just so, O king, when the Tathagata called to mind how afflicted were the people by all the kinds of malady which arise from sin, and how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, then at the thought: “Whom can I teach? And how shall I teach him” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching—his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed. ‘And just, O king, as a king, of royal blood, an anointed monarch, when he calls to mind the many people who gain their livelihood in dependence on the king—the sentries and the body-guard, the retinue of courtiers, the trading folk, the soldiers and the royal messengers, the ministers and the nobles '—might be exercised at the thought: “How now, in what way, shall I be able to conciliate them all”—just so when the Tathagata called to mind how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, and how devoted beings were to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism, then at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how shall I teach him” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching—his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed.

‘And this, too, is an inherent necessity in all Tathagatas that it should be on the request of Brahma that they should proclaim the Dhamma. And what is the reason for that? All men in those times, with the ascetics and the monks, the wandering teachers and the Brahmans, were worshippers of Brahma, reverers of Brahma, placed their reliance on Brahma. And therefore, at the thought: ‘“When so powerful and glorious, so famous and renowned, so high and mighty a one has shown himself inclined (to the Dhamma), then will the whole world of gods and men become inclined to it, hold it fitting, have faith in it’—on this ground, O king, the Tathagatas preached the Dhamma when requested to do so by Brahma. For just, O king, as what a sovran or a minister of state shows homage to, or offers worship to, that will the rest of mankind, on the ground of the homage of so powerful a personage, show homage to and worship—just so, O king, when Brahma had paid homage to the Tathagatas, so would the whole world of gods and men. For the world, O king, is a reverer of what is revered. And that is why Brahma asks of all Tathagatas that they should make known the Doctrine, and why, on so being asked, they make it known V’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! The puzzle has been well unravelled, most able has been your exposition. That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ Here ends the problem as to the Buddha’s hesitation to make the Doctrine known.] Book IV. Chapter 6. [Dilemma the Fifty-First] CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS AS TO THE BUDDHA'S