[ p. 167 ]
1. This have I heard. At one time when the Blessed One was journeying through Kosala with a great company of the brethren, with about five hundred brethren, he came to the Brâhman village in Kosala which is called Manasâkata. And there at Manasâkata the Blessed One stayed in the mango grove, on the bank of the river Akiravatî, to the south of Manasâkata [1].
2. Now at that time many very distinguished and wealthy Brâhmans were staying at Manasâkata—to wit, Kankî the Brâhman, Târukkha the Brâhman, Pokkharasâti the Brâhman, Gânussoni the Brâhman, Todeyya the Brâhman, and other very distinguished and wealthy Brâhmans[2].
[ p. 168 ]
3. Now a conversation sprung up between Vâsettha and Bhâradvâga, when they were taking exercise (after their bath) and walking up and down in thoughtful mood, as to which was the true path, and which the false[3].
4. The young Brâhman Vâsettha spake thus:
‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ[4]—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Pokkarasâti.’
5. The young Brâhman Bhâradvâga spake thus:
[ p. 169 ]
‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Târukkha.’
6. But neither was the young Brâhman Vâsettha able to convince the young Brâhman Bhâradvâga, nor was the young Brâhman Bhâradvâga able to convince the young Brâhman Vâsettha.
7. Then the young Brâhman Vâsettha said to the young Brâhman Bhâradvâga:
‘That Samana Gotama, Bhâradvâga, of the Sakya clan, who left the Sakya tribe to adopt the religious life, is now staying at Manasâkata, in the mango grove, on the bank of the river Akiravatî, to the south of Manasâkata. Now regarding that venerable Gotama, such is the high reputation that has been noised abroad, that he is said to be “a fully enlightened one, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a blessed Buddha[5].” Come, then, Bhâradvâga, let us go to the place where the Samana Gotama is; and when we have come there, let us ask the Samana Gotama touching this matter. What the Samana Gotama shall declare unto us, that let us bear in mind.’
‘Very well, my friend!’ said the young Brâhman Bhâradvâga, in assent, to the young Brâhman Vâsettha.
8. Then the young Brâhman Vâsettha and the young Brâhman Bhâradvâga went on to the place where the Blessed One was.
[ p. 170 ]
And when they had come there, they exchanged with the Blessed One the greetings and compliments of friendship and civility, and sat down beside him.
And while they were thus seated the young Brâhman Vâsettha said to the Blessed One:
‘As we, Gotama, were taking exercise and walking up and down, there sprung up a conversation between us on which was the true path and which the false. I said thus:
‘“This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Pokkarasâti.”
‘Bhâradvâga said thus:
‘“This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Târukkha.”
‘Regarding this matter, Gotama, there is a strife, a dispute, a difference of opinion between us.’
9. 'So you say, Vâsettha, that you said thus:
‘“This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Pokkarasâti.”
‘While Bhâradvâga said thus:
‘“This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ—I mean that which has been announced by the Brâhman Târukkha.”
[ p. 171 ]
‘Wherein, then, O Vâsettha, is there a strife, a dispute, a difference of opinion between you[6]?’
10. 'Concerning the true path and the false, Gotama. Various Brâhmans, Gotama, teach various paths—the Addhariya Brâhmans, the Tittiriya Brâhmans, the Khandoka Brâhmans, the Khandava Brâhmans, the Brahmakariya Brâhmans[7]. Are all those saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahmâ?
‘Just, Gotama, as near a village or a town there are many and various paths[8], yet they all meet together in the village—just in that way are all the various paths taught by various Brâhmans-the Addhariya Brâhmans, the Tittiriya Brâhmans, the Khandoka Brâhmans, the Khandava Brâhmans, the Brahmakariya Brâhmans. Are all these saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahmâ?’
11. 'Do you say that they all lead aright, Vâsettha
‘I say so, Gotama.’
‘Do you really say that they all lead aright, Vâsettha?’
‘So I say, Gotama.’
[ p. 172 ]
12. ‘But then, Vâsettha, is there a single one of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas who has ever seen Brahmâ face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘But is there then, Vâsettha, a single one of the teachers of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas who has seen Brahmâ face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘But is there then, Vâsettha, a single one of the pupils of the teachers of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas who has seen Brahmâ face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘But is there then, Vâsettha, a single one of the Brâhmans up to the seventh generation who has seen Brahmâ face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
13. ‘Well then, Vâsettha, those ancient Rishis of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas, the authors of the verses, the utterers of the verses, whose ancient form of words so chaunted, uttered, or composed, the Brâhmans of to-day chaunt over again or repeat; intoning or reciting exactly as has been intoned or recited—to wit, Atthaka, Vâmaka, Vâmadeva, Vessâmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhâradvâga, Vâsettha, Kassapa, and Bhagu[9]—did even they speak thus, saying: “We know it, we have seen it, where Brahmâ is, whence Brahmâ is, whither Brahmâ is?”’
‘Not so, Gotama!’
14. 'Then you say, Vâsettha [that not one of the Brâhmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahmâ face to face. And that even the Rishis of [ p. 173 ] old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brâhmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down—even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmâ is][10]. So that the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: “What we know not, what we have not seen, to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: ‘This is the straight path, this is the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmâ!’”
‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brâhmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’
15. 'Verily, Vâsettha, that Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen—such a condition of things has no existence!
‘Just, Vâsettha, as when a string of blind men are clinging one to the other[11], neither can the foremost [ p. 174 ] see, nor can the middle one see, nor can the hindmost see—just even so, methinks, Vâsettha, is the talk of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas but blind talk: the first sees not, the middle one sees not, nor can the latest see. The talk then of these Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas turns out to be ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing!’
16. ‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Can the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas—like other, ordinary, folk—see the sun and the moon as they pray to, and praise, and worship them, turning round with clasped hands towards the place whence they rise and where they set?’
‘Certainly, Gotama, they [can][12].’
17. ‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? The Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas, who can very well—like other, ordinary, folk—see the sun and the moon as they pray to, and praise, and worship them, turning round with clasped hands to the place whence they rise and where they set—are those Brâhmans, versed in the Three Vedas, able to point out the way to a state of union with the sun or the moon, saying: “This is the straight path, this the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, to a state of union with the sun or the moon?”’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
18. 'So you say, Vâsettha, that the Brâhmans [are not able to point out the way to union with that [ p. 175 ] which they have seen], and you further say that [neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmâ]. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, [whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmâ is. Yet these Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen!][13] Now what think you, Vâsettha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brâhmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’
19. 'Very good, Vâsettha. Verily then, Vâsettha, that Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen—such a condition of things has no existence.
‘Just, Vâsettha, as if a man should say, “How I long for, how I love the most beautiful woman in this land!”
‘And people should ask him, “Well! good friend! this most beautiful woman in the land whom you thus love and long for, do you know whether that beautiful woman is a noble lady or a Brâhman woman, or of the trader class, or a Sûdra?”
‘But when so asked he should answer “No.”
‘And when people should ask him, "Well! good [ p. 176 ] friend! this most beautiful woman in all the land, whom you so love and long for, do you know what the name of that most beautiful woman is, or what is her family name, whether she be tall or short, dark or of medium complexion, black or fair, or in what village or town or city she dwells?”
‘But when so asked he should answer “No.”
‘And then people should say to him, “So then, good friend, whom you know not, neither have seen, her do you love and long for?”
‘And then when so asked he should answer “Yes.”’
‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Would it not turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk!’
20. ‘And just even so, Vâsettha, though you say that the Brahmans [are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen], and you further say that [neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmâ]. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, [whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmâ is. Yet these Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen!] Now what think you, Vâsettha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brâhmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that [ p. 177 ] the talk of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’
‘Very good, Vâsettha. Verily then, Vâsettha, that Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen—such a condition of things has no existence.’
21. ‘Just, Vâsettha, as if a man should make a staircase in the place where four roads cross, to mount up into a mansion. And people should say to him, "Well, good friend, this mansion, to mount up into which you are making this staircase, do you know whether it is in the east, or in the south, or in the west, or in the north? whether it is high or low or of medium size?’
‘And when so asked he should answer “No.”’
‘And people should say to him, “But then, good friend, you are making a staircase to mount up into something—taking it for a mansion—which, all the while, you know not, neither have seen!”
‘And when so asked he should answer “Yes.”’
‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Would it not turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk!’
22. ‘And just even so, Vâsettha, though you say that the Brâhmans [are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen], and you further say that [neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmâ]. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, [whose [ p. 178 ] words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmâ is. Yet these Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen!] Now what think you, Vâsettha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’
23. ‘Very good, Vâsettha. Verily then, Vâsettha, that Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen—such condition of things has no existence.’
24. 'Again, Vâsettha, if this river Akiravatî were full of water even to the brim, and overflowing[14]. And a man with business on the other [ p. 179 ] side, bound for the other side, should come up, and want to cross over. And he, standing on this bank, should invoke the further bank, and say, “Come hither, O further bank! come over to this side!”
[ p. 180 ]
‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Would the further bank of the river Akiravatî, by reason of that man’s invoking and praying and hoping and praising, come over to this side?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
25. ‘In just the same way, Vâsettha, do the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas—omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brâhman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men not Brâhmans—say thus: “Indra we call upon, Soma we call upon, Varuna we call upon, Îsâna we call upon, Pagâpati we call upon, Brahma we call upon, Mahiddhi we call upon, Yama we call upon[15]!” Verily, Vâsettha, that those Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas, but omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brâhman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men not Brâhmans—that they, by reason of their invoking and praying and hoping and praising, should, after death and when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahmâ—verily such a condition of things has no existence!’
26. ‘Just, Vâsettha, as if this river Akiravatî were full, even to the brim, and overflowing. And a man with business on the other side, bound for the other side, should come up, and want to cross over. And he, on this bank, were to be bound tightly, with his arms behind his back, by a strong [ p. 181 ] chain. Now what think you, Vâsettha, would that man be able to get over from this bank of the river Akiravatî to the further bank?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
27. ‘In the same way, Vâsettha, there are five things leading to lust, which are called in the Discipline of the Noble One a “chain” and a “bond.”’
‘What are the five?’
‘Forms perceptible to the eye; desirable, agreeable, pleasant, attractive forms, that are accompanied by lust and cause delight. Sounds of the same kind perceptible to the ear. Odours of the same kind perceptible to the nose. Tastes of the same kind perceptible to the tongue. Substances of the same kind perceptible to the body by touch. These five things predisposing to passion are called in the Discipline of the Noble One a “chain” and a “bond.” And these five things predisposing to lust, Vâsettha, do the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas cling to, they are infatuated by them, guilty of them, see not the danger of them, know not how unreliable they are, and so enjoy them.
28. ‘And verily, Vâsettha, that Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas, but omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brâhman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brâhmans—clinging to these five things predisposing to passion, Infatuated by them, guilty of them, seeing not their danger, knowing not their unreliability, and so enjoying them-that these Brâhmans should after death, on the dissolution of the body, become united to Brahmâ—such a condition of things has no existence.’
[ p. 182 ]
29. 'Again, Vâsettha, if this river Akiravatl were full of water even to the brim, and overflowing. And a man with business on the other side, bound for the other side, should come up, and want to cross over. And if he covering himself up, even to his head, were to lie down, on this bank, to sleep.
‘Now what think you, Vâsettha? Would that man be able to get over from this bank of the river Akiravatl to the further bank?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
30. 'And in the same way, Vâsettha, there are these five hindrances, in the Discipline of the Noble One, which are called “veils[16],” and are called “hindrances[17],” and are called “obstacles[18],” and are called entanglements[19].”
‘Which are the five?’
‘The hindrance of lustful desire,
The hindrance of malice,
The hindrance of sloth and idleness,
The hindrance of pride and self-righteousness,
The hindrance of doubt.
These are the five hindrances, Vâsettha, which, in the Discipline of the Noble One, are called veils, and are called hindrances, and are called obstacles, and are called entanglements.
31. 'Now with these five hindrances, Vâsettha, the Brâhmans versed in the Three Vedas are veiled, hindered, obstructed, and entangled.
32. 'And verily, Vâsettha, that Brahmans versed [ p. 183 ] in the Three Vedas, but omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brâhman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brâhmans—veiled, hindered, obstructed, and entangled by these Five Hindrances—that these Brahmans should after death, on the dissolution of the body, become united to Brahmâ—such a condition of things has no existence.’
33. ‘Now what think you, Vâsettha, and what have you heard from the Brâhmans aged and well-stricken in years, when the learners and teachers are talking together? Is Brahmâ in possession of wives and wealth, or is he not[20]?’
‘He is not, Gotama.’
‘Is his mind full of anger, or free from anger?’
‘Free from anger, Gotama.’
‘Is his mind full of malice, or free from malice?’[21]
‘Free from malice, Gotama.’
‘Is his mind depraved, or pure?’
‘It is pure, Gotama.’
‘Has he self-mastery, or has he not[22]?’
‘He has, Gotama.’
34. 'Now what think you, Vâsettha, are the [ p. 184 ] Brahmans versed in the Vedas in the possession of wives and wealth, or are they not?’
‘They are, Gotama.’
‘Have they anger in their hearts, or have they not?’
‘They have, Gotama.’
‘Do they bear malice, or do they not?’
‘They do, Gotama.’
‘Are they pure in heart, or are they not?’
‘They are not, Gotama.’
‘Have they self-mastery, or have they not?’
‘They have not, Gotama.’
35. ‘Then you say, Vâsettha, that the Brahmans are in possession of wives and wealth, and that Brahmâ is not. Can there, then, be agreement and likeness between the Brâhmans with their wives and property, and Brahmâ, who has none of these things?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
36. ‘Very good, Vâsettha. But, verily, that these Brahmans versed in the Vedas, who live married and wealthy should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahmâ, who has none of these things—such a condition of things has no existence.’
37. ‘Then you say, too, Vâsettha, that the Brâhmans bear anger and malice in their hearts, and are sinful and uncontrolled, whilst Brahmâ is free from anger and malice, and sinless, and has self-mastery. Now can there, then, be concord and likeness between the Brahmans and Brahmâ?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama!’
38. ‘Very good, Vâsettha. That these Brâhmans versed in the Vedas and yet bearing anger and malice in their hearts, sinful, and uncontrolled, [ p. 185 ] should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united to Brahmâ, who is free from anger and malice, sinless, and has self-mastery—such a condition of things has no existence.’
39. 'So that thus then, Vâsettha, the Brâhmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, while they sit down (in confidence), are sinking down (in the mire)[23]; and so sinking they are arriving only at despair, thinking the while that they are crossing over into some happier land.
‘Therefore is it that the threefold wisdom of the Brâhmans, wise in their Three Vedas, is called a waterless desert, their threefold wisdom is called a pathless jungle, their threefold wisdom is called destruction!’
40. When he had thus spoken, the young Brâhman Vâsettha said to the Blessed One:
‘It has been told me, Gotama, that the Samana Gotama knows the way to the state of union with Brahmâ.
41. ‘What do you think, Vâsettha, is not Manasâkata near to this spot, not distant from this spot?’
‘Just so, Gotama. Manasâkata is near to, is not far from here.’
42. 'Now what think you, Vâsettha, suppose there were a man born in Manasâkata, and people should [ p. 186 ] sk him, who never till that time had left Manasâkata, which was the way to Manasâkata. Would that man, born and brought up in Manasâkata, be in any doubt or difficulty?’
‘Certainly not, Gotama! And why? If the man had been born and brought up in Manasâkata, every road that leads to Manasâkata would be perfectly familiar to him.’
43. ‘That man, Vâsettha, born and brought up at Manasâkata might, if he were asked the way to Manasâkata, fall into doubt and difficulty, but to the Tathâgata, when asked touching the path which leads to the world of Brahmâ, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty. For Brahmâ, I know, Vâsettha, and the world of Brahmâ, and the path which leadeth unto it. Yea, I know it even as one who has entered the Brahma world, and has been born within it!’
44. When he had thus spoken, Vâsettha the young Brâhman said to the Blessed One:
‘So has it been told me, Gotama, even that the Samana Gotama knows the way to a state of union with Brahmâ. It is well! Let the venerable Gotama be pleased to show us the way to a state of union with Brahma, let the venerable Gotama save the Brâhman race!’
45. ‘Listen then, Vâsettha, and give ear attentively, and I will speak!’
‘So be it, Lord!’ said the young Brâhman Vâsettha, in assent, to the Blessed One.
46. Then the Blessed One spake, and said:
Know, Vâsettha, that[24] (from time to time) a [ p. 187 ] Tathâgata is born into the world, a fully Enlightened One, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed Buddha[25]. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe—the world below with all its spirits, and the worlds above, of Mara and of Brahma—and all creatures, Samanas and Brâhmans, gods and men, and he then makes his knowledge known to others. The truth doth he proclaim both in its letter and in its spirit, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth he make known, in all its purity and in all its perfectness.
47. ‘A householder (gahapati), or one of his children, or a man of inferior birth in any class, listens to that truth[26]. On hearing the truth he has faith in the Tathâgata, and when he has acquired that faith he thus considers with himself:
‘“Full of hindrances is household life, a path defiled by passion: free as the air is the life of him who has renounced all worldly things. How difficult is it for the man who dwells at home to live the higher life in all its fulness, in all its purity, in all its bright perfection! Let me then cut off my hair and beard, let me clothe myself in the [ p. 188 ] range-coloured robes, and let me go forth from a household life into the homeless state!”
48. ‘Then before long, forsaking his portion of wealth, be it great or be it small; forsaking his circle of relatives, be they many or be they few, he cuts off his hair and beard, he clothes himself in the orange-coloured robes, and he goes forth from the household life into the homeless state.
49. ‘When he has thus become a recluse he passes a life self-restrained according to the rules of the Pâtimokkha; uprightness is his delight, and he sees danger in the least of those things he should avoid; he adopts and trains himself in the precepts; he encompasses himself with holiness in word and deed; he sustains his life by means that are quite pure; good is his conduct, guarded the door of his senses; mindful and self-possessed, he is altogether happy[27]!’
There is some difference in the MSS. as to the spelling of these names: T. reads Kankî; P. T. and D. Pokkharasâti (Sanskrit Paushkarasâdi); P. Gânuyoni, T. Gânusoni, D. Gânusoni; P. Toreyya, and Burnouf Nodeyya (which is possibly merely a misreading). Gânusoni was converted by the Bhaya-bherava Sutta, and I think it very probable that the other names are also those of subsequent converts.
Buddhaghosa adds that because Manasâkata was a pleasant place the Brâhmans had built huts there on the bank of the river and fenced them in, and used to go and stay there from time to time to repeat their mantras.
Burnouf, in a long note at ‘Lotus,’ &c., p. 491, already attempted to show that the river Akiravatî is the same as the modern Rapti, which he supposed to be a corruption of the latter part of the longer name. Hiouen Thsang mentions a river A-chi-lo-fa-ti, which is doubtless the same. It is evidently the river on which stood the town of Sâvatthi, and near to which lay the Getavana monastery (see ‘Buddhist Birth Stories,’ p. 331); and it must therefore, in accordance with Burnouf’s conjecture, be the Rapti, which is the Sanskrit Irâvati. The Phayre Burmese MS. has almost always Akîravatî. ↩︎
Buddhaghosa says that
Kankî lived at Opasâda,
Târukkha lived at Ikkhagala, {footnote p. 167}
Pokkharasâdi (sic MS.) lived at Ukkattha,
Gânussoni lived at Sâvatthi, and
Todeyya lived at Tudigâma. ↩︎
Ganghâvihâram anukankamantânam anuvikarantânam. On the first word see Gâtaka II, 2 7 2 (and comp. I 1, 2 40). Kankamati is to walk up and down thinking. I have added ‘after their bath’ from Buddhaghosa, who says that this must be understood to have taken place when, after learning by heart and repeating all day, they went down in the evening to the river-side to bathe, and then walked up and down on the sand. ↩︎
Brahma-sahavyatâya. The first part of the compound is masculine (see below, § 12), but the Buddhists probably included under the name, when put into the mouth of Brâhmans, all that the Brahmans included under both Brahmâ and Brâhman. The Buddhist archangel or god Brahmâ is different from both, being part of an entirely different system of thought. ↩︎
See below, § 46. ↩︎
This is either mildly sarcastic—as much as to say, ‘that is six to one, and half a dozen to the other’—or is intended to lead on Vâsettha to confess still more directly the fact that the different theologians held inconsistent opinions. ↩︎
P. here Atthariyâ, but below Addhariyâ (Sans. Adhvaryu); D. Titittiriyâ, T. Tattiriyâ, P. apparently Titthiriyâ (Sans. Taittirîya); D. Khandâva, T. P. omit (? Sans. Khândasa); all three MSS. Khandoka (Sans. Khandoga); p. Bavhadigâ here and below Kavhadigâ for Brahmakariyâ (? Sans. Brahmakârî). See ‘Lotus,’ p. 493. ↩︎
Maggâni, which is noteworthy as a curious change of gender. ↩︎
See Mahâ Vagga VI, 35, 2. ↩︎
In the text §§ 12, 13 are repeated word for word. ↩︎
Andhavenî paramparam samsattâ. The Phayre MS. has replaced venî by pavenî, after the constant custom of the Burmese MSS. to improve away unusual or difficult expressions. Buddhaghosa explains andhaveni by andhapaveni, and tells a tale of a wicked wight, who meeting a company of blind men, told them of a certain village wherein plenty of good food was to be had. When they besought him for hire to lead them there, be took the money, made one blind man catch hold of his stick, the next of that one, and so on, and then led them on till they came to a wilderness. There he deserted them, and they all—still {footnote [ p. 174 ]} holding each the other, and vainly, and with tears, seeking both their guide and the path—came to a miserable end! ↩︎
The words of the question are repeated in the text in this and the following answers. It must be remembered, for these sections, that the sun and moon were Gods just as much as Brahmâ. ↩︎
The text repeats at length the words of §§ 12, 13, 14. ↩︎
Samatittikâ kâkapeyyâ, a stock phrase used of a river in flood time. Buddhaghosa says, Samatittikâ ti samaharitâ (sic ? samâharitâ): kâkapeyyâ ti yatthakatthaki tîre thitena kâkena sakkâ pâtun ti kâkapeyyâ, which does not seem to me to solve the question as to the origin and history of these difficult terms. With respect to the right form of samatittikâ it should be noticed that the northern Buddhist spelling is samatîrthakâ (Sukhavatîvyûha, ed. Max Müller in J. R. A. S. for 1880, p. 182), and that both Childers and Oldenberg have read samatitthikâ in the Burmese MSS. of Mahâparinibbâna Sutta I, 33 = Mahâ Vagga VI, 28. Now the difference in Burmese letters between tt and tth (### and ###) is so very small that the copyists frequently write one for the other; and even in good MSS. where the two are not confounded, it is sometimes difficult to tell which is really meant. When talking of rivers the mention of titthas seems so appropriate {footnote p. 179} that a copyist, and especially a Burmese copyist, would naturally read a doubtful combination as tth; so that even if all Burmese MSS. spell this word with tth (which is by no means certain), very little reliance should be placed upon the fact. On the other hand, the distinction in Sinhalese between tt and tth is very marked (### and ###) and the Sinhalese MSS. all read tt. I think therefore that Childers was right in finally adopting samatittikâ as the correct Pâli form. In the numerous words in which Buddhist Sanskrit has a form differing in a way which sets philological rules at defiance from the corresponding Pâli form, Childers thought (see Dict. p. xi, where the list of words might be greatly extended) that the Sanskrit was always derived from the Pâli, and the Sanskrit writers had merely blundered. I venture, with great diffidence, to doubt this. It seems more likely that, at least in many instances, both Pâli and Sanskrit were alike derived from a previous Prâkrit form, and that in differently interpreting a difficult word, both Sanskrit and Pâli authors made mistakes. That may be the case here; and it is almost certain that the original word had nothing to do with tîrtha. How easily this idea could be adopted we see from the fact that Childers when first editing the MSS. (in the J. R. A. S. for 1874), and when he had only Sinhalese MSS. then before him, altered their reading into samatitthikâ, and put this form into his Dictionary; though he afterwards (in the separate edition), and after noting that reading in the Phayre MS., chose the other. But what, after all, does ‘having equal or level tîrthas or landing-places’ mean, when spoken of a river? Comp. Samatittikam bhuñgâmi (Mil. 213, 214); Sabbato tittam pokkharanim (Gât. I, 339, text tittham); and Samatittiko telapatto (ibid. 393, text ºiyo, but see p. 400). The root perhaps is TRIP.
Kâkapeyya, according to Buddhaghosa, would mean ‘crow-drinkable.’ Crows do not drink on the wing; and they could stand to drink either when a river actually overflowed its banks and formed shallows on the adjoining land; or when in the hot season it had formed shallows in its own bed. ‘Crow-drinkable’ might mean therefore just as well 'shallow’ as ‘overflowing.’ Had the word originally anything to do with kâka after all? ↩︎
The Sinhalese MSS. omit Mahiddhi and Yama, but repeat the verb ‘we call upon’ three times after Brahmâ. It is possible that the Burmese copyist has wrongly inserted them to remove the strangeness of this repetition. The comment is silent. ↩︎
Âvaranâ. ↩︎
Nîvaranâ. ↩︎
All three MSS. onahâ. S. V. reads onaddham in the text, and explains it by onahâ. ↩︎
All three MSS. pariyonahâ. S. V. reads pariyoddham in the text, and explains it by pariyonahâ. ↩︎
Sapariggaho vâ Brahmâ apariggaho vâ ti. Buddhaghosa says on Vâsettha’s reply, ’Kâmakkhandassa abhâvato itthipariggaheno apariggaho,‘ thus restricting the ’possession‘ to women, with especial reference to the first ’hindrance;‘ but the word in the text, though doubtless alluding to possession of women in particular, includes more. Compare, on the general idea of the passage, the English expression ’no encumbrances.’ ↩︎
Asankilittha-kitto. That is, says Buddhaghosa, ‘free from mental sloth and idleness, self-righteous ness, and pride.’ ↩︎
Vasavattî vi avasavattî va. Buddhaghosa says, in explanation of the answer: ‘By the absence of doubt he has his mind under control’ (vase vatteti). ↩︎
Âsîditva samsîdanti. I have no doubt the commentator is right in his explanation of these figurative expressions. Confident in their knowledge of the Vedas, and in their practice of Vedic ceremonies, they neglect higher things; and so, sinking into sin and superstition, ‘they are arriving only at despair, thinking the while that they are crossing over into some happier land.’ ↩︎
From here down to the end of p. 200 is a repetition word for {footnote p. 187} word of Sâmañña Phala Sutta, pp. 133 and following; including the passages there parallel to those in Subha Sutta, p. 157, and in Brahma-gâla Sutta, pp. 5-16. ↩︎
See above, § 7. ↩︎
The point is, that the acceptance of this ‘Doctrine and Discipline’ is open to all, not of course that Brâhmans never accept it. ↩︎
The argument is resumed after the Three Sîlas, or Descriptions of Conduct—a text, doubtless older than the Suttas in which it occurs, setting forth the distinguishing moral characteristics of a member of the Order.
The First Sîla is an expansion of the Ten Precepts (‘Buddhism,’ [ p. 160 ]), but omitting the fifth, against the use of intoxicating drinks. The Second Sîla is a further expansion of the first and then of the last four, and finally of the fourth Precept. The Third Sîla is directed against auguries, divinations, prophecies, astrology, quackery, ritualism, and the worship of Gods (including Brahmâ).
These Three Sîlas may perhaps have been inserted in the Sutta as a kind of counterpoise to the Three Vedas. Our Sutta really reads better without them; but they are interesting in themselves, and the third is especially valuable as evidence of ancient customs and beliefs. ↩︎