A History of Indian Philosophy v2.c19.s6.10

v2.c19.s6.10

The question whether a saint is above the tyranny of the effects of his own deeds was also raised in Buddhist quarters. Thus we find in the *Kathā-vatthu* that a discussion is raised as to whether a saint can be killed before his proper time of death, and it is said that no one can attain *nirvāṇa* without enjoying the fruits of accumulated intentional deeds¹. A story is told in the *Dhamma-pada* commentary (the date of which, according to E. W. Burlingame, is about A.D. 450), how the great saint Moggallāna was torn in pieces by thieves, and his bones were pounded until they were as small as grains of rice; such a miserable death of such a great saint naturally raised doubts among his disciples, and these were explained by Buddha, who said that this was due to the crime of parricide, which Moggallāna had committed in some previous birth; even though he had attained sainthood (*arhattva*) in that life, he could not escape suffering the effect of his misdeeds, which were on the point of bearing fruit². This would naturally imply the view that sainthood does not necessarily mean destruction of the body, but that even after the attainment of sainthood the body may continue to exist for the suffering of the effects of such actions as are on the point of bearing fruit.