Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c9: Chapter V. Early and Late in the Majjhima-Nikāya

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Early and Late in the Majjhima-Nikāya

c9.2

The grouping and order of suttas in the MN “unhistorical”.—The authenticity of the groupings and arrangement of suttas in the MN is rendered suspect by the great difference which the Pāli and Chinese versions¹ show in this respect. The fact that in the Pali text each “vagga” contains just ten suttas (with the exception of the vibhaṅga, which has twelve) and each “Paṇṇāsa” just five “vaggas” argues strongly for the mechanical, unhistorical character of its divisions and sub-divisions.² As to its arrangement of the suttas, it is clearly mechanical in the whole of the middle “Paṇṇāsa”. The suttas have been here divided into “Vaggas” according to the class of persons who figure predominantly in them, which they do principally by playing the role of the addressee. Thus, the suttas in the “Gahapativagga” contain sermons and dialogues in which Buddha addresses householders, sutta 57 alone being exceptional. And it is similar with the following ‘vaggas’ in this “Paṇṇāsa”. In the previous “Paṇṇāsa” too a similarly systematic grouping occurs in vaggas 3–4, the first containing only such suttas as are centred round an “upamā”, and the next such as are in pairs, e.g., Cūḷagosiṅga and Mahā°. The Vibhaṅgavagga in the third “Paṇṇāsa” forms a distinct unity in the sense that it contains suttas having a common characteristic form.

c9.3

¹ From Nanjio’s Catalogue it appears that the MA contains a larger number of suttas than the MN, and that the former includes some suttas which are found in other Nikāyas in the Pali canon. Thus suttas 59, 66, 68 and 97 of the MĀ are found in the DN as Lakkhaṇasutta, Aggañña° (?), Mahāsudassana°, and Mahānidāna° respectively.

c9.4

² Cf. Franke, ZDMG 1914, p. 474. The similarity of the neighbouring suttas led him to conclude: “M. mindestens im groszen und ganzen das einheitlich, im Zusammenhang verfasste Werk eines Schriftstellers ist” (l. c.).

c9.5

This suggests that the place and order of occurrence of the suttas in the MN³ has not, in general, come about through any historical process of growth. It is largely, if not wholly, the work of the collectors.

c9.6

³ The Pali version, which alone is referred to henceforth. For the Majjhima Paṇṇāsa the ref. is to the Nāgarī Edition by N. K. Bhagwat. For the rest, the ref. is to the PTS edition.

c9.7

The third Pannasa possibly later.—But there seems to be indicated the possibility of a significant exception. It may turn out that the third “Paṇṇāsa” contains on the whole more of later material than the first two “Paṇṇāsas”. Certainly it contains the greatest number of such suttas as can with some definiteness be supposed “late”.⁴ Mrs. Rhys Davids remarks: “Whether or not it may be held to betray later compilation, nothing in these volumes, especially in the last, is so thrown into relief as the importance in Buddhist ethics of cultivating psychological analysis......of the last thirty-four suttas no less than fifteen are concerned with this question.”⁵ Although the beginnings of psychological analysis may go back to the most primitive Buddhism, its greatest growth and popularity must undoubtedly be placed much later, in the Age of the Abhidhamma. And this suggests that a concentration of psychological suttas harmonizes more with a later than an earlier compilation. And the same argument holds generally for the suttas in the Vibhaṅgavagga: although it is possible that Buddha might have adopted (especially as he grew old)

c9.8

⁴ See below.

c9.9

⁵ JRAS. 1902, p. 481.

c9.10

the method of himself delivering only a short sermon, leaving it to be elaborated by one of the leading disciples, and this might account for the peculiar form of these suttas which are divided into an uddesa and a vibhaṅga,⁶ yet it is much simpler to suppose this form to have been the result of a growing “commentarial” vogue, the vogue, that is, of systematically elaborating older texts and ideas. And it is important to remember that the uddesas in question furnish not so much short sermons for the vibhaṅgas to explain, as concise analytical abstracts of the latter. They appear like brief “arguments” that have been prefaced to longer texts for the convenience of understanding and remembering the latter.⁷

c9.11

⁶ For the two extra suttas of this vagga see below.

c9.12

⁷ For a further consideration of these suttas see below.

c9.13

Classification of suttas into Early, Late, Composite and Uncertain.—On the whole, however, it is the individual sutta, and not any obviously detectable group of suttas, that must form the unit to start with in the stratification of the MN. But although a few suttas can be indicated as early and a few others as late, some appear “composite” in character, that is to say, show within them more than one literary stratum. This leaves out of account those suttas which, though unitary as compositions, nevertheless exhibit diverse ideological strata. Again, the very comprehensiveness of the classes “early” and “late” must, it may be supposed, conceal undetected—or rather unprovable “sub-stratum”—heterogeneity. At places this has been indicated. In contrast to the DN the number of “uncertain” suttas about the earliness or lateness of which it is impossible to pronounce with any definiteness, is very large. This is due partly to their shortness, which hinders the concurrence of several distinct tests, and partly to their elusive generality and homogeneity.*

c9.14

(a) Early:

c9.15

Sutta 7 is significantly entitled Vatthūpama.° It begins by pointing out that just as a cloth to be coloured brightly must be purified of its dirt, so must the heart (citta) that has to move along the path of progress (Sugati) be purified of its upakkilesas. There are certain evil emotions and desires which are then mentioned. The list also occurs at other places in the Nikāyas. The purificatory process forms the following sequence:— Avecceppasāda — Pāmojja — Pīti — Passaddhi — Sukha— Samādhi. The formula occurs at many other places. The heart (citta) of the monk is now like a clean washed cloth or purified gold. No more does pleasant experience cause in him attachment. Then follows abruptly the stock formula of the four Brahmavihāras and its relevancy is hard to understand. After it occurs “So atthi idam, atthi hīnam atthi paṇītam, atthi imassa saññāgatassa uttarim nissaraṇanti pajānāti”;⁸ thus knowing he is released from the three āsavas and reaches the end of Brahmacariya. Again “vuccati . . . bhikkhu sināto antarena sinānenāti.”⁹ This suggested to Sundarika Bhāradvāja the idea of inviting Buddha to an actual bath in the river Bāhukā considered sacred. Buddha exposes the hollowness of such superstitions and Sundarika is converted.

c9.16

∗ For the Majjhima Paṇṇāsa the references are to the Nāg. ed. ⁸ MN. I, p. 38. ⁹ Ib., 39.

c9.17

All the material of the sutta, except possibly the list of the upakkilesas, is early, and there is nothing in it that suggests lateness except perhaps the interruption of the Four Brahmavihāras.

c9.18

Sutta 17—A short and utterly simple sermon on the kind of forest in which a monk should dwell, which, however, is quite mechanically repeated with reference to Gāma, Nigama, Nagara, Janapada and Puggala. This appears like spinning out.

c9.19

The doctrinal assumption too of the sutta is no more elaborate than that “sati” and “samādhi” are the means to the attainment of “āsavakkhaya” and “anuttara-yogakkhema” for the sake of which the monk strives. Unlike later pictures of the doctrine, this places equal emphasis on the negative and positive aspects of the goal, the means to which are not set in any of the later formulae.

c9.20

The sutta appears to belong to an age when the Buddhist monk was more a solitary hermit who meditated in the forest than the active member of a town-dwelling church. The implicit picture of the “Saṅgha” is nearer that in the Sn. than in the Vin.¹⁰ It appears that it was this incongruity of the sutta with later conditions which led to the appendant sections with Peyyālas about Gāma, etc. This suggestion is supported by the following circumstances: Before the sermon, Buddha is represented as saying that he would deliver the “vanapatthapariyāya” and it would be quite remarkable indeed if he should actually proceed to deliver a sermon of which the “Pariyāya” on “Vanapattha” forms less than one-fifth. In other words, the aforementioned suggestion about the lateness of the sections relating to Gāma, etc., explains very well the title of the sutta, which is undoubtedly old since it is contained in the text itself.¹¹ And as already pointed out, there is a discernible cause for the appendage.

c9.21

¹⁰ Cf. Fausböll's intr. to the tr. of Sn. in the SBE.

c9.22

¹¹ This does not assume anything about the authenticity of the introductory section.

c9.23

In any case, the earliness of the sutta is suggested by its simplicity in thought and style as also by the character of the external environment which it brings home to the reader.

c9.24

It may be noted that the sutta uses the rare form “Anāpucchā”.¹²

c9.25

¹² MN. I, pp. 106, 107.

c9.26

Sutta 24.—In a dialogue between Upatissa Sāriputta and Puṇṇa Mantāniputta the latter expounds the true purpose of the doctrine and points out how the various first views are but so many progressive stages to it. This is illustrated by the remarkable Rathavinīta comparison. That this was central in the sutta is indicated by the almost concurrent titles in the Pali and Chinese versions of it.¹³ The comparison speaks of King Pasenadi as journeying from Sāvatthi to Sāketa by seven relays of chariots. This intimate and original simile has the appearance of being taken from life. That it should have occurred, in those days of short historical memory, to a latter-day monk does not seem very likely.

c9.27

¹³ Anesaki—JRAS. 1901, p. 897.

c9.28

The doctrinal position of the sutta is in full agreement with this appearance of earliness. There is as yet no question of stereotyped formulae,¹⁴ and unlike the later discussions between the monks¹⁵ the subject of interest is not some technical nicety, an unresolved contradiction or a new problem demanding answer; it is, on the other hand, the central problem of what may be regarded as the true end of the religious quest.

c9.29

¹⁴ As in the catechetic dialogues between the monks.

c9.30

¹⁵ As, e.g., in the Vedalla suttas.

c9.31

Finally it may be noted that the sutta has been supposed to be one of the texts referred to by Aśoka.¹⁶

c9.32

¹⁶ e.g., D. C. Sircar —Select Ins. I, p. 78 fn. 2.

c9.33

Sutta 29.—Sutta 29: It is a short earnest sermon which is closely allied in spirit to the sutta just discussed. It too seeks to distinguish the essence of Brahmacariya from the superficies, and like the other sutta has a central parable—that of a man seeking the essence of a huge tree and mistaking it for the outer bark, etc. It fits in very well with the present context and is closely intertwined with the main text.

c9.34

At the end, the sutta summarizes itself neatly thus: "Iti kho bhikkhave nayidam brahmacariyaṃ lābhasakkārasilokānisaṃsaṃ, na sīlasampadānisaṃsaṃ, na samādhi,° na ñāṇadassanānisaṃsaṃ. Yā ca kho ayaṃ bhikkhave akuppā cetovimutti etadatthamidaṃ bhikkhave brahmacariyaṃ etaṃ sāraṃ etampariyosānanti."¹⁷

c9.35

¹⁷ MN. I, p. 197.

c9.36

An earlier stage of the doctrine is difficult to imagine. Of course, older doctrines may occur in later compositions, but, then, the present sutta displays no late features whatever.

c9.37

Suttas 29 and 30 compared.—The relation of this sutta (Mahāsāropama°) to the next sutta (MN. s. 30), which is Cūḷasāropama°, deserves notice. In spite of the title it is the following sutta which is the longer and more elaborate one. Both deal with the same subject and have the same summary at the end. It is possible that one is not the elaboration of the other but that both are two different versions of the same sutta. An important addition in sutta 30 is its attempt to enumerate the states higher than Ñāṇadassana and these are set out as the "Jhānas" and the "Vimokkhas".¹⁸ This clearly attributes an unusual meaning to the term Ñāṇadassana, which in the Sāmaññaphala sutta appears equivalent to "viññāṇassa (Kāyapaṭibaddhassa) dassanaṃ."19 In later texts its meaning became more general but did not depreciate in estimation.²⁰ The present use therefore shows the term in a stage where it was either not yet adapted to Buddhist purposes, or, as is more likely, its usage fluctuated. It may be remembered that a deprecatory use of Ñāṇa occurs at places in the Sn (in the four Aṭṭhakas, for example).

c9.38

¹⁸ By implication Ñāṇadassana has nothing to do with these, and represents a lower attainment.

c9.39

²⁰ Cf. Vin. IV, 26 (see PD).

c9.40

Sutta 26.—Sutta 26 contains the first of the three closely connected biographical pieces relating to Buddha in the MN. It describes the days between the (Mahābhinikkramaṇa) and the conversion of the Pañcavaggiya Bhikkhus. The autobiographic form of the narrative distinguishes it from the other two main canonical accounts of Buddha's life, viz., DN. 16 and Vin (the opening sections of the Mvg.). This form, however, is probably to be regarded as an apocryphal contribution. The verses that appear in the narrative (MN. I, pp. 168–169; 171) seem to belong to the same genre of balladic biography as is also evidenced in the DN (Mahāparinibbāna°) and the Sn (Pabbajjā-and Padhāna suttas). The sutta has another similarity with DN. 16 and that is the separate occurrence of parts of it. The incident of (Brahmāyācana), for instance, occurs in SN.I., and has been obviously utilized in the second Bhāṇavāra of the much later Mahāpadāna-sutta (DN. 14).

c9.41

¹⁹ For a fuller discussion of the term see infra.

c9.42

But, unlike the Mahāparinibbāna°, the present narrative shows no obvious late features. Further, an earlier form of this biographical tradition is not discoverable in the canon.

c9.43

It is important to notice that whereas the purpose of the whole sutta is to explain the "Noble Quest" (Ariyapariyesana), which provides the occasion for the illustrative "reminiscences" of Buddha, the paragraph that begins on page 173 (MN. 1) treats abruptly of a different subject—how the Bhikkhu should avoid the five strands of sensuous desire (Kāmaguṇas). The last para ends with the realization by the Pañcavaggiyas that "Akuppā no vimutti, ayamantimā Jāti natthi dāni punabbhavo ti;" and this para suddenly begins "Pañcime Bhikkhave kāmaguṇā, katame pañca" etc. Further, this new section indicates its lateness by a schematic account of the nine contemplative stages. It may also be noted that it is much more closely connected—in subject-matter and simile—to the previous sutta (MN. 25) than to the present one. Is it possible that MN. 26 represents a "confusion" of two (once) different suttas—the Ariyapariyesana° and the Pāsarāsi?°21 The wavering of the title would then be, incidentally, well explained.

c9.44

The other two biographical suttas.—Of the other two biographical suttas of the MN, no. 36 is distinctly later than the one just considered. It belongs to an age when the "Bodhisatta" idea had come into existence.²² The extreme exaggeration in which the sutta revels while depicting the penances of Buddha may be noted. Of course, it is more than probable that during his “Quest” Buddha experimented with austere asceticism too, but that is not inconsistent with a tendency to exaggerate its severity among his followers owing to their eagerness to repel the charges of the Nigaṇṭhas. The present sutta itself contains an indication to that effect. Saccaka—the Nigaṇṭhaputta—suggests “Addhābhoto Gotamassa sāvakā cittabhāvanānuyogamanuyuttā viharanti no kāyabhāvananti.”²³ Buddha answers by explaining the true nature of these two types of “culture” (Bhāvanā) and Saccaka is apparently convinced. But then Buddha does not stop here, but goes on to establish in great detail through an autobiographical narrative of how he had had an unrivalled experience of “Kāya-bhāvanā” in the ordinary sense as well. This overweening anxiety not to be considered “behind” in any sphere, it seems, is more consistent with the disciples than with the Master himself. And, as already pointed out, that it is a scholastic composition, can hardly be doubted in view of the fact that it uses the term “Bodhisatta”.²⁴

c9.45

²¹ For this title see Papañcasūdanī—Part II, p. 163. (PTS ed.).

c9.46

²² Cf. Har Dayal—The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Sans. Buddh. Lit., p. 43.

c9.47

²³ MN. I, p. 238.

c9.48

²⁴ The main part of sutta 100 consists of a repetition of the text on asceticism which occurs in this sutta. The two suttas are clearly not independent. It may be that both utilize the same stock text. The query at the end of sutta 100—Atthi devāti—also occurs in sutta 90, but B’s mode of answering is quite different.

c9.49

The last of the biographical triad in the MN.—sutta 85—is the fullest, since it combines the account of the Ariyapariyesana° which lacks the sections on asceticism and the “vijjās”, and that of the Mahāsaccaka° which lacks those on Brahmāyācana et seq.

c9.50

Of course, a direct borrowing is impossible to prove, but the use of the word “Bodhisatta” indicates that sutta 85 cannot be in any case much earlier than sutta 36. (Mahāsaccaka°).

c9.51

All these three suttas have considerable similarity with the account in the Lalitavistara, the similarity at places being quite literal.²⁵ But owing to the uncertainty about the sources utilized in this latter work. this fact of similarity (or of the accompanying dissimilarity) cannot by itself be taken to indicate either the earliness or the lateness of these accounts.

c9.52

²⁵ See Chap. on Buddha's Life.

c9.53

Ambalatthikarahulovada.°—To come back to the "early" suttas—The Ambalaṭṭhikārāhulovāda° is simple and practical, beside being short. It is quite free from any formulae, although the description of "introspection"—Paccavekkhaṇa—afforded a splendid opportunity for their introduction, the doctrinal context being similar to that utilised in the Satipaṭṭhāna°.

c9.54

It has been suggested that the specification—Ecā Lāghulovāde musāvādaṃ adhigicya Bhagavatā Budhena bhāsite" ²⁶—has been adopted by Aśoka in order to distinguish MN. 61 from among the several other suttas addressed to "Rāhula". That is possible; on the other hand, it has to be remembered that Aśoka shows no such care in the case of the other texts, e.g., Aliyavasāni. Now it is noticeable that the sutta contains two distinct sections, the first dealing with Sampajānamusāvāda and the second with Paccavekkhaṇa as the means to purify the actions of body, speech and mind. The two are not very closely connected, and in the present sermon the section relating to Musāvāda is the shorter and doctrinally less important one.

c9.55

²⁶ Aśoka's Bairāt Edict.

c9.56

Is it not then possible that the specification was adopted by Aśoka, because he wanted attention to be particularly directed to the first of the two sections of the Rāhula sutta?²⁷

c9.57

²⁷ Cf. MN, 61 “se retrouve à peu près identique dans la collection sanskrite traduite en chinois (Madhyamāgama-sūtra 14 Tchoung A-Lan).” (Lévi-JA 1912, Nov.-Dec., 495).

c9.58

Sutta 63.—Sutta 63 is the famous sermon to Māluṅkyaputta on the “Abyākatas”. Māluṅkyaputta adopts an uncompromising and determined attitude, formulating the fundamental problem in a pointed manner: either Buddha should answer the queries raised, or honestly confess his ignorance. Buddha replies by means of the arrow-parable, which, in substance, is an appeal to expediency.

c9.59

The nature of the problem, which Buddha must have had to face often enough, the simple and practical character of the answer, the centrality of the parable, all these support the impression of earliness which the sutta as a whole carries.

c9.60

Sutta 71.—Sutta 71 is unusually short. Buddha disclaims all pretence to omniscience (after the Jaina manner), claiming as a substitute the knowledge of the “three vijjās”. This doubtless belongs to an early stratum for the issue was, with the growth of apotheosis, soon involved in controversy, and even the least pretentious view which seems to find representation in MN. 90, went beyond the sutta under consideration.

c9.61

Sutta 108.—Sutta 108 seems to contain a historical narrative setting; it claims to belong to a period shortly after Buddha’s death, when Ajātasattu was threatened by Pajjota and Rājagaha was being fortified. Such settings are quite rare in the Nikāyas, and there seems to be no reason to doubt the veracity of the present one. Also, the contents of the sutta are quite in line with the supposition that its compilation is not far removed in time from the events which it describes. Ānanda explains to the Brāhmaṇas Gopaka Moggalāna and Vassakāra—the Magadhan mahāmatta—that Buddha had not appointed any individual as his successor, and that consequently "Dhamma" alone was their Refuge (Paṭisaraṇa). Dhamma is defined, not as sutta and vinaya, but as "(Yaṃ) Sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ Pātimokkhaṃ uddiṭṭhaṃ."²⁸ Ānanda also recounts the ten "Pasādanīyadhammas" which include the more important "Sāmaññaphalas."²⁹ This summary of the "Dhamma" appears to belong to an age when the canonized literature and with it the central doctrines of the Buddhist community had not yet attained to any great elaboration. Besides, the fact that Buddha left behind him no individual as successor could have been a curiosity only while it was yet a novelty, and it could not have remained that much longer after Buddha's death, at least in the area about Rājagaha.

c9.62

²⁸ MN. III, p. 10.

c9.63

²⁹ On the earliness of the Sāmaññaphala-list see remarks on DN. 2........

c9.64

Sutta 144.—Sutta 144 relates the last moments of Channa, who commits suicide. That custom is an old one finding its parallel among the Jinists.³⁰ It is true that the sutta contains a section in catechistic style on the "Anattahood" of the senses, the sense-perceptions and the "sense-perceptible" objects. But that is far from being any certain indication of lateness. On the other hand, the following words of Mahācunda addressed to Channa seem to contain a quotation with a decidedly archaic imprint “Tasmātiha, āvuso channa, idaṃ pi tassa Bhagavato sāsanaṃ niccakappaṃ manasikātabbaṃ; nissitassa calitaṃ anissitassa calitaṃ natthi; calite asati passaddhi,* passaddhiyā sati nati na hoti; natiyā asati āgatigati na hoti; āgatigatiyā asati cutūpapāto na hoti; cutūpapāte asati n’en’edha na huraṃ na ubhayamantarena es’evanto dukkhassāti.”³¹ The style of this passage may be compared with that of the passage in the Devadaha sutta³² which summarizes the Jinist doctrine. Again, the following sentence of Buddha, who does not condemn the action of Channa,³³ is hardly harmonious with the Anatta doctrine as understood later—“Yo kho Sāriputta, imañca kāyaṃ nikkhipati aññañca kāyaṃ upādiyati, tamahaṃ sa-upavajjoti vadāmi.”³⁴

c9.65

³⁰ See below.

c9.66

Finally, the earliness of the sutta is presumptive in the sense that there is little intrinsic probability in an obituary sutta being composed de novo long after the death of the person concerned. Of course, that does not rule out the possibility of a “re-dressing” of older material.

c9.67

(b) Late:

c9.68

Sutta 8.—It presents a lengthy list of forty-four qualities to be practised, if true austerities (Sallekha) are to be followed. It is quite possible that we have here the inflated form of a previously existing less verbose and more pointed “Sallekhapariyāya” which attempted to distinguish the Buddhist discipline from current ascetic and mystic practices.

c9.69

∗ The PTS. ed. places the comma after sati. ³¹ MN. III, p. 266. ³² Cf. also Ud., p. 8 (Nāg. ed.). ³³ The moral issue which arises is similar to that faced by B. immediately after Realization. ³⁴ Loc. cit.

c9.70

Sutta 12.—MN. 12 or the Mahāsīhanāda° is as lengthy as it is exaggerated.³⁵ Sunakkhatta Licchaviputta casts aspersions on Buddha’s supernormal powers and the Dhamma preached by him. This rouses Buddha to grandiloquent self-praise; he details the ten Powers (Balas) of the Tathāgata and his four Excellences (Vesārajjas), and then goes on to describe the knowledge that he possesses of the 8 Parisās, the 4 Yonis, and the 5 Gatis. After this he proves himself to be the Paramatapassī, the Paramalūkho, the Paramejegucchī and the Paramavivitto. He is even sensitive on the score of his age which is stated to be eighty and explicitly asserts his superiority in energy to several young men put together.³⁶ And he takes care to point out several times that anyone who disparaged him was as good as thrown into hell.

c9.71

³⁵ With its description of B’s asceticism compare that in sutta 36.

c9.72

³⁶ With this contrast the humility apparent in a section of D. 16 whence the expression about the age as eighty seems to have been taken.

c9.73

In occasion and spirit this sutta resembles the Pāṭikasuttanta of the DN.³⁷ while with the Cūlasīhanāda° it has no more than titular similarity.

c9.74

³⁷ Where the same person disparages B. on the score of miracles.

c9.75

Sutta 28.—MN. 28 contains a sermon by Sāriputta in which he explains a very developed theory of the Five Khandhas. Man is regarded as an aggregate of impermanent matter and “dependent” phenomena. The four elements are described in great detail, and the conception of Viññāṇa is purely “epiphenomenal”. It seems to use “ākāso” in the sense of empty space.³⁸

c9.76

³⁸ MN. I, p. 190.

c9.77

The lateness of the sutta is confirmed by the fact that it explicitly quotes from M 21³⁹ “vuttaṃ kho panetaṃ bhagavatā kakacūpamavāde: ubhatodaṇḍakenāpi ce bhikkhave corā acarakā aṅgamaṅgāni okanteyyuṃ, tatra pi yo mano padoseyya na me so tena sāsanakaro ti.”⁴⁰ There is another quotation in the sutta on pages 190–1 “vuttaṃ kho panetaṃ Bhagavatā: yo Paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati, yo dhmmaṃ passati . . . ” (cf. “Yo bhikṣavaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ paśyati sa dharmam paśyati, yo dharmam paśyati sa Buddhaṃ paśyati.” Quoted in AK. V. III. p. 48). This time, however, the source is not specified. Sutta 32 suggests its lateness by containing the developed standardized list of the nine meditative stages,⁴¹ as well as another of eight classes of gods.

c9.78

³⁹ Which contains a most glowing description of the ideal of Mettā. It abounds in similes and parables. It is perhaps a very early sutta.

c9.79

⁴⁰ Ib. p. 189.

c9.80

⁴¹ On the growth of this list see chap. on way.

c9.81

Sutta 33.—The next sutta contains an elaborate comparison of the Bhikkhu with the cowherd, establishing no less than eleven points of contact. Buddha begins the sermon with “Ekādaschi bhikkhave aṅgehi samannāgato etc.⁴² and the style is reminiscent of the AN. Further, in speaking of “bhikkhū . . . dhammadharā vinaya° mātikā° . . . ”⁴³ the sutta implies that these three distinct classes had already come into existence, that is to say, it bespeaks a developed stage of canonical literature. Finally, it may be noted that the sutta lays a great stress on respect being shown to the “Elders”: “Ye te bhikkhū therā rattaññū cirapabbajitā saṅghapitaro saṅghapariṇāyakā te atirekapūjāya pūjetā hoti.”⁴⁴ Now Anesaki tells us "In the chinese Āgamas the title (Thera) occurs, as far as I know, only thrice—the title Āyuṣman being used otherwise in such cases. Can we conclude either that the Chinese version is derived from traditions dating from an age in the history of Buddhism when the authority of the Theras was not yet solidified, or it descended from a school antagonistic to the authority of the orthodox Theras?"

c9.82

⁴² MN. I. p. 220.

c9.83

⁴³ Ib. 221.

c9.84

⁴⁴ Ib. P. 222, 224.

c9.85

⁴⁵ JRAS 1901 p. 897.

c9.86

Now it is important to notice that in sutta 108 of MN. Ānanda tells a Brāhmaṇa that the criteria of respect were furnished to them by the ten Pasādanīya dhammas which Buddha had declared "Yasmim no ime dhammā saṃvijjanti taṃ mayaṃ etarahi sakkaroma mānena pūjema, sakkatvā garukatvā upanissāya vihārama . . . . . . "46 Of age, of "Therā....cirappabbajitā saṅghapitaro...." as the recipients of special honour, there is here no talk. It appears, therefore, that the authority of the "Elders" grew only gradually;⁴⁷ and was never recognized by all. The present sutta (MN. 33) openly ranges itself on the "authoritarian" side and thereby confirms the general picture of its lateness.

c9.87

⁴⁷ The traces of a "solitary hermit" stage in the development of the saṅgha also supports it.

c9.88

Sutta 35.—Sutta 35 contains a disputation between Saccaka—the Nigaṇṭhaputta—and Buddha in the midst of a Licchavi assembly. Buddha summarizes his position in the formula "Rūpaṃ bhikkhave aniccaṃ . . . . . . viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ; rūpaṃ . . . .anattā . . . .viññāṇaṃ anattā; sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, sabbe dhammā anattā, ti."48 The doctrine of Anatta in the Five khandhas has here come to occupy the central place in the Buddhist teaching and actually overshadows all else. This orientation suggests a mature scholastic age.

c9.89

⁴⁶ MN. III. p. 11.

c9.90

⁴⁸ MN. I. p. 230 The same summary by Assaji on p. 229; with it may be compared the other summary by him in the Mahāvagga: ye dhammā hetuppabhavā eti." Both are marked by the same degree of abstraction and generality.

c9.91

Saccaka Nigaṇṭhaputta is represented as implicitly accepting this fivefold analysis of the Purisapuggala, only asserting the "Attahood" of the khandhas. This even remotely fails to connect with what we know of the Nigaṇtha views of soul and mind. Either, then, the whole situation is merely a literary device to reassert the banal catechism on the Three Marks as applied to the Five Khandhas;⁴⁹ or the redactor was so steeped in the latter theory that he could present nothing better than a very garbled version of the Nigaṇṭhaputta’s view. The second alternative is in fact suggested by a closer examination of Saccaka’s statement. He begins promisingly with the simile "Seyyathāpi bho Gotama ye kecime bījagāmabhūtagāmā vuḍḍhiṃ virūdhiṃ vepullam āpajjanti sabbe te paṭhavim nissāya paṭhaviyaṃ patiṭṭhāya seyyathāpi....ye kecime balakaraṇā kammantā karīyanti sabbe paṭhvim nissāya paṭhaviyaṃ patiṭṭhāya...."⁵⁰ This at once brings before the mind the view that regarded Rūpa as the Nissaya or Patiṭṭhā of Viññāṇa. But what actually follows is much less coherent and to the point "Evameva...rūpattāyam purisapugalo rūpe patiṭṭhāya....viññāṇattā...."⁵¹ These lines appear to have usurped the place of some more fitting sequel. There are other instances also of similar aggrandizement by the Five Khandha formula.

c9.92

⁴⁹ Ib., pp. 232-233.

c9.93

⁵⁰ Ib., p. 230.

c9.94

⁵¹ Loc. cit.

c9.95

A final indication of the lateness of the sutta may be found in the fact of a Yakkha intervening on behalf of Buddha in the dispute; such a miraculous occurrence is found in DN. 3 also.

c9.96

Suttas 41, 42.—These are variants of the same sutta, the difference being confined to the names of the place and the persons in the preamble. The main sermon is exactly identical in the two. It synthesizes the two ideas of the threefold pure and impure action and the ten “sīlas” into a single scheme, thus offering a list of three types of mental, four types of vocal and three types of physical good and evil deeds. Its lateness, however, comes out much more clearly from the fact that it presents a hierarchy of twenty-five classes of gods, of which no less than eighteen are above the “Brahmakāyikas”: This surely indicates a great anterior development of Buddhist mythology.

c9.97

Suttas 43, 44.—Suttas 43-44 are the two well-known Vedalla suttas. They are concerned with the explanation of a series of technical terms in catechism style. The discussions take place in dry philosophical and dogmatic atmosphere, and involve essays in precise definition and fine distinctions, as for example, between Paññā and Viññāṇa.51a The whole presupposes considerable doctrinal development, and shows very clearly the tendencies of scholastic systematization. It is significant that Buddha is not a participant in either of the discussions, although in the second, he praises Dhammadinnā at the end.

c9.98

51a MN. I, 292–293.

c9.99

Sutta 50.—Sutta 50 relates the interesting episode of Māra entering the belly of Mahāmoggalāna and being informed that he (the Māra) happened to be in a way the latter's (Moggalāna's) nephew. Mahāmoggalāna recalls how in the days of the Kakusandha Buddha, he had been the Māra Dūsī whose sister’s (Kāḷī’s) son the present Māra was. At the end occur a number of verses, which refer clearly to sutta 37, recalling the marvellous exploits of Mahāmoggalāna therein.51b

c9.100

51b See II, 17–23, pp. 237–238 of M.I.

c9.101

The sutta obviously belongs to an age when the memory of the apostles had been wholly covered over by the mists of myth. The mentioning by name of a previous Buddha also indicates lateness.

c9.102

Sutta 64.—Its lateness is suggested by the fact that it distinguishes between Cetovimutti and Paññāvimutti “—Atha kiñcarahi ekacce bhikkhū cetovimuttino ekacce Paññāvimuttinoti.”51c The rest of the sutta fits in with this impression since it explains the formula of the five “Orambhāgiya saññojanas” and details the first seven meditative stages (upto viññāṇānañcāyatana) as the way out; Ib. para 2 (Nāg. ed.) raises a very interesting problem which may be thus formulated: since the child’s mental development is so immature,51d how can the “Anusayas” be said to apply to him? That they nevertheless do apply, is dogmatically asserted to be the case. An explanation, however, is not given; instead, the five samyojanas are expounded in the usual way. Now the implication behind the view would seem to be that the Anusayas are “cittavippayutta”, i.e., the existence of immoral tendencies in a person is consistent with his unconsciousness of them. Some sects, we know, actually held this view. Has, then, an imperfect expurgation occurred here?

c9.103

51c MN. pt. I, p. 107 (Nāg. ed.).

c9.104

51d The text explains this immaturity in detail—cf. sutta 78.

c9.105

Sutta 75, which is long and straggling in its present form at any rate, appears late since it describes the early life of Gotama in a way which suggests that myth-making had already commenced to fill in the gaps in memory. The lines in question are "Tassa mayhaṃ Māgandiya tayo pāsādā ahesuṃ, eko vassiko, eko hemantiko, eko gimhiko, So kho ahaṃ Māgandiya vassike pāsāde vassike cattāro māse nippurisehi turiyehi paricāriyamāno na heṭṭhā pāsādaṃ ārohāmi."⁵²

c9.106

⁵² MN. Pt. 2, p. 175 (Nāg. ed.).

c9.107

The sutta, however, undoubtedly contains some early looking material, as, for instance, the charge of being a "Bhūnahu" against Gotama or the parable of the "Jaccandhas".

c9.108

Sutta 77 is very long collection of miscellaneous elements which include those of the 37 Bodhipakkhiya dhammas, as well as the 8 vimokkhas, the 8 Abhibhāyatanas and the 10 kasiṇāyatanas. Very considerable dogmatic development is, thus. presupposed.

c9.109

Sutta 81 relates a tale in which the Kassapa Buddha plays an important role, and thus indicates its own lateness.

c9.110

Sutta 90 is a medium-sized unified work answering miscellaneous queries in the form of a dialogue between Buddha and King Pasenadi. Its interpretation of 'Omniscience' is more scholastic than in sutta 71. It represents as a matter of fact the Sarvāstivādin view as against that of the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Vātsīputrīyas.⁵³ Further, it is interesting to note that it is much less liberal in its outlook on caste than sutta 84.⁵⁴

c9.111

⁵³ MN. Pt. II, p. 331 (Nāg. ed.) cf. Ab K. volume VI, pp. 254-255.

c9.112

⁵⁴ Contra Ib., p. 332 with p. 271.

c9.113

Sutta 91 enumerates the thirty-two marks of great men, describes the ideal (which are at the same time patently conventional) ways of Buddha in everyday life.

c9.114

Sutta 93.—deals with caste and looks less like a dialogue than a sustained literary essay full of scintillating polemic. Its reference to the “Yona-Kambojas” suggests its lateness.

c9.115

Sutta 94.—describes the events which led to the building of an Upaṭṭhānasālā for the saṅgha at Pāṭaliputta by the Brāhmaṇa Ghoṭamukha. It closes with the sentence “Sā etarahi Ghoṭamukhīti vuccati”⁵⁵ It appears that the narrator is not dealing with contemporary events but rather relating an old legend, possibly eponymous in origin.

c9.116

⁵⁵ Ib. p. 373.

c9.117

It may be noted that the sutta expressly refers to Buddha as Parinibbuta. Also, the categorical statement of Udena “Na kho no....kappati jātarūparajataṃ paṭigaṇhetum ti”⁵⁶ is strongly reminiscent of the controversies that raged in the “second council”.

c9.118

⁵⁶ Ib. p. 372.

c9.119

In sutta 103 the doctrine is thus briefly and technically explained “Seyyathīdaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā, cattāro sammappadhānā, cattāro iddhipādā, pañcindriyāṇi, pañca balāni, satta bojjhaṅgā, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo”⁵⁷ The formulæ for the 37 Bodhipakkhiyā Dhammā have obviously become so well established that the need for explaining them was not felt.

c9.120

⁵⁷ M. II. p. 238-’9 (PTS ed.).

c9.121

Then, the sutta passes on to admonition in case “Siyaṃsū dve bhikkhū abhidhamme nānāvādā”⁵⁸ The Abhidhammic controversies only generally referred to, are of an interpretative character. This also indicates the lateness of the sutta.

c9.122

⁵⁸ Ib. p. 239.

c9.123

The lateness of sutta 102 is suggested by several circumstances. It begins with a succinct statement of the argument of the sutta (uddesa as it is called), which, concerned like the Brahmajāla° with heterodox metaphysical speculation, reclassifies the usual five Aparantānuḍiṭṭhis into three. It has a greater number of “indeterminate” problems than the standard list, and all are here treated according to the fourfold dialectic. The present sutta therefore appears to be the result of a further scholastic activity over some of the material in the Brahmajāla.

c9.124

Sutta 109.—presents a close scholastic analysis of the Five Khandhas in catechism style. What, however, is of great interest is the fact that a very pertinent objection to the Anatta-theory—why should the actions of the Anatta touch anybody?⁵⁶—is raised but left unanswered. Instead, we have the banal catechism on the three Marks as applied to the Five Khandhas. This strongly raises the suspicion that the original sequel has been deleted and replaced by a sort of “panacea”—answer.

c9.125

Sutta 111.—contains an unusually detailed psychological analysis of the nine meditative stages upto Saññāvedayitanirodha. Mrs. Rhys Davids points out the similarity of the style with that adopted in the Dhs.⁶⁰ Her statement that we have to regard it as an ‘early’ example of that style is true enough, but then it would be equally true to say that the style itself is late. Compared to the “abhidhammic” texts the present sutta may be early but its very resemblance to those writings suggests that it must be regarded as late when our quest is to find out the original mandate of Buddhism.

c9.126

⁶⁰ JRAS 1902.

c9.127

Sutta 112.—presents the spectacle of heterogeneous elements of different stages thrown together without the least regard for consistency. It has, *e.g.*, four different conceptions of viññāṇa: as one of the 5 khandhas, as one of the 6 dhātus, as the 6-fold perception, and as the counterpart of the body. The sutta appears in the nature of a collection of the doctrines which "tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena sammadakkhātā",⁶¹ and presupposes a considerable previous growth of these.

c9.128

⁵⁹ Ib. III. p. 19.

c9.129

⁶¹ MN. III. p. 29. etc.

c9.130

Sutta 115 declares him a learned monk (Paṇḍito-bhikkhu) who is "dhātukusalo ca—āyatana°....Paticcasamuppāda°....ṭhānaṭṭhānakusalo ca...."⁶² And then proceeds to explain (enumerate, rather) these with dogmatic terseness. At the outset comes the string of six groups of "dhātus": the 18 dhātus; the three groups of six dhātus; three dhātus; and two dhātus. The order of diminishing numbers may be noted. Then follows Paṭiccasam° preceded by its general and abstract formulation.

c9.131

⁶² Ib. p. 62.

c9.132

As in the sutta considered above, it is mainly the state of doctrinal development reflected in it which suggests the lateness of the sutta. The prominence of dry-as-dust classification and enumeration harmonizes with this suggestion.⁶³

c9.133

⁶³ Cf. "Another feature suggestive of later workmanship is the exhaustive enumeration of categories of Dhātuyo put into the mouth of Gotama in sutta 115" Mrs. Rhys Davids JRAS 1902, p. 476. Of sutta 102, she remarks that Gotma instead of waving aside speculation as was his wont analysizes and criticizes it "more like a doctor of church than its founder" (Ib) See below.

c9.134

Sutta 116 speaks of 500 Pacceka Buddhas as having dwelt in the Isigili hill of Rājagaha, and caps this statement by a remarkably long list of their names, both in prose and in verse.

c9.135

Sutta 120 enumerates 25 classes of gods; it subdivides the Brahmās into sahasso°, dvisahasso°, ti°, cātu°, pañca°, dasa°, and sata°, and speaks of the sahas-sīlokadhātu, pañca°, dasa°, and sata°. Mythological system-construction has advanced far indeed!

c9.136

Sutta 123 describes a large number of “abbhuta-dhammas” which must accompany the ante-natal preparations and the final birth of a “Bodhisatta”. The sutta obviously belongs to a period when the Buddha was a full fledged god, or rather, more, and his birth a miraculous descent of the divine.

c9.137

Of suttas 129–130 Mrs. Rhys Davids remarks that Gotama here treats of retribution in afterlife “with a picturesqueness worthy of a mediaeval prior or a village curé”.⁶⁴ From this, according to Winternitz, it is not possible to argue for the lateness of these suttas, since it is possible that “even in earlier times a more popular conception of the doctrine of karman may have existed side by side with the purely philosophical one”.⁶⁵ This possibility would have been indicated had Buddhism been like, say, the Vedic religion, which rising from comparatively primitive-popular conditions became gradually, along one line of its development, increasingly philosophical and esoteric. There it would be correct to argue, for instance, that the “Athavaṇic” hymns of the 10th maṇḍala of RS, do not necessarily indicate lateness. Buddhism, however, started as the elevated message of a sublime spiritual personality addressed primarily to the purpose of Nibbāna. Its mystic-esoteric emphasis is plain from the beginning. The extent of lay following must have been to start with quite restricted, and that too, it appears, was confined mainly to the wealthy and aristocratic classes. Of course, the humanitarian impulse⁶⁶ which the original message contained—the seed of an aspect of mahāyānism—must have in course of time resulted in the introduction and growth of a more popular and less esoteric side to Buddhism. This is not contested. But the point is, when did this aspect become important enough to produce such canonical literature as is represented in the suttas under consideration? It appears that this could hardly have happened in the earliest age of the history of Buddhist scriptural writings. Beside the general argument mentioned above, it may be urged that those suttas which are more or less clearly early, nowhere represent Buddha as inculcating a morality based on fear. His argument against sin does not appear to have been an appeal to hell fire.

c9.138

⁶⁴ JRAS, 1902, p. 476.

c9.139

⁶⁵ Op. cit. II. p. 53.

c9.140

⁶⁶ These terms, however, must be understood with a certain reserve:—The doctrine of Mettā was originally much more “mystic” than “humanitarian”.

c9.141

It may be noted that the conception of hell torments is far from being very prominent in Vedic literature. The source from which the Buddhists drew in elaborating it, apart from an over-vivid imagination, appears to have been Jinist tradition.

c9.142

Suttas 131–134 are built round the same “uddesa” which consists of four “gāthās” pertaining to the “Bhaddekaratta”. In 131 which is entitled Bhaddakaratta sutta, Buddha after enunciating the Uddesa goes on into a vibhaṅga which construes the simple and quite non-dogmatic advice about looking with equanimity at the present and not running after the past or the future, to mean that one must never identify oneself with any of the five khandhas and then rejoice over it. It is clearly the case of a set of hallowed old verses interpreted exclusively in terms of a later dogma.

c9.143

Sutta 132, entitled Ānandabhaddekaratta°, shows Ānanda repeating the sermon; Buddha praises him and himself repeats it. In sutta 132, entitled Mahākaccāna-bhaddekaratta°, the monks forget the uddesa and vibhaṅga of the Bhaddekaratta and approach Buddha who enunciates only the uddesa and hence the Bhikkhus ask Mahākaccāna to supply the vibhaṅga. He complies with the request but we get a new vibhaṅga this time, which requests the Bhikku to see that the Viññāṇa is not ensnared in the senses and the sense objects. At the end Buddha commends the exposition. It is noticeable that the conception of Viññāṇa here is different from and earlier than that in the previous two suttas.

c9.144

Sutta 134, “Lomasakangiyabhaddekaratta”, employs the expression “Bhaddekarattiyo gāthā”. It has the same sermon as in 131-132.

c9.145

In sutta 135 Buddha is asked the cause of inequality among men, and he answers “Kammassakā, māṇava, sattā kammadāyādā kammayonī kammabandhū kammapaṭisaraṇā, kammaṃ satte vibhajati yadidaṃ hīnappaṇītatāyāti”.⁶⁷ The Māṇava, however, is slow to grasp, and an explanation follows, which consists in showing how particular sins are visited with particular retributions. Now the main text occurs identically elsewhere also in the Nikāyas,⁶⁸ but followed by a different explanation. It appears, therefore, that it represents an ancient text on which the present sutta comments. The distinctive elevation of style of the fragment quoted above is notable.

c9.146

⁶⁷ MN. III. p. 203.

c9.147

⁶⁸ AN. III. 186; V. 288.

c9.148

Sutta 137 has the following uddesa “Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni; cha bāhirāni....; cha viññāṇakāyā veditabbā; cha phassakāyā…; aṭṭhādasamanopavicārā—; chattiṃsa sattapadā tatridaṃ nissāya idaṃ pajahatha. Tayo satipaṭṭhānā yadariyo sevati yadariyo sevamāno satthā gaṇamanusāsitumarahati. So vuccati yoggācariyānaṃ anuttaro purisadammasārathīti. Ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.”⁶⁹ It is obviously nothing better than an abstract of the details that follow, and probably represents nothing more. The dogmatic enumeration and classifications which exhaust the sutta suggest its lateness.

c9.149

⁶⁹ MN. III, p. 216.

c9.150

It may be noted that the term satipaṭṭhānā is here used in a very unusual sense.

c9.151

Suttas 141, 142:—It is on account of these suttas that the vibhaṅgavagga exhibits the anomaly of containing twelve suttas instead of ten as the other vaggas in the MN do. In form also these diverge most from the other suttas in the vagga. In sutta 141, Buddha tells the Bhikkhus “Tathāgatena...arahatā sammāsambuddhena Bārāṇasiyaṃ...dhammacakkaṃ pavattitaṃ...yadidaṃ catunnaṃ ariyasaccānaṃ ācikkhanā desanā paññapanā paṭṭhapanā vivaraṇā vibhajanā uttānīkammaṃ.”⁷⁰ He mentions these and asks the Bhikkhus to go to Sāriputta-Moggalāna for their better exposition. Then follows a term by term explanation by Sāriputta of the formula for the Four Truths. The prominence of the style of dictionary-definitions is quite marked. There can hardly be a doubt that this sutta is no more than an early commentary on the First Sermon.***

c9.152

⁷⁰ The inappropriateness of this reference to self in grandiloquent third person tells its own tale.

c9.153

∗∗∗ It is worth noting that in this summary and comment on the First Sermon, no reference at all is made to the advice

c9.154

Of the next sutta Mrs. Rhys Davids remarks that it makes Ānanda plead the cause of Gotamī a second time, and belongs properly to Vinaya. She seems to be quite right in regarding both these suttas as probably interpolated in the vagga.⁷¹

c9.155

⁷¹ JRAS 1902, p. 475.

c9.156

Sutta 143 is a curious jumble. It speaks among others of the 6 senses, Viññāṇa, samphassas, samphassajavedanās, dhātus (Paṭhavī...viññāṇa) the 5 khandhas, and of the viññāṇa as nissita or a° in all these elements. It thus has at least four conceptions of Viññāṇa: (1) as perception, in the group cakkhuviññāṇa, etc.; (2) as one of the six ultimate elements (Dhātus); (3) as the fifth khandha and (4) as an entity which is different from all the psychological factors enumerated but liable to be entangled in them. These various conceptions of Viññāṇa grew up in different contexts, and not all of them at the same time. Our present sutta accomplishes just a mechanical assemblage of the results of several independent inquiries, belonging to diverse doctrinal strata. The resultant incongruity comes out clearly in the expression which the sutta has to repeat more than once: "Viññāṇanissitaṃ viññāṇaṃ".⁷² The soul-like character of this latter viññāṇa suggests, however, that the sutta is not without an ancient nucleus. This is supported by the fact that the sutta purports to describe the last hours of Anāthapiṇḍika. That a sutta relating to the death of that great patron of the saṅgha should have existed early, accords wholly with general probability.

c9.157

⁷² MN. III, pp. 259-260.

c9.158

about avoiding the two extremes. Is that because this part of the sermon has already been commented upon in sutta 139?

(c) Composite

c9.s1.1

Sutta 3 contains a sermon by Buddha and then one by Sāriputa. The former in its two paragraphs contains two distinct divisions. The first is a short, extremely high-minded earnest sermon: Be my Dhammadāyāda, not Āmisa°. In its rugged directness, the repetitive ringing phraseology, and the very nature of its contents, it is strangely reminiscent of Aśokan rescripts. An example is afforded by its very first sentence: "Dhammadāyāda me bhikkhave bhavatha āmisadāyāda; atthi me tumhesu anukampā; kinti me sāvakā dhammadāyāda bhaveyyuṃ no āmisadāyādāti".⁷³ The fact that this first sentence recurs at the end of the paragraph in the form "Tasmātiha me bhikkhave dhammaḍāyāda bhavatha etc.," seems to indicate the end of the sermon, or at least of as much of it was at all remembered later with any degree of faithfulness. The nature of the longer succeeding para points in the same direction. It seems to understand Āmisadāyāda quite literally illustrating it by a hungry Bhikkhu who, invited by Buddha himself to partake of the extra food in his (Buddha's) almsbowl in order to avoid waste, proceeds to do so. The condemnation of the Bhikkhu appears as unreasonable as bathetic. That Buddha should have proceeded to illustrate his pregnant opening words by so depressing an example and buttress it by a no more inspiring appeal to a type of asceticism which attaches great significance to denial in small matters, placing it above the plain dictates of commonsense, is hardly credible. It may be remembered that this type of unreasoning asceticism is quite opposed to the general attitude of Buddha on the subject, and is, moreover, specifically condemned in the sutta that just precedes the present one, according to which hunger falls in the type of “āsavas” that are “Adhivāsanāpathātabbā”.⁷⁴

First 158 of 352 passages. Read on

Linked texts (73)