Chapter Four
Analytical Answers
The Canon contains many discourses where the Buddha and his disciples provide detailed analyses of important topics. The chapter of twelve analysis (vibhaṅga) discourses in the Majjhima Nikāya, and the analysis discourses for each of the seven sets in the wings to awakening (bodhipakkhiya-dhamma) in the Saṁyutta Nikāya, are only a few prominent examples of a common format. The speaker starts with a topic or statement, and then gives a detailed explanation of all its important terms.
However, when the Buddha explicitly states that a question deserves an analytical (vibhajja) answer, he is speaking of a somewhat different approach. This sort of question is one that addresses a valid issue but, coming from mistaken assumptions, analyzes the issue either in inappropriate terms or in too few variables to do it justice. An analytical answer in this case is one that recognizes those mistaken assumptions and so reframes the issue appropriately before giving a categorical answer.
As the passages collected in this chapter show, there are times when the Buddha treats declarative statements as if they too were questions deserving this sort of response. The following chapters will also contain examples of statements that the Buddha treats as if they were questions deserving cross-questioning or being put aside. This shows that his skill in questions involves seeing not just the assumption behind a question, but also the question behind a statement.
Of the four categories of questions, this is the one with the fewest examples in the discourses, and the examples all center on a common theme: a misunderstanding of skillful and unskillful action. Thus this is the easiest strategy to understand. But a survey of how the Buddha and his disciples use this strategy yields some surprises, for their approach to questions of this sort challenges a number of views about the Dhamma that are currently widespread.
In surveying the Canon’s examples of questions deserving analytical answers, we find that they grow from seven types of misunderstanding about skillful and unskillful action:
1) The question in MN 126 [§67] comes from the assumption that kamma is barren, that the holy life bears no fruit even if one practices with a strong wish for results. The correct analytical response shows that the method employed in following the holy life is what matters, not the presence or absence of a wish.
2) The question in DN 12 [§68] comes from the assumption that the workings of kamma make it impossible to teach others, for—arguing from the principle that each person has his or her own kamma—one person cannot do anything for another. Thus those who try to teach others are to be criticized for creating a new bond for themselves. The correct analytical response asserts that it is possible to help others through teaching them, and that teachers are to be criticized only if they haven’t reached the Dhamma they teach or if their students don’t pay attention to or follow their instructions.
3) The question in SN 42:9 [§70] takes a materialistic and exclusively this-life perspective on what sort of behavior is beneficial or harmful. The two-pronged question asked of the Buddha comes from assuming that families are harmed if they are encouraged to be generous during a famine. The correct analytical response shows that generosity leads to genuine long-term well-being for families, and that their genuine ruin comes from any of eight other factors, none of which include generosity.
4) The largest group of examples under this category consists of questions that assume a particular practice or way of life to be beneficial or unbeneficial across the board. These practices include the householder life [§60], the life gone forth [§62], ascetic practices [§61, §63], meditative absorption [§64], pleasing words, and unpleasing words [§69]. The correct analytical response shows that each of these practices is to be judged, not categorically as good or bad, but as to whether it is conducted in a way that yields beneficial or unbeneficial results. In other words, the variables cited in the question are insufficient to pass valid judgment, and so the analytical answer introduces additional variables to do justice to the issue at hand. Included in this group is a discourse [§61] whose analytical answer contains a long exposition on the first two paragraphs in the Buddha’s first sermon, rating different ways of life that pursue the extremes deviating from the middle way. This discourse underlines the point made in Chapter Two that the first two paragraphs in the Buddha’s first sermon constitute an analytical answer to a question for which his listeners had assumed they knew the categorical answer.
5) In MN 90 [§103], a similar question is posed as to as to whether anything distinguishes the four social castes with regard to the life after death. This question is sparked by the assertion made by brahmans that one’s social caste in this lifetime will be maintained in all future lives. The correct analytical answer shows that one’s future course is determined by one’s capacity for exertion—analyzed into five factors—and one’s actual use of that capacity, whereas one’s current caste is a totally irrelevant factor.
6) In a discourse of a similar sort [§65]—dealing with categories for judging individuals—three arahants discuss the relationship of three types of temperament to the preliminary stages of awakening: Which is the most sublime, an individual whose first stage of awakening is dominated by conviction, by concentration, or by discernment? They then take the question to the Buddha, who states that there is no categorical answer to this question, and that the individuals should instead be judged in ascending order as to whether they are once-returners, non-returners, or on the path to arahantship. In other words, individuals are to be judged not on temperament, but on the level of their attainment.
7) The question in MN 136 [§66] is perhaps the most interesting of the lot. A wanderer, asserting that he understands the Buddha as teaching that only mental action is fruitful, asks a junior monk: What does one experience on performing a bodily, verbal, or mental action? The monk answers that one experiences stress. As another monk later explains, this answer could be justified with reference to the statement that all feelings are stressful [§140], but the Buddha rebukes both monks, saying that the original question had to do with the three kinds of feeling: pleasant, painful, and neither pleasant nor painful. Thus the junior monk’s categorical response was incorrect because it assumed that a teaching appropriate for one context would apply to another context where it actually doesn’t.
As we will see in Chapter Six, the statement that all feelings are stressful is meant to be applied in a systematic practice of self cross-examination aimed at the ending of clinging, an advanced stage in the practice requiring an advanced level of right view. The context here, however, is simply a basic understanding of the relationship between kamma and feeling at a more preliminary stage, where the concepts of skillful and unskillful are not yet mastered and where the mundane level of right view has to be applied. To assert at this stage that all actions lead to the same result—stress—would discourage the listener from developing skillful kamma and abandoning unskillful kamma.
After making this point, the Buddha then proceeds to give an analysis discourse that goes into detail far beyond the relationship of kamma to the three types of feeling, touching on how actions may take several lifetimes to show their effect, how a skillful or unskillful action can have its results delayed by the effects of an earlier or later action of the opposite sort, and how a person with a limited ability to see beings dying and being reborn would misunderstand the actual workings of kamma—to say nothing of a person with no such abilities at all.
As we survey the range of questions deserving analytical answers, we see that they highlight five important points in the Buddha’s teaching that are often misunderstood or underappreciated at present.
The first is that the Buddha had no qualms about judging people and their way of life [§§54-58, §126]. In fact, given that admirable friendship is a basic prerequisite to the practice (SN 45:2), the ability to judge whether a person’s behavior is admirable is of primary importance for anyone hoping to follow the path. Because this is such an important part of the practice, and because it is so difficult to judge people accurately, the Buddha advises devoting time and one’s full powers of observation to passing judgment, thus taking care to be judicious rather than judgmental [§55]. In judging a person’s way of life, one is not passing final judgment on that person’s worth; one is simply trying to decide whether his or her example should be followed and extolled to others. In this way, judgment is not an unkind or hurtful action; instead, it is a necessary element in the development of greater skill.
This point is reflected in the Vinaya, where the monks are instructed to keep watch over one another’s behavior. As we will see in Chapter Seven, if they suspect that a fellow monk has broken a rule, they are to approach him about the matter. If dissatisfied with his response, they have to meet as a full community and pass judgment on whether he has, in fact, committed an offense. If he has, and the offense is reparable, they help in his rehabilitation. If the offense is irreparable, he is automatically expelled. If it is reparable but the offender stubborn and recalcitrant, they are empowered to suspend him from the group. In this way, they ensure that the monastic Saṅgha provides an environment of admirable friends who can aid anyone desiring training, whether monastic or lay.
Thus the ability to pass fair and accurate judgment on the behavior of others is an important part of the path. However, progress on the path requires not only the ability skillfully to judge the behavior of others, but also—as we will see in Chapter Six—the ability skillfully to judge your own. MN 110 [§56] shows that these two abilities go hand in hand, in that only when you have developed integrity in your own behavior can you recognize integrity in others. Conversely, AN 8:54 [§59] shows that one of the best ways to develop integrity is to associate with admirable people and to emulate their good qualities. So to develop the path, you have to use whatever integrity you have in choosing a teacher; if you’ve found one, you can then develop the integrity needed to refine your powers of judgment.
It’s a basic truth that if you cannot judge other people objectively, it’s hard to be objective in judging yourself, for the habits of delusion obscure your awareness both of the motivations and of the results of your actions. MN 61 [§131] shows that on the question of whether actions are to be judged by their motivation or their results, the Buddha’s answer was, “Both.” His approach to judgment was not that of a judge in a court of law passing final judgment on a person’s guilt, but of a craftsman or musician judging a work in progress. By judging the results of a past mistake, one can then adjust one’s motivation to improve one’s future deeds.
The need to judge others’ behavior skillfully does not end with the attainment of the goal. As AN 3:68 [§118] and AN 4:111 [§98] point out, a teacher must be careful to assess who is worthy of teaching and engaging in debate, and who is not. Otherwise, time that could be well used in teaching those responsive to the Dhamma would be wasted in fruitless arguments. Thus the ability to pass skillful judgment on behavior—one’s own and that of others—is not an unkind act. Instead, it is an essential skill both while learning and while teaching the Dhamma.
The second point in the Buddha’s teachings frequently misunderstood is that the distinction between skillful and unskillful is not the same as the distinction between pleasing and displeasing to others. This point is explicitly made in MN 58, which states that the Buddha’s concept of skillful speech allowed for unpleasant statements. Pleasing words are not always skillful, nor are unpleasing words always unskillful. Here again, both the actual motivation behind one’s words and their effect is what counts. Contrary to the popular picture of a Buddha whose words were invariably gentle and sweet, MN 58 [§69] cites an example where the Buddha found it necessary to be extremely critical and harsh: Devadatta was working toward a schism in the Saṅgha, and the Buddha had to show the other monks in no uncertain terms that Devadatta was not to be trusted. (The full story is in Cv.VII.) There are many other examples of the Buddha’s harsh remarks in this book as well—for example, in §66, §71, §72, and §125. The criteria for skillful speech given in §69 show that these examples were not slips on his part; instead, they are demonstrations of how far the range of skillful action can go.
The third point is reflected in the many misunderstandings about kamma displayed in the questions gathered in this chapter, for these show that the Buddha, in formulating his teaching on kamma, was not simply following a belief already well known and widely accepted in his culture. He was saying something distinctively new: that the present is shaped not only by past actions but also by present ones, that actions could be developed as skills, and that those skills could lead all the way to the end of suffering and stress. Because this was such a new understanding of the power of action, his listeners naturally had trouble grasping both what he was saying and how its implications should be applied to the various aspects of their lives. That’s why their questions concerning kamma had to be reanalyzed before they could properly be answered.
This point will be reinforced in the next chapter, where we will see that kamma is the primary topic that the Buddha approached through cross-questioning, another response-strategy designed to help clarify issues that questioners might find hard to understand. The fact that he felt compelled to cross-question his listeners on the analogies and examples he cited to explain questions of kamma shows that he knew his teaching was new, that his listeners would have trouble understanding it, and so he needed to put forth extra effort to make it clear.
The fourth point, related to the third, is that the multiple variables needed to answer some of the questions dealing with kamma show that kamma is not as simple a process—or as simplistic a teaching—as is sometimes assumed.
The fifth point is one we have already touched on in Chapter Three: that some of the Buddha’s teachings are appropriate for certain stages of the practice and not for others. The statement that all feelings are stressful is not a useful teaching for someone who still doesn’t understand the basics of kamma. It’s not to be taken as a first principle of the Buddha’s system and applied to all questions across the board. As the Buddha noted himself in SN 22:60, if feelings were exclusively stressful, no one would be attached to them; if they were exclusively pleasant, no one would ever feel dispassion for them. Thus the skillful approach in practice is to focus on their range of pleasurable and stressful aspects when trying to develop skillful kamma and abandon unskillful kamma; and to focus exclusively on their stressful aspect when one’s practice has reached a level of skill where one is ready to abandon clinging for all fabricated things. Thus when answering a question dealing with this topic, the proper response is rhetorical: to gauge the level of the listener’s understanding and to formulate a response that is timely and beneficial in addition to being true.
In the course of teaching lessons about the proper understanding of skillful and unskillful action, the Buddha’s analytical answers also teach some important lessons about how a skillful question should be formulated. Simply by pointing out that a question needs to be treated analytically, the Buddha is saying that the original question was unskillful. The way he analyzes the question shows, by implication, how a skillful question on the same topic should be phrased.
This sort of lesson is made even clearer in three examples where the Buddha takes pains to preface his analytical answer with a cross-question. In MN 90 [§103], the Buddha is addressing a listener—King Pasenadi—who is generally portrayed in the Canon as honest but inept at phrasing his questions. Thus the Buddha takes pains to illustrate his analytical answers with examples and analogies that make the need for an analytical answer clear.
In the other two examples, however, the motivation behind the original question is dishonest and hard-hearted, so the Buddha gives analogies to demonstrate that fact. In DN 12 he shows in a direct way that the attack behind Lohicca’s question—that a person who has achieved the goal should not teach it to others—was based on uncompassionate motives. Thus the question in and of itself was unskillful.
In MN 58 [§69] he makes a similar point, though more indirectly. Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, who had incited Prince Abhaya to ask a trick question of the Buddha, had claimed that the Buddha would end up like a person with a two-horned chestnut stuck in his throat, unable to swallow it or spit it out. The Buddha, however, taking Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta’s image of a dangerous object stuck in the throat, applies it to the infant sitting on the prince’s lap: What would the prince do if the child got a sharp object in its mouth? The prince replies that he would remove the object, even if it meant drawing blood, out of compassion for the child. Upon receiving this answer, the Buddha states that, unlike the Nigaṇṭhas—who were content to leave someone choking on a potentially lethal object—his desire in teaching is analogous to the prince’s in removing the sharp object: to remove misunderstandings that cause suffering, out of sympathy and compassion for his listeners.
By questioning the prince in this way, the Buddha accomplishes two things. He shows that the Nigaṇṭhas were evil in their motives and, by allowing the prince to speak of his—the prince’s—compassion, he brings a potential opponent over to his side. We will discuss this use of cross-questioning as a means of flattering one’s listener in the next chapter.
What these last two examples have in common is that the question in each case is unskillful not only because it was wrongly framed in formal terms, but also because it derived from unskillful—uncompassionate—intentions.
MN 58 also shows—and here it’s seconded by SN 42:9 [§70]—that analytical responses are especially useful in handling trick questions. In both passages, the Buddha is presented with false dichotomies, and his analytical responses demonstrate precisely why the dichotomies are false. In the case of MN 58, the Buddha’s answer shows that the dichotomy covers only a fraction of the variables that have to be taken into account in judging right speech; in SN 42:9, he shows how the dichotomy is totally off the mark, in that it covers none of the variables that account for why families come to ruin.
The passages collected in this chapter also show how the Buddha passed some of his skill in handling questions of this sort on to his disciples. In MN 126 [§67], he approves of Ven. Bhūmija’s ability to give an analytical answer to Prince Jayasena’s question, and then proceeds to show how the answer would have been made more effective if accompanied by similes. As we will see in the next chapter, similes of this sort would have provided the opportunity to cross-question the prince, making him a fellow participant in the correct answer and allowing him to see more clearly how skillful that answer was.
In AN 3:79 [§62], the Buddha gives Ven. Ānanda the chance to answer a question analytically in front of a group of monks. This was most likely a lesson for them: to see how a wise disciple would handle a question of this sort. The Buddha’s comment on Ven. Ānanda’s discernment after the exchange emphasizes that the ability to respond skillfully to a question in this way is a sign of discernment, and that the monks should try to master this skill as an essential part of their training.
Readings
On Judging People
§ 54. “And how is a monk one with a sense of distinctions among individuals? There is the case where people are known to a monk in terms of two categories.
“Of two people—one who wants to see noble ones and one who doesn’t—the one who doesn’t want to see noble ones is to be criticized for that reason; the one who does want to see noble ones is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who want to see noble ones—one who wants to hear the true Dhamma and one who doesn’t—the one who doesn’t want to hear the true Dhamma is to be criticized for that reason; the one who does want to hear the true Dhamma is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who want to hear the true Dhamma—one who listens with an attentive ear and one who listens without an attentive ear—the one who listens without an attentive ear is to be criticized for that reason; the one who listens with an attentive ear is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who listen with an attentive ear—one who, having listened to the Dhamma, remembers it, and one who doesn’t—the one who, having listened to the Dhamma, doesn’t remember it is to be criticized for that reason; the one who, having listened to the Dhamma, does remember the Dhamma is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who, having listened to the Dhamma, remember it—one who explores the meaning of the Dhamma he has remembered and one who doesn’t—the one who doesn’t explore the meaning of the Dhamma he has remembered is to be criticized for that reason; the one who does explore the meaning of the Dhamma he has remembered is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who explore the meaning of the Dhamma they have remembered—one who practices the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning, and one who doesn’t—the one who doesn’t practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning, is to be criticized for that reason; the one who does practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning is, for that reason, to be praised.
“Of two people who practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning—one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others, and one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others—the one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others is to be criticized for that reason; the one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others is, for that reason, to be praised.
“This is how people are known to a monk in terms of two categories. And this is how a monk is one with a sense of distinctions among individuals.” — AN 7:64
§ 55. “‘[1] It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?
“There is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been torn, broken, spotted, splattered in his actions. He hasn’t been consistent in his actions. He hasn’t practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is an unprincipled person, not a virtuous, principled one.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered in his actions. He has been consistent in his actions. He has practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is a virtuous, principled person, not an unprincipled one.’ …
“‘[2] It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?
“There is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘This person deals one way when one-on-one, another way when with two, another way when with three, another way when with many. His earlier dealings do not jibe with his later dealings. He is impure in his dealings, not pure.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘The way this person deals when one-on-one, is the same way he deals when with two, when with three, when with many. His earlier dealings jibe with his later dealings. He is pure in his dealings, not impure.’ …
“‘[3] It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?
“There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, doesn’t reflect: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity [atta-bhāva, literally “self-state”]. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he doesn’t sorrow, grieve, or lament, doesn’t beat his breast or become distraught….
“‘[4] It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?
“There is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question, he is dull, not discerning. Why is that? He doesn’t make statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He cannot declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, or make it plain. He is dull, not discerning.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a small fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a small fish, not a large one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question… he is dull, not discerning.’
“And then there is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question, he is discerning, not dull. Why is that? He makes statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He can declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, & make it plain. He is discerning, not dull.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a large fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a large fish, not a small one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question… he is discerning, not dull.’” — AN 4:192
§ 56. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migāra’s mother. And on that occasion—the uposatha of the fifteenth, the night of a very full moon—he was sitting out in the open with the community of monks. Then, having surveyed the silent community of monks, he addressed them: “Monks, could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity’?”
“No, lord.”
“Good, monks. It’s impossible, there’s no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity.’
“Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity’?”
“No, lord.”
“Good, monks. It’s impossible, there’s no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity.’
“A person of no integrity is endowed with qualities of no integrity; he is a person of no integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift.
“And how is a person of no integrity endowed with qualities of no integrity? There is the case where a person of no integrity is lacking in conviction, lacking in shame, lacking in compunction; he is unlearned, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment. This is how a person of no integrity is endowed with qualities of no integrity.”
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in his friendship? There is the case where a person of no integrity has, as his friends & companions, those contemplatives & brahmans who are lacking in conviction, lacking in shame, lacking in compunction, unlearned, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in his friendship.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the way he wills? There is the case where a person of no integrity wills for his own affliction, or for the affliction of others, or for the affliction of both. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the way he wills.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the way he gives advice? There is the case where a person of no integrity gives advice for his own affliction, or for the affliction of others, or for the affliction of both. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the way he gives advice.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the way he speaks? There is the case where a person of no integrity is one who tells lies, engages in divisive tale-bearing, engages in harsh speech, engages in idle chatter. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the way he speaks.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the way he acts? There is the case where a person of no integrity is one who takes life, steals, engages in illicit sex. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the way he acts.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the views he holds? There is the case where a person of no integrity is one who holds a view like this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.’ This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the views he holds.
“And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the way he gives a gift? There is the case where a person of no integrity gives a gift inattentively, not with his own hand, disrespectfully, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it. This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the way he gives a gift.
“This person of no integrity—thus endowed with qualities of no integrity; a person of no integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift—with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in the destination of people of no integrity. And what is the destination of people of no integrity? Hell or the animal womb.
“Now, monks, could a person of integrity know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity.’
“Could a person of integrity know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity.’
“A person of integrity is endowed with qualities of integrity; he is a person of integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift.
“And how is a person of integrity endowed with qualities of integrity? There is the case where a person of integrity is endowed with conviction, shame, compunction; he is learned, with aroused persistence, unmuddled mindfulness, & good discernment. This is how a person of integrity is endowed with qualities of integrity.”
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in his friendship? There is the case where a person of integrity has, as his friends & companions, those contemplatives & brahmans who are endowed with conviction, shame, compunction; who are learned, with aroused persistence, unmuddled mindfulness, & good discernment. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in his friendship.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the way he wills? There is the case where a person of integrity wills neither for his own affliction, nor for the affliction of others, nor for the affliction of both. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the way he wills.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the way he gives advice? There is the case where a person of integrity gives advice neither for his own affliction, nor for the affliction of others, nor for the affliction of both. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the way he gives advice.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the way he speaks? There is the case where a person of integrity is one who refrains from lies, refrains from divisive tale-bearing, refrains from harsh speech, refrains from idle chatter. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the way he speaks.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the way he acts? There is the case where a person of integrity is one who refrains from taking life, refrains from stealing, refrains from illicit sex. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the way he acts.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the views he holds? There is the case where a person of integrity is one who holds a view like this: ‘There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.’ This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the views he holds.
“And how is a person of integrity a person of integrity in the way he gives a gift? There is the case where a person of integrity gives a gift attentively, with his own hand, respectfully, not as if throwing it away, with the view that something will come of it. This is how a person of integrity is a person of integrity in the way he gives a gift.
“This person of integrity—thus endowed with qualities of integrity; a person of integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift—with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in the destination of people of integrity. And what is the destination of people of integrity? Greatness among devas or among human beings.”
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. — MN 110
§ 57. “Now, what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful, does not acknowledge the help given to him. This ingratitude, this lack of acknowledgment is second nature among rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & acknowledges the help given to him. This gratitude, this acknowledgment is second nature among admirable people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity.” — AN 2:31
§ 58. “Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of no integrity.’ Which four?
“There is the case where a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals another person’s bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s bad points in full & in detail, without omission, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’
“Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal another person’s good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’
“Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal his own bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’
“Then again, a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals his own good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’
“Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of no integrity.’
“Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of integrity.’ Which four?
“There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal another person’s bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’
“Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another person’s good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’
“Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’
“Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’
“Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of integrity.’” — AN 4:73
§ 59. “And what is meant by admirable friendship? There is the case where a layperson, in whatever town or village he may dwell, spends time with householders or householders’ sons, young or old, who are advanced in virtue. He talks with them, engages them in discussions. He emulates consummate conviction in those who are consummate in conviction, consummate virtue in those who are consummate in virtue, consummate generosity in those who are consummate in generosity, and consummate discernment in those who are consummate in discernment. This is called admirable friendship….
“And what does it mean to be consummate in conviction? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones has conviction, is convinced of the Tathāgata’s awakening: ‘Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge and conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine and human beings, awakened, blessed.’ This is called being consummate in conviction.
“And what does it mean to be consummate in virtue? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking life, abstains from stealing, abstains from illicit sexual conduct, abstains from lying, abstains from taking intoxicants that cause heedlessness. This is called being consummate in virtue.
“And what does it mean to be consummate in generosity? There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of miserliness, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. This is called being consummate in generosity.
“And what does it mean to be consummate in discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones is discerning, endowed with discernment of arising and passing away—noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending of stress. This is called being consummate in discernment.” — AN 8:54
Judging Ways of Life
§ 60. As he was sitting to one side, Subha the brahman student, Todeyya’s son, said to the Blessed One, “Master Gotama, the brahmans say this: ‘The householder is accomplishing the Dhamma of the true way, skillful. The one gone forth is not accomplishing the Dhamma of the true way, skillful.’ What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to this?”
“Here, student, I am one who speaks analytically, not one who speaks categorically. I don’t praise the wrong practice of a householder or of one gone forth. For when a householder or one gone forth practices wrongly, then by reason of that wrong practice he is not accomplishing the Dhamma of the true way, skillful. I do praise the right practice of a householder or of one gone forth. For when a householder or one gone forth practices rightly, then by reason of that right practice he is accomplishing the Dhamma of the true way, skillful.”
“Master Gotama, the brahmans say this: ‘This householder-occupation—involving great needs, great duties, great issues, great arrangements—is of great fruit. This going-forth-occupation—involving meager needs, meager duties, meager issues, meager arrangements—is of meager fruit. What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to this?”
“Here too student, I am one who speaks analytically, not one who speaks categorically. There is the occupation involving great needs, great duties, great issues, great arrangements, that—when failing—is of meager fruit. There is the occupation involving great needs, great duties, great issues, great arrangements, that—when succeeding—is of great fruit. There is the occupation involving meager needs, meager duties, meager issues, meager arrangements, that—when failing—is of meager fruit. There is the occupation involving meager needs, meager duties, meager issues, meager arrangements, that—when succeeding—is of great fruit.
“And which is an occupation involving great needs… great arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit? Agriculture…. And which is an occupation involving great needs… great arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit? Agriculture again…. And which is an occupation involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit? Trade…. And which is an occupation involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit? Trade again….
“Just as the agriculture-occupation is one involving great needs… great arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit, in the same way, the householder-occupation is one involving great needs… great arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit. Just as the agriculture-occupation is one involving great needs… great arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit, in the same way, the householder-occupation is one involving great needs… great arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit. Just as the trade-occupation is one involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit, in the same way, the going-forth-occupation is one involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when failing—is of meager fruit. Just as the trade-occupation is one involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit, in the same way, the going-forth-occupation is one involving meager needs… meager arrangements that—when succeeding—is of great fruit.” — MN 99
§ 61. Then Rāsiya the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “I have heard that, ‘Gotama the contemplative criticizes all asceticism, that he categorically denounces & disparages all ascetics who live the rough life.’ I trust that those who say that, ‘Gotama the contemplative criticizes all asceticism, that he categorically denounces & disparages all ascetics who live the rough life’ do not slander the Blessed One with what is unfactual, that they declare the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, and that the legitimate implications of what they say give no grounds for criticism.”
“Headman, those who say, ‘Gotama the contemplative criticizes all asceticism, that he categorically denounces & disparages all ascetics who live the rough life,’ are not saying what I have said, and they slander me with what is unfactual & untrue.
“Headman, there are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensuality with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathāgata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding.
“And which is the middle way realized by the Tathāgata that—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding? Precisely this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathāgata that—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding.
[The Buddha then lists ten types of individuals who enjoy sensual pleasures:
1. One who seeks wealth unlawfully, by violence; doesn’t make himself happy with it, doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
2. One who seeks wealth unlawfully, by violence; makes himself happy with it, but doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
3. One who seeks wealth unlawfully, by violence; makes himself happy with it, shares it with others, and makes merit.
4. One who seeks wealth lawfully and unlawfully, by violence and without violence; doesn’t make himself happy with it, doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
5. One who seeks wealth lawfully and unlawfully, by violence and without violence; makes himself happy with it, but doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
6. One who seeks wealth lawfully and unlawfully, by violence and without violence; makes himself happy with it, shares it with others, and makes merit.
7. One who seeks wealth lawfully, without violence; doesn’t make himself happy with it, doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
8. One who seeks wealth lawfully, without violence; makes himself happy with it, but doesn’t share it with others, and doesn’t make merit.
9. One who seeks wealth lawfully, without violence; makes himself happy with it, shares it with others, and makes merit; he uses his wealth tied to it, infatuated with it, guilty, not seeing the drawbacks, and not discerning the escape (from those drawbacks).
10. One who seeks wealth lawfully, without violence; makes himself happy with it, shares it with others, and makes merit; he uses his wealth not tied to it, not infatuated with it, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks, and discerning the escape (from those drawbacks).
The Buddha then says that these individuals are to be variously criticized to the extent that they
seek wealth unlawfully, by violence
do not make themselves happy with it
do not share it with others or make merit
use their wealth tied to it, infatuated with it, guilty, not seeing the drawbacks, and not discerning the escape.
They are to be variously praised to the extent that they
seek wealth lawfully, without violence
make themselves happy with it
share it with others or make merit
use their wealth not tied to it, uninfatuated with it, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks, and discerning the escape.
The Buddha then describes three types of ascetics living the rough life:]
“Which three? There is the case, headman, where an ascetic who lives the rough life, having—through conviction—gone forth from the home life into homelessness, (with the thought,) ‘Perhaps I will attain a skilled state. Perhaps I will realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.’ He afflicts & torments himself. He doesn’t attain a skilled state. He doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.
“Furthermore, there is the case where an ascetic who lives the rough life, having—through conviction—gone forth from the home life into homelessness, (with the thought,) ‘Perhaps I will attain a skilled state. Perhaps I will realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.’ He afflicts & torments himself. He attains a skilled state. He doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.
“Furthermore, there is the case where an ascetic who lives the rough life, having—through conviction—gone forth from the home life into homelessness, (with the thought,) ‘Perhaps I will attain a skilled state. Perhaps I will realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.’ He afflicts & torments himself. He attains a skilled state. He realizes a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision.
“As for the ascetic living the rough life who afflicts & torments himself, who doesn’t attain a skilled state, and doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: This ascetic living the rough life can be criticized on three grounds. On which three grounds can he be criticized? ‘He afflicts & torments himself’: This is the first ground on which he can be criticized. ‘He doesn’t attain a skilled state’: This is the second ground on which he can be criticized. ‘He doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision’: This is the third ground on which he can be criticized….
“As for the ascetic living the rough life who afflicts & torments himself, who attains a skilled state, but doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: This ascetic living the rough life can be criticized on two grounds and praised on one. On which two grounds can he be criticized? ‘He afflicts & torments himself’: This is the first ground on which he can be criticized. ‘He doesn’t realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision’: This is the second ground on which he can be criticized…. On which one ground can he be praised? ‘He attains a skilled state’: This is the one ground on which he can be praised….
“As for the ascetic living the rough life who afflicts & torments himself, who attains a skilled state, and who realizes a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: This ascetic living the rough life can be criticized on one ground and praised on two. On which one ground can he be criticized? ‘He afflicts & torments himself’: This is the one ground on which he can be criticized…. On which two grounds can he be praised? ‘He attains a skilled state’: This is the first ground on which he can be praised. ‘He realizes a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision’: This is the second ground on which he can be praised.” — SN 42:12
§ 62. Then Ven. Ānanda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Ānanda, every habit & practice, every life, every holy life that is followed as of essential worth: Is every one of them fruitful?”
“Lord, that is not [to be answered] with a categorical answer.”
“Very well then, Ānanda, give an analytical answer.”
“When—by following a life of habit & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth—one’s unskillful qualities increase while one’s skillful qualities decline: that sort of habit & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitless. But when—by following a life of habit & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth—one’s unskillful qualities decline while one’s skillful qualities increase: that sort of habit & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitful.”
That is what Ven. Ānanda said, and the Teacher approved. Then Ven. Ānanda, (realizing,) “The Teacher approves of me,” got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One and circumambulating him, left.
Then not long after Ven. Ānanda had left, the Blessed One said to the monks, “Monks, Ānanda is still in training, but it would not be easy to find his equal in discernment.” — AN 3:79
§ 63. Then Vajjiya Māhita the householder went to where the wanderers of other sects were staying. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, “Is it true, householder, that Gotama the contemplative criticizes all asceticism, that he categorically denounces & disparages all ascetics who live the rough life?”
“No, venerable sirs, the Blessed One doesn’t criticize all asceticism, nor does he categorically denounce or disparage all ascetics who live the rough life. The Blessed One criticizes what should be criticized, and praises what should be praised. Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks analytically, not one who speaks categorically on this matter.”
When this was said, one of the wanderers said to Vajjiya Māhita the householder, “Now wait a minute, householder. This contemplative Gotama whom you praise is a nihilist, one who doesn’t declare anything.”
“I tell you, venerable sirs, that the Blessed One righteously declares that ‘This is skillful.’ He declares that ‘This is unskillful.’ Declaring that ‘This is skillful’ and ‘This is unskillful,’ he is one who has declared [a teaching]. He is not a nihilist, one who doesn’t declare anything.”
When this was said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words.
Vajjiya Māhita the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed… at a loss for words, got up & went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his discussion with the wanderers.
[The Blessed One said,] “Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically & righteously refute those foolish men. I don’t say that all asceticism is to be pursued, nor do I say that all asceticism is not to be pursued. I don’t say that all observances should be observed, nor do I say that all observances should not be observed. I don’t say that all exertions are to be pursued, nor do I say that all exertions are not to be pursued. I don’t say that all forfeiture should be forfeited, nor do I say that all forfeiture should not be forfeited. I don’t say that all release is to be used for release, nor do I say that all release is not to be used for release.
“If, when an asceticism is pursued, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of asceticism is not to be pursued. But if, when an asceticism is pursued, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of asceticism is to be pursued.
“If, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of observance is not to be observed. But if, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of observance is to be observed.
“If, when an exertion is pursued….
“If, when a forfeiture is forfeited….
“If, when a release is used for release, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of release is not to be used for release. But if, when a release is used for release, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of release is to be used for release.”
When Vajjiya Māhita the householder had been instructed, urged, roused & encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One, left, keeping the Blessed One on his right side. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Dhamma & Vinaya would do well, periodically & righteously, to refute the wanderers of other sects in just the way Vajjiya Māhita the householder has done.” — AN 10:94
Judging Practices
§ 64. [Vassakāra the brahman:] “Once, Ven. Ānanda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesālī in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. I went to him at the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood, and there he spoke in a variety of ways on mental absorption (jhāna). Master Gotama was both endowed with mental absorption & made mental absorption his habit. In fact, he praised mental absorption of every sort.”
[Ven. Ānanda:] “It wasn’t the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He doesn’t discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs1 himself with it.
“He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will….
“He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness….
“He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety….
“He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with uncertainty. He doesn’t discern the escape, as it actually is present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One did not praise.
“And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case where a monk—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation—internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhāna, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ With the abandoning of pleasure & pain—as with the earlier disappearance of joys & distresses—he enters & remains in the fourth jhāna: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised.
“It would seem, Ven. Ānanda, that Master Gotama criticized the mental absorption that deserves criticism, and praised that which deserves praise.” — MN 108
NOTE: 1. These neologisms are an attempt to render the wordplay of the Pali into English. The sense is that there is a type of strong concentration involved when one is obsessed with unskillful thoughts, but that it is carried to ludicrous and unhealthy degrees.
§ 65. Then Ven. Savittha and Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, Ven. Sāriputta said to Ven. Savittha, “Friend, there are these three individuals found existing in the world. Which three? The bodily witness, the one attained to view, and the one released through conviction…. Of these three, which pleases you as the most splendid & most sublime?”
“… The one released through conviction, friend. Why is that? In this individual the faculty of conviction is dominant.”
Then Ven. Sāriputta said to Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita, “…Of these three, which pleases you as the most splendid & most sublime?”
“… The bodily witness, friend. Why is that? In this individual the faculty of concentration is dominant.”
Then Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita said to Ven. Sāriputta, “…Of these three, which pleases you as the most splendid & most sublime?”
“… The one attained to view, friend. Why is that? In this individual the faculty of discernment is dominant.”
Then Ven. Sāriputta said to Ven. Savittha and Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita, “Friends, we have each answered in line with our own understanding. Come, friends, let’s go to the Blessed One and tell him about this matter. However he answers, that’s how we’ll remember it.”
“As you say, friend,” Ven. Savittha and Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita responded to Ven. Sāriputta.
Then Ven. Sāriputta, Ven. Savittha, and Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, Ven. Sāriputta told the Blessed One everything covered in his discussion with Ven. Savittha and Ven. MahāKoṭṭhita.
[The Blessed One said,] “It’s not easy, Sāriputta, to give a categorical answer as to which of these three is the most splendid & most sublime. There’s the possibility that the individual who is released through conviction is practicing the way to arahantship, while the individual who is a bodily witness is a once-returner or a non-returner, and the individual who is attained to view is a once-returner or a non-returner.
“It’s not easy, Sāriputta, to give a categorical answer as to which of these three is the most splendid & most sublime. There’s the possibility that the individual who is a bodily witness is practicing the way to arahantship, while the individual who is released through conviction is a once-returner or a non-returner, and the individual who is attained to view is a once-returner or a non-returner.
“It’s not easy, Sāriputta, to give a categorical answer as to which of these three is the most splendid & most sublime. There’s the possibility that the individual who is attained to view is practicing the way to arahantship, while the individual who is a bodily witness is a once-returner or a non-returner, and the individual who is released through conviction is a once-returner or a non-returner.
“It’s not easy, Sāriputta, to give a categorical answer as to which of these three is the most splendid & most sublime.” — AN 3:21
Kamma & Feeling
§ 66. As he was sitting to one side, Potaliputta the wanderer said to Ven. Samiddhi, “Face to face with Gotama the contemplative have I heard this, face to face have I learned this: ‘Bodily action is barren, verbal action is barren, only mental action is true. And there is an attainment in which, on being attained, one doesn’t feel anything.’”
“Don’t say that, friend. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. For it’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One would not say that: ‘Bodily action is barren, verbal action is barren, only mental action is true.’ But there is, friend, an attainment in which, on being attained, one doesn’t feel anything.”
“How long has it been, friend Samiddhi, since you went forth (into homelessness)?”
“Not long, friend. Three years.”
“Then what now should I say about the elder monks, when a junior monk would suppose that his Teacher is to be defended in this way? Having intentionally done an action with body, with speech, or with mind, what does one experience?”
“Having intentionally done an action with body, with speech, or with mind, one experiences stress.”
Then Potaliputta the wanderer neither delighted in nor scorned Ven. Samiddhi’s words. Neither delighting nor scorning, he got up from his seat and left.
[Ven. Samiddhi then went to Ven. Ānanda to report this discussion. Ven. Ānanda then went, together with Ven. Samiddhi, to see the Blessed One and told him what had happened.]
When this was said, the Blessed One said, “I do not recall even having seen Potaliputta the wanderer, much less having that sort of discussion. And his question, which deserved an analytical answer, has been given a categorical answer by this worthless man, Samiddhi.”
When this was said, Ven. Udāyin said to the Blessed One, “But what if Ven. Samiddhi was speaking in reference to this: ‘Whatever is felt comes under stress’?”
When this was said, the Blessed One said to Ven. Ānanda, “Look, Ānanda, at how this worthless Udāyin interrupts. I knew just now that he would interrupt in an inappropriate way. From the very beginning, Potaliputta the wanderer was asking about the three kinds of feeling. When this worthless Samiddhi was asked by him in this way, he should have answered, ‘Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be experienced as pleasure, one experiences pleasure. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be experienced as pain, one experiences pain. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be experienced as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, one experiences neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Answering this way, this worthless Samiddhi would have rightly answered Potaliputta the wanderer.”
[The Buddha then analyses four cases, one in which a person performs an unskillful action and after death is reborn in a bad destination, one in which a person performs an unskillful action and after death is reborn in a good destination, one in which a person abstains from unskillful action and after death is reborn in a good destination, and one which a person abstains from unskillful action and after death is reborn in a bad destination. In each case, a contemplative develops the clairvoyant ability to see this happening, and from the individual case announces that what he saw happens in all cases, and that anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. Thus in the first and third case, the contemplatives announce categorically that good and bad actions do bear results and always lead to immediate reward or retribution in the next life; in the second and fourth cases, they announce categorically that good and bad actions are barren and lead to no reward or retribution at all. The Buddha then gives an analytical explanation to cover all the four cases:]
“There are four kinds of person to be found in the world. Which four? There is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not given (steals), engages in illicit sex, lies, speaks divisively, speaks abusively, engages in idle chatter; is covetous, malevolent, & holds wrong views. With the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
“But there is also the case where a certain person takes life… holds wrong views, [yet] with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a good destinations, in a heavenly world.
“And there is the case where a certain person abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given… is not covetous, not malevolent, & holds right views. With the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a good destinations, in a heavenly world.
“But there is also the case where a certain person abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given… is not covetous, not malevolent, & holds right views, [yet] with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell….
“In the case of the person who takes life… [yet] with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, in a heavenly world: Either earlier he performed fine kamma that is to be felt as pleasant, or later he performed fine kamma that is to be felt as pleasant, or at the time of death he adopted & carried out right views. Because of that, with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a good destination, in a heavenly world. But as for the results of taking life… holding wrong views, he will feel them either right here & now, or later [in this lifetime], or following that….
“In the case of the person who abstains from taking life… [yet] with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell: Either earlier he performed evil kamma that is to be felt as painful, or later he performed evil kamma that is to be felt as painful, or at the time of death he adopted & carried out wrong views. Because of that, with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, in hell. But as for the results of abstaining from taking life… holding right views, he will feel them either right here & now, or later [in this lifetime], or following that.” — MN 136
§ 67. Then, early in the morning, Ven. Bhūmija put on his robes and, carrying his bowl & outer robe, went to the residence of Prince Jayasena [his nephew]. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Jayasena went to Ven. Bhūmija and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Bhūmija, “Master Bhūmija, there are some contemplatives & brahmans who espouse this teaching, espouse this view: ‘If one follows the holy life, even when having made a wish [for results], one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life even when having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results.’ With regard to that, what does Master Bhūmija’s teacher say, what is his view, what does he declare?”
“I haven’t heard this face to face with the Blessed One, prince, I haven’t received this face to face with the Blessed One, but there is the possibility that the Blessed One would answer in this way: ‘If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made a wish [for results], one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results. [But] if one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made a wish, one is capable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is capable of obtaining results.’ I haven’t heard this face to face with the Blessed One, I haven’t received this face to face with the Blessed One, but there is the possibility that the Blessed One would answer in this way.”
“If that is what Master Bhūmija’s teacher says, if that is his view, if that is what he declares, then yes, Master Bhūmija’s teacher stands, as it were, having struck all of those many contemplatives & brahmans down by the head.”
Prince Jayasena then served Ven. Bhūmija from his own dish of milk rice.
Then Ven. Bhūmija, after his meal, returning from his alms round, went to the Blessed One [and reported the entirety of his discussion with Prince Jayasena]. “Answering in this way when thus asked, lord, I trust that I am speaking in line with what the Blessed One has said, that I am not misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is unfactual, that I am answering in line with the Dhamma, and that the legitimate implications of what I say give no grounds for criticism.”
“Certainly, Bhūmija, in answering in this way when thus asked, you are speaking in line with what I have said, you are not misrepresenting me with what is unfactual, and you are answering in line with the Dhamma and that the legitimate implications of what you say give no grounds for criticism. For any contemplatives or brahmans endowed with wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish [for results], they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results.
“Suppose a man in need of oil, looking for oil, wandering in search of oil, would pile gravel in a tub and press it, sprinkling it again & again with water. If he were to pile gravel in a tub and press it, sprinkling it again & again with water even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results….
“Suppose a man in need of milk, looking for milk, wandering in search of milk, would twist the horn of a newly-calved cow. If he were to twist the horn of a newly-calved cow even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results….
“Suppose a man in need of butter, looking for butter, wandering in search of butter, would sprinkle water on water in a crock and twirl it with a churn-stick. If he were to sprinkle water on water in a crock and twirl it with a churn-stick even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results….
“Suppose a man in need of fire, looking for fire, wandering in search of fire, would take a fire stick and rub it into a wet, sappy piece of wood. If he were to take a fire stick and rub it into a wet, sappy piece of wood even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results.
“In the same way, any contemplatives or brahmans endowed with wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results.
“But as for any contemplatives or brahmans endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results.
“Suppose a man in need of oil, looking for oil, wandering in search of oil, would pile sesame seeds in a tub and press them, sprinkling them again & again with water. If he were to pile sesame seeds in a tub and press them, sprinkling them again & again with water, even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results….
“Suppose a man in need of milk, looking for milk, wandering in search of milk, would pull the teat of a newly-calved cow. If he were to pull the teat of a newly-calved cow even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results….
“Suppose a man in need of butter, looking for butter, wandering in search of butter, would sprinkle water on curds in a crock and twirl them with a churn-stick. If he were to sprinkle water on curds in a crock and twirl them with a churn-stick even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results.
“Suppose a man in need of fire, looking for fire, wandering in search of fire, would take a fire stick and rub it into a dry, sapless piece of wood. If he were to take a fire stick and rub it into a dry, sapless piece of wood even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results.
“In the same way, any contemplatives or brahmans endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results.
“Bhūmija, if these four similes had occurred to you in the presence of Prince Jayasena, he would have naturally felt confidence in you and—feeling confidence—would have shown his confidence in you.”
“But, lord, how could these four similes have occurred to me in the presence of Prince Jayasena, as they are natural to the Blessed One and have never before been heard from him?”
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Bhūmija delighted in the Blessed One’s words. — MN 126
On the Buddha as Teacher
§ 68. Then the Blessed One went to the brahman Lohicca’s home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. The brahman Lohicca, with his own hand, served & satisfied the Blessed One & the community of monks with choice staple & non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, the brahman Lohicca took a lower seat and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Lohicca, that an evil viewpoint to this effect has arisen in you: ‘Suppose that a contemplative or brahman were to arrive at a skillful doctrine. Having arrived at a skillful doctrine, he should not declare it to anyone else, for what can one person do for another? It would be just the same as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another’?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Lohicca? Don’t you reign over Sālavatikā?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“Now, suppose someone were to say, ‘The brahman Lohicca reigns over Sālavatikā. He alone should consume the fruits & revenues of Sālavatikā, and not share them with others.’ Would someone speaking in this way be a creator of obstacles for your subjects, or would he not?”
“He would be a creator of obstacles, Master Gotama.”
“And, being a creator of obstacles, would he be sympathetic for their benefit or not?”
“He would not be sympathetic for their benefit, Master Gotama.”
“And in one not sympathetic for their benefit, would his mind be established in good will for them, or in animosity?”
“In animosity, Master Gotama.”
“When the mind is established in animosity, is there wrong view or right view?”
“Wrong view, Master Gotama.”
“Now, for one of wrong view, Lohicca, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb.
“What do you think, Lohicca? Doesn’t King Pasenadi Kosala reign over Kasi & Kosala?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“Now, suppose someone were to say, ‘King Pasenadi Kosala reigns over Kasi & Kosala. He alone should consume the fruits & revenues of Kasi & Kosala, and not share them with others.’ Would someone speaking in this way be a creator of obstacles for King Pasenadi’s subjects—you & others—or would he not?”
“He would be a creator of obstacles, Master Gotama.”
“And, being a creator of obstacles, would he be sympathetic for their benefit or not?”
“He would not be sympathetic for their benefit, Master Gotama.”
“And in one not sympathetic for their benefit, would his mind be established in good will for them, or in animosity?”
“In animosity, Master Gotama.”
“When the mind is established in animosity, is there wrong view or right view?”
“Wrong view, Master Gotama.”
“Now, for one of wrong view, Lohicca, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb.
“So then, Lohicca, if anyone were to say, ‘The brahman Lohicca reigns over Sālavatikā. He alone should consume the fruits & revenues of Sālavatikā, and not share them with others,’ he, speaking in this way, would be a creator of obstacles for your subjects. Being a creator of obstacles, he would not be sympathetic for their benefit. In one not sympathetic for their benefit, the mind would be established in animosity for them. When the mind is established in animosity, there is wrong view. For one of wrong view, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb. In the same way, if anyone were to say, ‘Suppose that a contemplative or brahman were to arrive at a skillful doctrine. Having arrived at a skillful doctrine, he should not declare it to anyone else, for what can one person do for another? It would be just the same as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’—he, speaking in this way, would be a creator of obstacles for those children of good family who, coming to the Dhamma & Vinaya revealed by the Tathāgata, attain the sort of grand distinction where they attain the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, the fruit of arahantship; and for those who ripen deva wombs for the sake of bringing about the deva state. Being a creator of obstacles, he would not be sympathetic for their benefit. In one not sympathetic for their benefit, the mind would be established in animosity for them. When the mind is established in animosity, there is wrong view. For one of wrong view, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb.
“And if anyone were to say, ‘King Pasenadi Kosala reigns over Kasi & Kosala. He alone should consume the fruits & revenues of Kasi & Kosala, and not share them with others,’ he, speaking in this way, would be a creator of obstacles for King Pasenadi’s subjects—you & others. Being a creator of obstacles, he would not be sympathetic for their benefit. In one not sympathetic for their benefit, the mind would be established in animosity for them. When the mind is established in animosity, there is wrong view. For one of wrong view, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb. In the same way, if anyone were to say, ‘Suppose that a contemplative or brahman were to arrive at a skillful doctrine. Having arrived at a skillful doctrine, he should not declare it to anyone else, for what can one person do for another? It would be just the same as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’—he, speaking in this way, would be a creator of obstacles for those children of good family who, coming to the Dhamma & Vinaya revealed by the Tathāgata, attain the sort of grand distinction where they attain the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, the fruit of arahantship; and also for those who ripen deva wombs for the sake of bringing about the deva state. Being a creator of obstacles, he would not be sympathetic for their benefit. In one not sympathetic for their benefit, the mind would be established in animosity for them. When the mind is established in animosity, there is wrong view. For one of wrong view, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb.
“Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teachers who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. Which three?
“There is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, ‘This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness.’ His disciples don’t listen, don’t lend ear, don’t put forth an intent for gnosis [añña]. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher’s instructions. He should be criticized, saying, ‘You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, “This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness.” Your disciples don’t listen, don’t lend ear, don’t put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher’s instructions. It’s just as if a man were to pursue [a woman] who pulls away, or to embrace one who turns her back. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’ This is the first teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.
“Then there is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, ‘This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness.’ His disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher’s instructions. He should be criticized, saying, ‘You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, “This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness.” Your disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher’s instructions. It’s just as if a man, neglecting his own field, were to imagine that another’s field should be weeded. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’ This is the second teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.
“Then there is the case where a certain teacher has attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, ‘This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness.’ His disciples don’t listen, don’t lend ear, don’t put forth an intent for gnosis. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher’s instructions. He should be criticized, saying, ‘You, venerable sir, have attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, “This is for your benefit. This is for your happiness,” but your disciples don’t listen, don’t lend ear, don’t put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher’s instructions. It’s just as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’ This is the third teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.”
When this was said, the brahman Lohicca said to the Blessed One, “But is there, Master Gotama, any teacher who is not worthy of criticism in the world?”
“There is, Lohicca, a teacher who is not worthy of criticism in the world.”
“But which teacher, Master Gotama, is not worthy of criticism in the world?”
“There is the case, Lohicca, where a Tathāgata appears in the world, worthy & rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars & in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
“A householder or householder’s son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathāgata and reflects: ‘Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?’
“So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair & beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.
“When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness & alertness, and is content….
“Endowed with this noble aggregate of virtue, this noble restraint over the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness & alertness, and this noble contentment, he seeks out a secluded dwelling: a wilderness, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a forest grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore.
“Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the benefit of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth & drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth & drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness & anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty…
“When these five hindrances are abandoned in himself, he regards it as unindebtedness, good health, release from prison, freedom, a place of security. Seeing that they have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated.
“Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He permeates & pervades, suffuses & fills this very body with the rapture & pleasure born of seclusion. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman’s apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again & again with water, so that his ball of bath powder—saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within & without—would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture & pleasure born of seclusion. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture & pleasure born of seclusion. When a disciple of a teacher attains this sort of grand distinction, Lohicca, that is a teacher not worthy of criticism in the world, and if anyone were to criticize this sort of teacher, the criticism would be false, unfactual, unrighteous, & blameworthy.
“Then, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhāna…. the third jhāna…. the fourth jhāna: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. When a disciple of a teacher attains this sort of grand distinction, Lohicca, that is a teacher not worthy of criticism in the world, and if anyone were to criticize this sort of teacher, the criticism would be false, unfactual, unrighteous, & blameworthy.
“With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge & vision… to creating a mind-made body… to the modes of supranormal powers… to the divine ear-property… to knowledge of the awareness of other beings… to knowledge of the recollection of past lives… to knowledge of the passing away & re-appearance of beings… to the knowledge of the ending of fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are fermentations… This is the origination of fermentations… This is the cessation of fermentations… This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.’ His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world…. When a disciple of a teacher attains this sort of grand distinction, Lohicca, that is a teacher not worthy of criticism in the world, and if anyone were to criticize this sort of teacher, the criticism would be false, unfactual, unrighteous, & blameworthy.” — DN 12
§ 69. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Sanctuary.
Then Prince Abhaya went to [the Jain teacher] Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta said to him, “Come, now, prince. Refute the words of Gotama the contemplative, and this admirable report about you will spread afar: ‘The words of Gotama the contemplative—so mighty, so powerful—were refuted by Prince Abhaya!’”
“But how, venerable sir, will I refute the words of Gotama the contemplative—so mighty, so powerful?”
“Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: ‘Venerable sir, would the Tathāgata say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others?’ If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, ‘The Tathāgata would say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others,’ then you should say, ‘Then how is there any difference between you, venerable sir, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others.’ But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, ‘The Tathāgata would not say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others,’ then you should say, ‘Then how, venerable sir, did you say of Devadatta that “Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable”? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.’ When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won’t be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man’s throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won’t be able to swallow it down or spit it up.”
Responding, “As you say, venerable sir,” Prince Abhaya got up from his seat, bowed down to Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, circumambulated him, and then went to the Blessed One. On arrival, he bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he glanced up at the sun and thought, “Today is not the time to refute the Blessed One’s words. Tomorrow in my own home I will overturn the Blessed One’s words.” So he said to the Blessed One, “May the Blessed One, together with three others, acquiesce to my offer of tomorrow’s meal.”
The Blessed One acquiesced with silence.
Then Prince Abhaya, understanding the Blessed One’s acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One, circumambulated him, and left.
Then, after the night had passed, the Blessed One early in the morning put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, went to Prince Abhaya’s home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Abhaya, with his own hand, served & satisfied the Blessed One with fine staple & non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, would the Tathāgata say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others?”
“Prince, there is no categorical answer to that.”
“Then right here, venerable sir, the Nigaṇṭhas are destroyed.”
“But prince, why do you say, ‘Then right here, venerable sir, the Nigaṇṭhas are destroyed’?”
“Just yesterday, venerable sir, I went to Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta and… he said to me… ‘Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: “Venerable sir, would the Tathāgata say words that are unendearing & displeasing to others?” … Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man’s throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won’t be able to swallow it down or spit it up.’”
Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince’s lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, “What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?”
“I would take it out, venerable sir. If I couldn’t get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy.”
“In the same way, prince:
[1] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial [or: not connected with the goal], unendearing & displeasing to others, he doesn’t say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & displeasing to others, he doesn’t say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & displeasing to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & pleasing to others, he doesn’t say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & pleasing to others, he doesn’t say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & pleasing to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has sympathy for living beings.” — MN 58 [§79]
§ 70. On one occasion the Blessed One, while wandering on tour among the Kosalans together with a large community of monks, arrived at Nālandā. There he stayed at Nālandā in Pāvarika’s Mango Grove.
Now at that time Nālandā was in the midst of famine, a time of scarcity, the crops white with blight and turned to straw. And at that time Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta was staying in Nālandā together with a large following of Nigaṇṭhas. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman, a disciple of the Nigaṇṭhas, went to Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta said to him, “Come, now, headman. Refute the words of Gotama the contemplative, and this admirable report about you will spread afar: ‘The words of Gotama the contemplative—so mighty, so powerful—were refuted by Asibandhakaputta the headman!’”
“But how, venerable sir, will I refute the words of Gotama the contemplative—so mighty, so powerful?”
“Come now, headman. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: ‘Venerable sir, doesn’t the Blessed One in many ways praise kindness, protection, & sympathy for families?’ If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, ‘Yes, headman, the Tathāgata in many ways praises kindness, protection, & sympathy for families,’ then you should say, ‘Then why, venerable sir, is the Blessed One, together with a large community of monks, wandering on tour around Nālandā in the midst of famine, a time of scarcity, when the crops are white with blight and turned to straw? The Blessed One is practicing for the ruin of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the demise of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the downfall of families.’ When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won’t be able to swallow it down or spit it up.”
Responding, “As you say, venerable sir,” Asibandhakaputta the headman got up from his seat, bowed down to Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, circumambulated him, and then went to the Blessed One. On arrival, he bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, doesn’t the Blessed One in many ways praise kindness, protection, & sympathy for families?”
“Yes, headman, the Tathāgata in many ways praises kindness, protection, & sympathy for families.”
“Then why, venerable sir, is the Blessed One, together with a large community of monks, wandering on tour around Nālandā in the midst of famine, a time of scarcity, when the crops are white with blight and turned to straw? The Blessed One is practicing for the ruin of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the demise of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the downfall of families.”
“Headman, recollecting back over 91 eons, I do not know any family to have been brought to downfall through the giving of cooked alms. On the contrary: Whatever families are rich, with much wealth, with many possessions, with a great deal of money, a great many accoutrements of wealth, a great many commodities, all have become so from giving, from truth, from restraint.
“Headman, there are eight causes, eight reasons for the downfall of families. Families go to their downfall because of kings, or families go to their downfall because of thieves, or families go to their downfall because of fire, or families go to their downfall because of floods, or their stored-up treasure disappears, or their mismanaged undertakings go wrong, or in the family a wastrel is born who squanders, scatters, & shatters its wealth, and inconstancy itself is the eighth. These are the eight causes, the eight reasons for the downfall of families. Now, when these eight causes, these eight reasons are to be found, if anyone should say of me, ‘The Blessed One is practicing for the ruin of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the demise of families. The Blessed One is practicing for the downfall of families’—without abandoning that statement, without abandoning that intent, without relinquishing that view—then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.”
When this was said, Asibandhakaputta the headman said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One—through many lines of reasoning—made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.” — SN 42:9
