6. When this was said, Punna, a son of the Koliyans and an ox-duty ascetic, wept and shed tears. Then the Blessed One told Seniya, the naked dog duty ascetic: “Seniya, I could not persuade you when I said, ‘Enough, Seniya, let that be. Do not ask me that.’”

“Venerable sir, I am not weeping that the Blessed One has spoken thus. Still, this ox duty has long been taken up and practiced by me. Venerable sir, I have confidence in the Blessed One thus: ‘The Blessed One is capable of teaching me the Dhamma in such a way that I may abandon this ox duty and that this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya may abandon that dog duty.’”

7. “Then, Punna, listen and heed well what I shall say.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied. The Blessed One said this:

8. “Punna, there are four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark kamma with dark ripening, there is bright kamma with bright ripening, there is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening, and there is kamma that is not dark and not bright with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening that conduces to the exhaustion of kamma.”

9. “What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a kammic bodily process bound up with affliction, he produces a kammic verbal process bound up with affliction, and he produces a kammic mental process bound up with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a world with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being’s reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening.”

10. “And what is bright kamma with bright ripening? Here someone produces a kammic bodily process not bound up with affliction, he produces a kammic verbal process not bound up with affliction, he produces a kammic mental process not bound up with affliction. By doing so, he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens, un-afflicting contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels un-afflicting feelings entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of Refulgent Glory. Thus a being’s reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called bright kamma with bright ripening.”

11. “What is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening? Here someone produces a kammic bodily process both bound up with affliction and not bound up with affliction… verbal process… mental process both bound up with affliction and not bound up with affliction. By doing so, he reappears in a world both with and without affliction. When that happens, both afflicting and un-afflicting contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels afflicting and un-afflicting feelings with mingled pleasure and pain as in the case of human beings and some gods and some inhabitants of the states of deprivation. Thus a being’s reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening.”

12. “What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma? As to these three kinds of kamma, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark with dark ripening, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is bright with bright ripening, and any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark-and bright with dark-and-bright ripening: this is called neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening. “These are the four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization myself with direct knowledge.”

13. When this was said, Punna, a son of the Koliyans and an ox-duty ascetic, said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama! The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by Master Gotama as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing the hidden, showing the way to one who is lost, holding up a lamp in the darkness for those with eyesight to see forms.”

14. “I go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of Bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life.”

15. But Seniya the naked dog-duty ascetic said: “Magnificent, Master Gotama!… The Dhamma has been made clear… for those with eyesight to see forms.”

16. “I go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of Bhikkhus. I would receive the going forth under Master Gotama and the full admission.”

17. “Seniya, one who belonged formerly to another sect and wants the going forth and the full admission in this Dhamma and Discipline lives on probation for four months. At the end of the four months Bhikkhus who are satisfied in their minds give him the going forth into homelessness and also the full admission to the Bhikkhus’ state. A difference in persons has become known to me in this probation period.”

“Venerable sir, if those who belonged formerly to another sect and want the going forth and the full admission in this Dhamma and Discipline live on probation for four months and at the end of four months Bhikkhus who are satisfied in their minds give them the going forth into homelessness and the full admission to the Bhikkhus’ state, I will live on probation for four years and at the end of the four years let Bhikkhus who are satisfied in their minds give me the going forth into homelessness and the full admission to the Bhikkhus’ state.”

18. Seniya the naked dog duty ascetic received the going forth under the Blessed One, and he received the full admission. And not long after his full admission, dwelling alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and self-controlled, the venerable Seniya by realization himself with direct knowledge here and now entered upon and abode in that supreme goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen rightly go forth from the home life into homelessness. He had direct knowledge thus: “Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more of this to come.” And the venerable Seniya became one of the Arahants.

Kula Sutta

On Families

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

“In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They don’t look for things that are lost. They don’t repair things that have gotten old. They are immoderate in consuming food and drink. They place a woman or man of no virtue or principles in the position of authority. In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons.”

“In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They look for things that are lost. They repair things that have gotten old. They are moderate in consuming food and drink. They place a virtuous, principled woman or man in the position of authority. In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons.”

Kusita Arambhavatthu Sutta

The Grounds for Laziness and the Arousal of Energy

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

“Monks, there are these eight grounds for laziness. Which eight?”

“There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: ‘I will have to do this work. But when I have done this work, my body will be tired. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have done some work. Now that I have done work, my body is tired. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The thought occurs to him: ‘I will have to go on this journey. But when I have gone on the journey, my body will be tired. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the third grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have gone on a journey. Now that I have gone on a journey, my body is tired. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: ‘I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is tired & unsuitable for work. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fifth grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: ‘I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is heavy & unsuitable for work, as if I were many months pregnant. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the sixth grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have come down with a slight illness. There’s a need to lie down.’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for laziness.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness, not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have recovered from my illness. It’s not long after my recovery. This body of mine is weak & unsuitable for work. Why don’t I lie down?’ So he lies down. He doesn’t make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for laziness.”

“These are the eight grounds for laziness.”

“There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?”

“There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: ‘I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha’s message. Why don’t I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have done some work. While I was doing work, I couldn’t attend to the Buddha’s message. Why don’t I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The thought occurs to him: ‘I will have to go on this journey. But when I am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha’s message. Why don’t I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the third grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have gone on a journey. While I was going on the journey, I couldn’t attend to the Buddha’s message. Why don’t I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: ‘I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don’t I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does gets as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: ‘I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food as I I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don’t I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have come down with a slight illness. Now, there’s the possibility that it could get worse. Why don’t I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness, not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: ‘I have recovered from my illness. It’s not long after my recovery. Now, there’s the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don’t I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?’ So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for the arousal of energy.”

“These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy.”

Kuta Sutta

The Peak of the Roof

I have heard this:

Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: “Householder, when the mind is unprotected, bodily actions are unprotected as well, verbal actions are unprotected as well, mental actions are unprotected as well. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions are unprotected, one’s bodily actions get soggy, one’s verbal actions get soggy, one’s mental actions get soggy. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions are soggy, one’s bodily actions… verbal actions… mental actions rot. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions rot, one’s death is not auspicious; the mode of one’s dying not good.

“Just as when a peak-roofed house is poorly roofed: The peak of the roof is unprotected, the roof beams are unprotected, the walls are unprotected. The peak of the roof… the roof beams… the walls get soggy. The peak of the roof… the roof beams… the walls then rot.

“In the same way, when the mind is unprotected, bodily actions…verbal actions…mental actions are unprotected as well… One’s bodily…verbal…mental actions get soggy… One’s bodily…verbal…mental actions rot. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions rot, one’s death is not auspicious, the mode of one’s dying not good.”

“Now, when the mind is protected, bodily actions are protected as well, verbal actions are protected as well, mental actions are protected as well. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions are protected, one’s bodily actions…verbal actions…mental actions don’t get soggy. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions aren’t soggy, one’s bodily actions…verbal actions…mental actions don’t rot. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions don’t rot, one’s death is auspicious, the mode of one’s dying is good.”

“Just as when a peak-roofed house is well roofed: The peak of the roof is protected, the roof beams are protected, the walls are protected. The peak of the roof… the roof beams… the walls don’t get soggy. The peak of the roof… the roof beams… the walls don’t rot.”

“In the same way, when the mind is protected, bodily actions…verbal actions…mental actions are protected as well… One’s bodily… verbal… mental actions don’t get soggy… One’s bodily… verbal… mental actions don’t rot. When one’s bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions don’t rot, one’s death is auspicious, the mode of one’s dying is good.”

Introduction to the Kutadanta Sutta

Whoever put this Sutta together must have been deeply imbued with the spirit of subtle irony that plays no less a part in the Suttas than it does in so many of the Jatakas. I have already called attention to the great importance for the right understanding of early Buddhist teaching of a constant appreciation of this sort of subtle humour. It has been hitherto, so far as I am aware, entirely overlooked that is, in the Suttas; every one recognizes it in the Jataka tales. The humor is not at all intended to raise a laugh, scarcely even a smile. And the aroma of it, pervading the whole of an exposition — none the less delightful because of the very serious earnestness of the narrator, all the while, as regards the ethical point at issue — is apt to be lost sight of precisely because of that earnestness. And just as a joke may be explained, but the point of it spoilt in the process, so in the attempt to write about this irony, much more delicate than any joke, one runs great danger of smothering it under the explanatory words.

The attempt, nevertheless, must be made. And it is most easy, perhaps, to do so by an example which no one will dispute. In the Rajovada Jataka we are told of the two kings, reigning over the famous lands of Benares and Kosala, who simultaneously determined to examine into their own faults! No courtier would tell them of any. So they each went, and went in vain, to the people in the city, outside the palace on a similar quest. Finding no fault-finders there, they each went on to the city gate, and then to the surrounding suburbs, all in vain. So they each made over the kingdom to their respective ministers, and with a single attendant as charioteer, sallied forth into the world, to find some one to tell them of their faults. Bent on this, so serious, quest, the two came face to face in a low cart-track with precipitous sides. Each calls on the other to make way for a king. Both are kings! How to settle the point? ‘I have it,’ says one charioteer: ‘Let the younger give way. the kings turn out to be exactly of an age. ‘Then let the lord of the lesser realm go back.’ their kingdoms are exactly equal in size. And so on, in succession, are found to be the strength of their two armies, the amount of their treasure, the glory of their renown, the fame of their realms, the distinction of their caste, and tribe, and family, then at last comes the solution. The king of Kosala overcomes evil by evil. Of the other, the king of Benares, it is said:

Anger he conquers by calmness,
And by goodness the wicked,
the stingy he conquers by gifts.
And by truth the speaker of lies

And on this being proclaimed, the king of Kosala and his charioteer alighted from their chariot. And they took out the horses, and removed their chariot, and made way for the king of Benares.

There is not a word in the whole story, here told in abstract to suggest that it is not all sober history. But of course the whole story is invented. The two kings are brought on to the stage merely to carry on their broad shoulders, the moral of the tale, and the dry humor of the predicament in which they find themselves is there to attract attention to, to add emphasis to, the lesson taught.

What is the especial point in this fun — a kind of fun quite unknown in the West? It is the piquancy of the contrast between the mock seriousness of the extravagant, even impossible details, and the real serious earnestness of the ethical tone. The fun of the extravagance can be matched, easily enough, in European, and especially in American humor. The piquancy of this contrast is Indian, and especially Buddhist. Even the theosophic myth-makers of the Vedas had a sense of the humor in the incongruities, the half realities of their myths. One feels it occasionally even in The Brahmanas. In the Upanishads it is very marked. The Liturgy of the Dogs, the Fable of the Senses, the War of the Devas and Asuras, and several other such episodes have this mixture of unreality and earnestness, and it finds its perhaps most touching expression in the legend of Naciketas. And The Buddhists, in their Jataka stories, often adopted and developed old Indian tales of a similar sort.

But why should we think that this sort of humor is confined to the Jatakas? We have a Jataka story of the Great King of Glory, certainly based on the Sutta of the same name, for it expressly quotes it, and embodies the numerous details which lead up to the sublime lesson at the end of it. And those details are at least as extravagant as the details in the Rajovada Jataka. Allowing for all the earnestness undeniably animating both the story-teller and the hearers, it is clear that they enjoyed, all the time, the dry humor of the exaggeration and grotesqueness of the details of the story as it went along. Now the details are given only in the Sutta; and omitted, as well known, in the Jataka. They build up a gorgeous fairy tale in which the ancient mythology of the sun-myth is brought into play in order to show how the greatest possible majesty and glory of the greatest and best of all possible kings is, after all, but vanity. And the details, here also, in the Sutta, are enlivened by an intentional exaggeration, a designed dry humor, similar to that in the Rajovada Jataka, above referred to.

A similar state of things is found in the Agganna Sutta, as pointed out in the Introduction to the Ambattha; in the Kevaddha Sutta, translated below; and in many other Suttas. In all of them there is the same exaggeration, the same dry humor, the same restrained art of the storyteller. It is impossible not to see that to the early tellers and hearers of these legends, always striking, often with a special beauty of their own, the unreality of the whole thing was just as evident, and was meant to be as evident, as it is now to us. They knew quite well that the lesson taught was the principal matter, the main point compared with which all others were quite subservient. And it made no difference that, for instance, the Great King of Glory was expressly identified with The Buddha in a former birth. They accepted it all; and entered none the less into the spirit of the legend as legend, because they enjoyed both the lesson and the manner of the telling of it.

And so, I would submit, stands the case also with our present Sutta. The whole legend is obviously invented ad hoc. Its details are not meant to be taken seriously as historical fact. the forced twist given to the meaning of the words vidha and parikkharo is not serious. The words could not be used in the new sense assigned. What we have is a sort of pun, a play upon the words, a piece of dialectic smartness, delightful to the hearers then, and unfortunately quite impossible to be rendered adequately, in English prose, for readers now.

And it is quite open to question whether this does not apply as much to the whole Sutta as to the legend of King Wide-realm. The Brahman Kutadanta (pointed-tooth) is mentioned nowhere else, and is very likely meant to be rather the hero of a tale than an historical character. In that case we should have before us a novelette, an historical romance, in which the Very Reverend Sir Goldstick Sharp-tooth, lord of the manor of Khanumata, — cruel enough, no doubt, and very keen on being sure that his ‘soul’ should be as comfortable in the next world as he was, now, in this, makes up his mind to secure that most desirable end by the murder of a number of his fellow creatures, in honor of a god, or as he would put it, by celebrating a sacrifice.

In order to make certain that not one of the technical details — for to the accurate performance of all these the god was supposed to attach great weight — should be done wrong, the intending sacrificer is ironically represented as doing the very last thing any Brahman of position, under similar circumstances, would think of doing. He goes to the Samana Gotama for advice about the modes of the ritual to be performed at the sacrifice; and about the requisite utensils, the altar-furniture, to be used in making it.

The Buddha’s answer is to tell him a wonderful legend of a King Wide-realm, and of the sacrifice he offered — truly the most extraordinary sacrifice imaginable. All its marvelous details, each one settled, be it noted, on the advice of a Brahman, are described with a deliberate extravagance none the less delicious because of the evident earnestness of the moral to be inferred.

The Brahman of our Sutta wants to know the three modes in which the ritual is to be performed. The three ‘modes’ are declared in the legend to be simply three conditions of mind, or rather one condition of mind at three different times, the harboring of no regret, either before or during or after the sacrifice, at the expenditure involved. And the material accessories required, the altar-furniture, the priest’s outfit, what is that? It is the hearty co-operation with the king of four divisions of his people, the nobles, the officials, The Brahmans, and the householders. That makes four articles of furniture. And eight personal qualifications of the king himself. That makes other eight. And four personal qualifications of his advising Brahman make up the total of the sixteen articles required. No living thing, either animal or vegetable, is injured. All the labor is voluntary. And all the world co-operates in adding its share to the largesse of food, on strict vegetarian principles, in which, alone, the sacrifice consists. It is offered on behalf, not only of the king himself, but of all the good. And the king desires to propitiate, not any god, but living men. And the muttering of mystic verses over each article used and over mangled and bleeding bodies of unhappy victims, verses on which all the magic efficacy of a sacrifice had been supposed to depend, is quietly ignored.

It is all ironical, of course — just the very contrary, in every respect, of a typical Vedic sacrifice. And the evident unreality of the legend may be one explanation of the curious fact that the authors of the Jataka book (notwithstanding that King Wide-realm’s Chaplain is actually identified in the Sutta with The Buddha himself in a previous birth) have not included this professedly Jataka story in their collection. This is the only case, so far discovered, in which a similar omission has been made.

Having thus laughed The Brahman ideal of sacrifice out of court with the gentle irony of a sarcastic travesty, the author or authors of the Sutta go on to say what they think a sacrifice ought to be. Far from exalting King Wide-realm’s procedure, they put his sacrifice at the very bottom of a long list of sacrifices each better than the other, and leading up to the sweetest and highest of all, which is the attainment of Arahatship.

Here again, except in the last paragraph, there is nothing exclusively Buddhistic. That a sacrifice of the heart is better than a sacrifice of bullocks, the ethical more worthy than any physical sacrifice, is simply the sensible, rational, human view of the matter. The whole long history of the development of Indian thought, as carried on chiefly by Brahmans (however much it may have owed in the earliest period to the nobles and others), shows that they, the more enlightened and cultured of The Brahmans, were not only as fully alive to this truth as any Buddhist, but that they took it all along for granted.

Even in the Vedas themselves there is already the germ of this view in the mental attitude as regards Aditi and Varuna. And in the pre-Buddhistic Chandogya, in the mystic identification of the sacrifice with man we find certain moral states placed on an equality with certain parts of the sacrificial procedure. And among these moral states, ahimsa, the habit of causing no injury to any living thing, is especially mentioned. This comes very near to the Hebrew prophet’s: ‘I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.’ The more characteristically Indian point of view is, no doubt, in the words of the old saying long afterwards taken up into the Mahabharata, that it is truth (not mercy) that outweighs a thousand sacrifices. But there is a very great probability that the ahimsa doctrine, foreshadowed in the Upanishad, and afterwards so extravagantly taken up by the Niganthas, the Gains of The Buddha’s time, was also a part of the earlier Gain doctrine, and therefore not only in germ, but as a developed teaching, pre-Buddhistic. Though The Buddhists did not accept this extreme position, there would seem therefore to be no valid reason for doubting the accuracy of The Buddhist tradition that their view of sacrifice was based on a very ancient belief which was, in fact, common ground to the wise, whether inside or outside, the ranks of The Brahmans.

Our Sutta is, then, merely the oldest extant expression, in so thorough and uncompromising a way, of an ancient and widely held trend of opinion. On this question, as on the question of caste or social privileges, the early Buddhists took up, and pushed to its logical conclusions, a rational view held also by others. And on this question of sacrifice their party won. The Vedic sacrifices, of animals, had practically been given up when the long struggle between Brahmanism and Buddhism reached its close. Isolated instances of such sacrifices are known even down to the Muhammadan invasion. But the battle was really won by The Buddhists and their allies. And the combined ridicule and earnestness of our Sutta will have had its share in bringing about the victory.

That they did win is a suggestive fact. How could they have done so if the Indians of that time had been, as is so often asserted of them by European writers, more deeply addicted to all manner of ritual than any other nation under heaven, more superstitious, more averse to change in religious ceremonial? There seems to me no reason to believe that they were very different, in these respects, from Greeks or Romans of the same period. On the contrary there was a well marked lay feeling, a wide-spread antagonism to the priests, a real sense of humor, a strong fund of common sense. Above all there was then the most complete and unquestioned freedom of thought and expression in religious matters that the world had yet witnessed. To regard the Indian peoples through Brahman spectacles, to judge them from the tone prevalent in the úrauta and Grihya Suttas, it would seem impossible that this victory could have been won. But it was won. And our views of Indian history must be modified accordingly.

There is a curious expression in the stock phrase describing the learned Brahman, so often found in the Pitakas, which I have left un-translated in this Sutta, being uncertain as to the meaning in which it was used at the time when our Sutta was composed. It will be instructive, in more ways than one, to collect and consider the other passages in which the word occurs.

Lokayata is explained by Wilson as ‘The system of atheistical philosophy taught by Carvaka, and by the Petersburg Dictionary as ‘Materialism’. Now the description of the good Brahman as put, in The Buddhist Suttas, into the mouth of Brahmans themselves, mentions Lokayata as one branch of his learning. The whole paragraph is complimentary. And though the exact connotation of one or two of the other terms is doubtful, they are all descriptive of just those things which a Brahman would have been rightly proud to be judged a master of. It is evident, therefore, that the Dictionary interpretations of the word are quite out of place in this connection.

Yet they are each of them, at least for a later period, well authenticated. Kumarila Bhatta, in his Varttika (verse 10), charges the Mimamsa system with having been, for the most part, converted into a Lokayata system, and claims for his own book the merit of bringing it back to theistic lines. Now of course the Mimamsists would indignantly deny this. Kumarila, who seems to have been a good deal of a bigot, is here merely hurling at adversaries, who claimed to be as orthodox as himself, a term of abuse. But it is clear that he uses that term in the sense of ‘atheistic.’ The exact phrase would be nastika, as opposed to his own astika-patha: that is, the system or the man who says ‘There is not,’ an infidel. This is somewhat wider than atheist; it comes however, in Kumarila’s mouth, to much the same thing.

Sa¸karacarya uses the word Lokayata several times, and always in the same specific sense as the view of those who look upon the soul as identical with the body, as existing only so long as the body exists, not continuing, after death, in a new condition and separate from the body. A very similar, if not indeed the very same view is also controverted in The Brahmajala Sutta and is constantly referred to throughout the Pitakas under the stock phrase tam jivam tam sariram. But it is never called Lokayata in the Pitakas. It seems to be the view that there is a soul; but that it is diffused through the body, and dies with it; and is not a separate unity, within the body but not of it, which flies away from the body after death. It is not necessary to suppose that either. Sakara or The Buddhists had in their minds any book setting forth a philosophy based on this single proposition, or any actual school using such a book as a manual. It may have been so. But the expressions used point rather to an opinion held by certain thinkers, in union with other opinions, and not expounded in any special treatise. Nor do either The Buddhists or Sakara pretend to set out that opinion in full. They are dealing with it only so far as is necessary to enforce their own contrary positions. And though ‘materialist,’ as a rough and ready translation of Sakara’s Lokayatika, gives a good idea, to a European reader, of the sort of feeling conveyed to Sakara’s Indian readers, yet it is not quite exact. European ‘materialists’ (and one or two may be discovered by careful search) do not hold the view which úakara describes to his Lokayatikas.

Buddhaghosa in our passage has: Lokayatam vuccati vitanda-vada-sattham, ‘The Lokayata is a text-book of the Vitandas (Sophists) this does not help us much; but previously, p. 91, he explains Lokakkhayika as follows: ‘Foolish talk according to the Lokayata, that is the Vitanda, such as: “By whom was this world created? By such a one. A crow is white from the whiteness of its bones; cranes are red from the redness of their blood.”’

Other Pali comments on the word are the Abhidhana Padipika (verse 112), which says simply, probably following Buddhaghosa: Vitanda-sattham vinneyyam yam tam lokayatam. The date of this work is, the middle of the twelfth century A. D. Much clearer is Aggavamsa in the Sadda-niti, which is a generation older. He says:

Loko ti bala-loko; ettha ayatanti ussahanti vayamanti vadassadenati lokayatam. Ayatati va tena loko, na yatati na ihati va, lokayatam. tam hi gandham nissaya satta punna-kiriyaya. kittam na uppadenti. Lokayatam. nama: sabbam Ucchittham sabbam anucchittham seto kako kalo bako imina va imina va karanenati evam-adi-niratthaka-karama-patisamyuttam titthiya-sattham, yam loke Vitandasattham vuccati, yam sandhaya Bodhisatto asamadhuro Vidhura-pandito:

Na seve Lokayatikam, n’etam punnaya vaddhanam ti aha.

‘Loko means the common world. Lokayata means: “on that they ayatanti;” that is, they exert themselves about it, strive about it, through the pleasure they take in discussion. Or perhaps it means: “the world does not yatati by it;” that is, does not depend on it, move on by it. For living beings do not stir up their hearts to right-doing by reason of that book. Now the Lokayata is the book of the unbelievers (of the titthiyas) full of such useless disputations as the following: “All is impure; all is not impure; the crow is white, the crane is black; and for this reason or for that” — the book known in the world as the Vitanda-sattha, of which The Bodisat, the incomparable leader, Vidhura the pandit, said:

“Follow not the Lokayata, that works not for progress in merit.”

The verse quoted-certainly a very old one — is in the Vidhura Jataka, and the commentator there says: ‘this means: Follow not Lokayata disputation, Vitanda chatter, concerned with useless matters which neither give paradise nor lead men on into the Path.’

Sakara says: ‘There is thus, according to them, no soul, separate from the body, and capable of going to the heavenly world or obtaining release.’ The unknown author of the Jataka commentary, who certainly wrote however in the fifth century, gives the allied proposition as his own conclusion from the uselessness of their discussions, not as the opinion of the Lokayatikas themselves. It would be an easy transition from the one expression to the other. And the difference is suggestive, especially in the light of other passages in both Sanskrit and Pali books.

For while the Mahabharata has precisely the same use of the word as the Pitakas, later works use it in a manner approximating more and more nearly to that of Sakara. The passage in the Mahabharata is at I, 2889 (or Hari Vamsa 14068), where, at the end of a list of the accomplishments of learned Brahmans, they are said to be masters of the Lokayata. Being mentioned, as in our passage, at the end of the list, it is plain that this branch of learning is meant to be taken as of minor importance. But it is not yet considered un-favourably, much less opprobiously. And the Petersburg Dictionary, from which I take most of these references, points out that the word may possibly, in this passage, have some other meaning than ‘Materialism.’

The Ramayana goes further. There the word is also in a list, but the Laukayatika are blamed as ‘clever in useless things.’ So in the Saddharma Pundarika, the good Mahayanist does not serve or court or wait upon (among other low people) ‘The Lokayatikas who know by heart the Lokayata mantras (mystic verses).’ The date of this may be a century or two after Christ. And in the Gain book, entitled The Bhagavati, which Weber puts at about the same time, the Lokayatikas occur in a similar list of blameworthy persons.

In the Milinda, which is probably somewhat earlier, the word is mentioned twice. One passage ascribes a knowledge of the Lokayata (in a sentence expanded from the very clause in our Sutta) to the hero of the story, Nagasena. Here the Milinda is quite at the old standpoint. The other passage is in a parenthesis, in which the sub-hero, the king, is described as ‘fond of wordy disputations, and in the habit of wrangling against the quibbles of Lokayatas and Vitandas.’ this may possibly be a gloss which has crept into the text. But in any case it is evidence that, at the time when it was written, the later view of the meaning of the word had become prevalent.

In the long list of various sorts of hermits given in the Harsha Carita the Lokayatikas come among others who would be classed by Vedantists as heretics. We cannot, unfortunately, draw any certain conclusion as to whether or not there were actually any Lokayatikas living in Bana’s time. In expanding previous descriptions of the concourse of hermits in the forest, he may be merely including in his list all the sorts of such people he had ever heard or read of.

Lastly, the Lokayata system is, in various works of the fourteenth century and later, appropriately fathered on Carvaka, a mythical character in the Mahabharata, an ogre, who appears in the garb of a Brahman. It is not certain whether this is due to the ingenuity of a friend or a foe. In either case, like the fathering of the later Sakhya on the ancient sage Kapila; or the fathering of the collection of fables, made by Planudes in the fourteenth century A. D., upon Aesop the story-teller of the — fifth century B. C., it has been eminently successful, has deceived many, and is still widely accepted.

Pending the discovery of other texts, and especially of such as are not only the testimony of opponents, the best working hypothesis to explain the above facts seems to be that about 500 B. C. the word Lokayata was used in a complimentary way as the name of a branch of Brahman learning, and probably meant Nature-lore-wise sayings, riddles, rhymes, and theories handed down by tradition as to cosmogony, the elements, the stars, the weather, scraps of astronomy, of elementary physics, even of anatomy, and knowledge of the nature of precious stones, and of birds and beasts and plants. To be a master of such lore was then considered by no means unbecoming to a learned Brahman, though it ranked, of course, below his other studies. At that time there was no school so called, and no special handbook of such knowledge. But portions of it trenched so closely upon, were so often useful as metaphor in discussing the higher and more especially priestly wisdom, that we find sayings that may well have belonged to it preserved in the pre-Buddhistic literature. Such passages, for instance, as B.r.i. ar. Up. III, 8, 3, Chand. Up. IV, 17, 1, and VI, 2-7, on the worlds and on cosmogony; Chand. III. on the color of the rays of the sun; .B.r.i. ar. Up. II, 1, 5-7, and III, 7, 3-7, on the elements; Ait. ar. III, 2, 1, 4, and others, on the parts of the body; and many others of a similar kind on these and other subjects might be cited as examples.

The amount then existing of such lore was too small to make a fair proficiency in it incompatible with other knowledge. As the amount of it grew larger, and several branches of natural science were regularly studied, a too exclusive acquaintance with Lokayata became looked upon with disfavor. Even before the Christian era masters of the dark sayings, the mysteries, of such mundane lore were marked with sophists and casuists. This feeling is increasingly vouched for in the early centuries of our era. In the fifth century we hear of a book, presumably on the ‘riddles and mysteries of the craft,’ as it is called ‘a book of quibbles.’ Various branches of mundane science had been by that time fairly well worked out. Lokayata was still the name for the old Nature-lore, on the same level as folk-lore, and in contradistinction, not only to theosophy on the one hand, but to such science as there was on the other.

In the first half of the eighth century Kumarila uses the word as a mere term of abuse, and in the sense of infidel of his equally orthodox opponents, the Mimamsists. And shortly afterwards Sakara, in setting forth his theory of the soul, controverts a curious opinion which he ascribes to Lokayatikas, — possibly wrongly, as the very same opinion was controverted ages before in the Pitakas, and not there called Lokayata, though the word was in use in Pitaka times.

Finally in the fourteenth century the great theologian Sayana-Madhava has a longish chapter in which he ascribes to the Lokayatikas the most extreme forms of the let-us-eat-and-drink-for-to-morrow-we-die view of life; of Pyrrhonism in philosophy, and of atheism in theology. The Lokayata had no doubt, at that time, long ceased to exist. His very able description has all the appearance of being drawn from his own imagination; and is chiefly based on certain infidel doggerel verses which cannot possibly have formed a part of the Lokayata studied by The Brahmans of old. It is the ideal of what will happen to the man of some intellect, but morally so depraved that he will not accept the theosophist position.

Throughout the whole story we have no evidence of any one who called himself a Lokayatika, or his own knowledge Lokayata. After the early use of the word in some such sense as Nature-lore, folk-lore, there is a tone of unreality over all the statements we have. And of the real existence of a school of thought, or of a system of philosophy that called itself by the name there is no trace. In the middle period the riddles and quibbles of the Nature-lorists are despised. In the last period the words Lokayata, Lokayatika, become mere hobby horses, pegs on which certain writers can hang the views that they impute to their adversaries, and give them, in doing so, an odious name.

Kutadanta Sutta

The Wrong Sacrifice and the Right

Thus have I heard:

The Blessed One once, when going on a tour through Magadha, with a great multitude of the brethren, with about five hundred brethren, came to a Brahman village in Magadha called Khanumata. And there at Khanumata he lodged in the Ambalatthika pleasaunce.

Now at that time The Brahman Kutadanta was dwelling at Kanumata, a place teeming with life, with much grassland and woodland and water and corn, on a royal domain presented him by Seniya Bimbisara the king of Magadha, as a royal gift, with power over it as if he were the king.

And just then a great sacrifice was being got ready on behalf of Kutadanta The Brahman. And a hundred bulls, and a hundred steers, and a hundred heifers, and a hundred goats, and a hundred rams had been brought to the post for the sacrifice.

Now The Brahmans and householders of Khanumata heard the news of the arrival of the Samana Gotama. And they began to leave Khanumata in companies and in bands to go to the Ambalatthika pleasaunce.

And just then Kutadanta The Brahman had gone apart to the upper terrace of his house for his siesta; and seeing the people thus go by, he asked his doorkeeper the reason. And the doorkeeper told him.

Then Kutadanta thought: ‘I have heard that the Samana Gotama understands about the successful performance of a sacrifice with its threefold method and its sixteen accessory instruments. Now I don’t know all this, and yet I want to carry out a sacrifice. It would be well for me to go to the Samana Gotama, and ask him about it.’

So he sent his doorkeeper to The Brahmans and householders of Khanumata, to ask them to wait till he could go with them to call upon The Blessed One.

But there were at that time a number of Brahmans staying at Khanumata to take part in the great sacrifice. And when they heard this they went to Kutadanta, and persuaded him, on the same grounds as The Brahmans had laid before Sonadanda, not to go. But he answered them in the same terms as Sonadanda had used to those Brahmans. Then they were satisfied, and went with him to call upon The Blessed One.

And when he was seated there Kutadanta The Brahman told The Blessed One what he had heard, and requested him to tell him about success in performing a sacrifice in its three modes and with its accessory articles of furniture of sixteen kinds.

‘Well then, O Brahman, give ear and listen attentively and I will speak.’

‘Very well, Sir,’ said Kutadanta in reply; and The Blessed One-spake as follows :—

‘Long ago, O Brahman, there was a king by name Wide-realm (Maha Vijita), mighty, with great wealth and large property; with stores of silver and gold, of aids to enjoyment, of goods and corn; with his treasure-houses and his garners full. Now when King Wide-realm was once sitting alone in meditation he became anxious at the thought: “I have in abundance all the good things a mortal can enjoy.” The whole wide circle of the earth is mine by conquest to possess. “twere well if I were to offer a great sacrifice that should ensure me weal and welfare for many days.”’

‘And he had The Brahman, his chaplain, called; and telling him all that he had thought, he said: “So I would fain, O Brahman, offer a great sacrifice-let the venerable one instruct me how — for my weal and my welfare for many days.”’

‘Thereupon The Brahman who was chaplain said to the king: “the king’s country, Sire, is harassed and harried. There are dacoits abroad who pillage the villages and townships, and who make the roads unsafe. Were the king, so long as that is so, to levy a fresh tax, verily his majesty would be acting wrongly. But perchance his majesty might think: ‘I’ll soon put a stop to these scoundrels’ game by degradation and banishment, and fines and bonds and death!’ But their license cannot be satisfactorily put a stop to so. the remnant left unpunished would still go on harassing the realm. Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king’s revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors.”

‘Then King Wide-realm, O Brahman, accepted the word of his chaplain, and did as he had said. And those men, following each his business, harassed the realm no more. And the king’s revenue went up. And the country became quiet and at peace. And the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, dwelt with open doors.’

‘So King Wide-realm had his chaplain called, and said: “the disorder is at an end. the country is at peace. I want to offer that great sacrifice — let the venerable one instruct me how — for my weal and my welfare for many days.”’

Then let his majesty the king send invitations to whomsoever there may be in his realm who are Kshatriyas, vassals of his, either in the country or the towns; or who are ministers and officials of his, either in the country or the towns; or who are Brahmans of position, either in the country or the towns; or who are householders of substance, either in the country or the towns, saying: “I intend to offer a great sacrifice. Let the venerable ones give their sanction to what will be to me for weal and welfare for many days.”