Sacred Books of the Buddhists
Volume II

Dīgha Nikāya

Dialogues of the Buddha
Part I

Sutta 8

Kassapa-Sīhanāda Suttantaɱ

The Naked Ascetic

Translated from the Pali by T.W. Rhys Davids

Public Domain

Originally published under the patronage of
His Majesty King Chulālankarana,
King of Siam
by The Pali Text Society, Oxford

---

[206]

Introduction
to the
Kassapa-Sīhanāda Sutta

IN this Sutta the Buddha, in conversation with a naked ascetic, explains his position as regards asceticism — so far, that is, as is compatible with his invariable method (as represented in the Dialogues) when discussing a point on which he differs from his interlocutor.

When speaking on sacrifice to a sacrificial priest, on union with God to an adherent of the current theology, on Brahman claims to superior social rank to a proud Brahman, on mystic insight to a man who trusts in it, on the soul to one who believes in the soul theory, the method followed is always the same. Gotama puts himself as far as possible in the mental position of the questioner. He attacks none of his cherished convictions. He accepts as the starting-point of his own exposition the desirability of the act or condition prized by his opponent-of the union with God (as in the Tevijja), or of sacrifice (as in the Kūṭadanta), or of social rank (as in the Ambaṭṭha), or of seeing heavenly sights, etc. (as in the Mahāli), or of the soul theory (as in the Poṭṭhapāda). He even adopts the very phraseology of his questioner. And then, partly by putting a new and (from the Buddhist point of view) a higher meaning into the words; partly by an appeal to such ethical conceptions as are common ground between them; he gradually leads his opponent up to his conclusion. This is, of course, always Arahatship — that is the sweetest fruit of the life of a recluse, that is the best sacrifice, that the highest social rank, that the best means of seeing heavenly sights, and a more worthy object; and so on. In our Sutta it is the path to Arahatship which is the best asceticism.

There is both courtesy and dignity in the method employed. But no little dialectic skill, and an easy mastery of the ethical points involved, are required to bring about the result. On the hypothesis that the Buddha is a sun myth, and his principal disciples personifications of the stars, [207] the facts seem difficult to explain. One would expect, then, something quite different. How is it that the other disciples who must, in that case, have concocted these Dialogues, refrain so entirely from astrological and mythological details? How is it they attribute to their hero qualities of courtesy and sympathy, and a grasp of ethical problems, all quite foreign, even antagonistic, to those usually ascribed to sun-heroes — mostly somewhat truculent and very unethical personages?

On the hypothesis, that he was an historical person, of that training and character he is represented in the Piṭakas to have had, the method is precisely that which it is most probable he would have actually followed.

Whoever put the Dialogues together may have had a sufficiently clear memory of the way he conversed, may well have even remembered particular occasions and persons. To the mental vision of the compiler, the doctrine taught loomed so much larger than anything else, that he was necessarily more concerned with that, than with any historical accuracy in the details of the story. He was, in this respect, in much the same position as Plato when recording the dialogues of Socrates. But he was not, like Plato, giving his own opinions. We ought, no doubt, to think of compilers, rather than of a compiler. The memory of co-disciples had to be respected, and kept in mind. And so far as the actual doctrine is concerned our Dialogues are probably a more exact reproduction of the thoughts of the teacher than the dialogues of Plato.

However this may be, the method followed in all these Dialogues has one disadvantage. In accepting the position of the adversary, and adopting his language, the authors compel us, in order to follow what they give us as Gotama’s view, to read a good deal between the lines. The argumentum ad hominem can never be the same as a statement of opinion given without reference to any particular person. That is strikingly the case with our present Sutta.

When addressing his five hearers — the Pañcavaggiyā, the first five converts, and the first Arahats — in the Deer-park at Benares, on the occasion of his first discourse, the Buddha is represented to have spoken of asceticism in a very different way. He there calls it one of ‘two extremes which are to be avoided’; and describes it as ‘painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.’^[1] So in the Puggala Paññatti (IV, 24) the very practices set out in our Sutta, by Kassapa the ascetic, [208] as desirable and praiseworthy, are set out as the actions by which a man injures himself. There is nothing of this sort in our Sutta. To judge from it alone one might fairly conclude that the Buddha approved of asceticism, only insisting that the self-mastery and self-control of the Path were the highest and best forms of it. There is really no inconsistency in these three Suttas. But while the first discourse and the Puggala passage were both addressed to disciples, our Sutta is addressed to an ascetic, and the language used is modified accordingly. The conclusion in all is exactly the same.

It is clear that at the time when our Sutta was put together the practice of self-mortification had already been carried out to a considerable extent in India. And further details, in some of which the self-imposed penances are even more extreme, are given in other Dialogues of the same date, notably in the twelfth Sutta of the Majjhima. This is oddly enough also called a Sīhanāda Sutta, and the reason is not far to seek.

The carrying out of such practices, in all countries, wins for the ascetic a very high reputation. Those who despise earthly comforts, and even submit themselves to voluntary torture, are looked upon, with a kind of fearsome wonder, as more holy than other men. And no doubt, in most cases, the ascetics laid claim to special virtue. In the Suttas dealing with the practices of the ascetics, Gotama, in laying stress on the more moderate view, takes occasion also to dispute this claim. He maintains, as in our Sutta, that the insight and self-control and self-mastery of the Path, or of the system of intellectual and moral self-training laid down for the Bhikkhu, are really harder than the merely physical practices so much more evident to the eye of the vulgar. It was a point that had to be made. And the Suttas in which it is made are designated as Sīhanādas, literally ‘the lion’s roars’ — the proud claim by the Arahat to a dignity and veneration greater than that allowed by the people to the self-torturer or even to the man who

‘Bescorched, be frozen, lone in fearsome woods,
Naked, without a fire, afire within,
Struggled, in awful silence, towards the goal!’^[2]

And the boast goes really even further. Not only were the ascetics no better than the Arahats, they were even not so practical. The self-mortification was an actual hindrance. It turned men’s minds from more essential matters. Diogenes was not only not superior to other men, no nearer to the [209] truth than they, by reason of his tub and of his physical renunciation; he was their ethical inferior, and was intellectually wrong. So hard, so very hard, was the struggle^[3] that the Arahat, or, the man striving towards Arahatship, should be always sufficiently clothed, and take regular baths, regular exercise, regular food. The line was to be drawn at another point. He was to avoid, not what was necessary to maintain himself in full bodily vigour and power, but all undue luxury, and all worry about personal comfort. It was his duty to keep himself in health.

It is open to question whether the earnest and unworldly would now draw the line at the precise point at which Gotama drew it; either as regards what they would think proper for themselves now, or what they would have thought most proper for those living in India then. Probably they would think rather that he erred on the side of austerity. His contemporaries the Nigaṇṭhas thought the other way. And the most serious schism in the Buddhist Order, that raised by Devadatta, was especially defended on the ground that Gotama would not, as regards various points, adopt ascetic practices which Devadatta held to be then necessary.

It is probable that Gotama was largely guided by the opinions and practice of previous recluses. For we have already seen that in other matters, important it is true but not essential, Gotama adopted and extended, so far as it agreed with the rest of his system, what had already been put forward by others. But we cannot, as yet, speak on this point with as much certainty as we could in the other cases of the ethical view of sacrifice, of the ethical connotation attached to the word Brahman,^[4] and of the reasonable view as to social distinctions and questions of impurity. Our available texts are only sufficient, at present, to suggest the probability.

The technical term tapas is already found in the Rig-veda, though only in the latest hymns included in the collection. It is literally ‘glow, burning,’ and very early acquired the secondary sense of retirement into solitude, and of the attempted conquest of one’s lower nature by the burning heat of bodily austerity. And this must have been a common practice, for the time of the year most favourable to such [210] tapas came to be known as the month tapas. There was no association with the word of what we call ‘penance,’ a conception arising out of an entirely different order of religious ideas. There was no idea of atonement for, punishment of, making amends for sin. But just as the sacrificer was supposed, by a sort of charm that he worked by his sacrifice, to attain ends desirable for himself, so there was supposed to be a sort of charm in tapas producing mystic and marvellous results. The distinction seems to have been that it was rather power, worldly success, wealth, children, and heaven that were attained by sacrifice; and mystic, extraordinary, superhuman faculties that were attained by tapas.

By a natural anthropomorphism the gods too were supposed, for like ends, to offer sacrifice and to perform tapas. Thus it is sometimes by sacrifice, but more often by tapas, that in the different cosmological legends one god or the other is supposed to bring forth creation.^[5] In the latter case an expression often used on such occasions is tapas atapasyata, literally ‘he glowed a glow,’ and the exact meaning of this enigmatic phrase is by no means certain. It may have been meant to convey that he glowed with fierce resolve, or that he glowed with deep thought, or that he glowed with strong desire, or that he carried out each or some or all of the practices given in Kassapa’s three lists of self-mortifications in our Sutta. All these various ideas may possibly be meant to be inferred together, and before they were ascribed to gods similar actions must have been well known among men.

There were some, as one would expect, who therefore placed austerity above sacrifice, or, held that it could take the place of sacrifice.^[6] The more conservative view of the learned Brahman — that it is repeating by heart to oneself, and teaching others, the Vedic verses, that is the chief thing (with which twelve other qualities or practices should always be associated) — is only given with the interesting note that one teacher thinks ‘the true’ only, another thinks austerity only to be necessary, and yet a third thinks that learning and teaching the Veda is enough by itself, ‘for that is tapas, that is tapas’.^[7] There are several passages making similar comparisons. Thus one text says: ‘There are three branches of duty – sacrifice study of the Veda and charity are the first, austerity (tapas) is the second, to dwell as a learner one’s life [211] long in the house of one’s teacher is the third. All these have as reward heavenly worlds. But he who stands firm in Brahman obtains deathlessness.’^[8]

So in the passages which explain (by no means consistently) where the soul goes to after it leaves the body, we have a somewhat corresponding division.^[9] According to the Chāndogya, those who know a certain mystical doctrine about five fires, and those who in the forest follow faith and austerity (tapas), go along the path of the gods to the Brahma worlds. On the other hand, they who sacrifice, and give alms go to the moon, and thence return to earth, and are reborn in high or low positions according to their deeds. But the bad become insects.

According to the Bṛīhadāraṇyaka, those who know the mystic doctrine of the five fires, and those who in the woods practise faith and truth (not tapas) go to the Brahma worlds. On the other hand, those who practise sacrifice, charity, and austerity (tapas) go to the moon, and are thence reborn on earth. But those who follow neither of these two paths become insects.

Here austerity is put into a lower grade than it occupies in the last extract. Other later passages are Muṇḍaka II, 7; III, 2, 4, 6 ; Praṣna I, 9; V, 4. Though the details differ there is a general consensus that above both sacrifice and austerity, which are themselves meritorious, there is a something higher, a certain kind of truth or faith or wisdom.

This is the exact analogue, from the Upanishad point of view, to the doctrine of the Buddhists that Arahatship is better than austerity. And though the Upanishad belief is not worked out with the same consistency, nor carried so far to its logical conclusion, as the Buddhist, that is simply to be explained by the facts that it is not only earlier, belonging to a time when thought was less matured, but is also not the work of one mind, but of several. There can be but little doubt that Gotama, during his years of study and austerity before he attained Nirvāṇa under the Tree of Wisdom, had come into contact with the very beliefs, or at least with beliefs similar to those, now preserved in the Upanishads; and that his general conclusion was based upon them. That he practically condemns physical tapas (austerity) altogether is no argument against his indebtedness, so far as the superiority of wisdom to austerity is concerned, to the older theory.

In the passages in which that older theory is set forth we [212] have the germs — indistinct statements, no doubt, and inconsistent, but still the first source — of the well-known theory of the āṣramas; the Efforts (or perhaps Trainings), four stages into which the life of each member of the ranks of the twice-born (the Dvijas) should be divided. In later times these are (1) the student, (2) the householder, (3) the hermit, and (4) the wandering ascetic; that is, the Brahmacārin, the Gṛihastha, the Vānaprastha, and the Yati.^[10] And stress was laid on the order in which the stages of effort were taken up, it being held improper for a man to enter the latter without having passed through the former.

The Upanishad passages know nothing of the curious technical term of Effort (āṣrama) applied to these stages. And they have really only two divisions (and these not regarded as consecutive stages), that of the sacrificer and of the hermit (not the Bhikshu). Of course studentship is understood as preliminary to both. But we are here at a standpoint really quite apart from the āsrama theory, and Saṅkara and other commentators are obliged to resort to curious and irreconcilable shifts when they try to read back into these old texts the later and more developed doctrine.^[11]

Even the names of the several āṣramas do not occur, as such, in the older Upanishads. Brahmacārin is frequently used for pupil, Yati in two or three passages means ascetic; but Gṛihastha, Vānaprastha, and Bhikshu do not even occur.^[12] The earliest mention of the Four Efforts is in the old law books. Gautama (III, 2) gives them as Brahmacārin, Gṛihastha, Bhikshu, and Vaikhānasa (student, householder, wandering beggar, and hermit). Āpastamba (II, 9, 21, 1) has a different order, and different names for the four stages — Gārhasthyaɱ, ācāryakulaɱ, Maunaɱ, and Vānaprasthyaɱ^[13].

Hofrath Bühler dated these works (very hypothetically) in the fifth and third, or possibly in the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. ^[14] The theory of the Four Efforts was then [213] already current, but by no means settled as to detail. It must evidently have taken shape between the date of the Upanishads just quoted and that of the law books; that is to say, either just before or, some time after the rise of Buddhism. We can, I, think, go safely further, and say that it must have been, in all probability, after Buddha, and even after the time when the Piṭakas were put together. For neither the technical term āsrama, nor any of the four stages of it, are mentioned in the Piṭakas.

The theory has become finally formulated, in the order as to detail which has permanently survived, in the later law books from Vasishñha onwards. He gives the Four Efforts or stages in the life of an orthodox person, as (1) Student, (2) Householder, (3) Hermit, (4) Wandering Mendicant-Brahmacārin, Gṛihastha, Vānaprastha, and Parivrājaka.^[15]

It will be noticed that this final arrangement differs in two respects — and both of them of importance — from the earliest. In the first place the wandering beggar is put in the last, that is in the highest, place. He is not subordinated, as he was at first, to the hermit. In the second place the expression Bhikshu, applied in Gautama to the wandering mendicant, is dropped in the later books.

The commentators are at great pains to harmonise the divergent order. And they do so by suggesting that the earlier arrangement (which, of course, is, in their eyes, the strange one) is meant to infer exactly the same as does the contrary later arrangement so familiar to them. To them the wandering mendicant had become the last, in order of time and importance, of the Four Efforts; and they try to put back their own view into the words of the ancient writer they are dealing with. But if the order they were familiar with implies one thing, the older order, which is exactly the reverse, can scarcely imply the same. Or if it does, then the question arises, why should it? In either case the explanation may be sought for in the history of the two ideas.

Now the distinction between the two is quite clear, though the ambiguity of the English word ‘ascetic,’ often applied to both, may tend to hide it from View.^[16] Gautama starts his [214] description of the hermit by saying that he is to feed on roots and fruits, and practise tapas. And all the later books lay stress on the same point; often giving, as instances of the tapas, one or other of the very practices detailed by Kassapa the tāpasa, in his three lists, in our Sutta.^[17] On the other hand, the wandering mendicant does not practise these severe physical self-mortifications. He is never called tāpasa, and though he has abandoned the world, and wanders without a home, simply clad, and begging his food, his self-restraint is mental rather than physical. Of the fifteen rules laid down for him by Gautama, who calls him the Bhikshu (in X, 11-25), four or five are precisely equivalent to rules the Buddhist Bhikshu has to observe. There is one significant rule in Baudhāyana, however, which is quite contrary to the corresponding Buddhist rule. According to it the twice-born mendicant of the priestly books is, in begging for food, to observe the rules of ceremonial purity, what we call now the rules of caste.^[18]

Now while the belief in the special efficacy and holiness of austerity, self-torture, tapas; is a world-wide phenomenon, and the practice of it was, no doubt, very early in India too, the idea of the wandering mendicant is peculiar to India. And though the origin and early history of this institution are at present obscure, we have no reason to believe that it was of ancient date.

It was older than the Buddha’s time. Both Buddhist and Jain records agree on this point. And they are confirmed by an isolated passage in an Upanishad which, as a whole, is pre-Buddhistic.^[19] There it is said that he who desires to see [215] the god Brahman cannot attain his end by speculation; he must put away learning and become childlike, put away childishness and become a muni (a silent one),^[20] put away silence and become a Brāhmaṇa (that is, of course, not a Brahmaṇa by birth, but one in a sense nearly the same as Gotama attaches to the word in the Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta). This is to explain why it is that ‘Brāhmaṇas’ (in the ethical sense) give up cravings for children and wealth and the world and adopt begging as a regular habit (bhikshācaryaɱ caranti). Another recession of the same passage, also preserved in the same Upanishad,^[21] but in a connection which Deussen thinks is a later interpolation,^[22] ascribes this habit to ‘men of old.’ The statement is no doubt ambiguous. It might be taken to apply to the hermit (the tāpasa) who also begged. But I think on the whole that the wandering mendicant is more probably referred to, and referred to as belonging to a higher sphere than the muni, the ascetic. If that be so, this is the earliest passage in which any one of these three ideas (the wandering mendicant, his superiority to the ascetic, and the special ethical sense of the word Brāhmaṇa^[23]) have, as yet, been found.

The oldest reference in the priestly literature to unorthodox Bhikshus (not necessarily Buddhists) is probably the Maitri Upanishad VIII, 8, which is much later. There is a custom, often referred to in the law books, of students begging their food. This was doubtless of long standing. But it is a conception altogether different from that of the wandering mendicant. The word Bhikshu does not occur in any of these passages. And indeed of all the Upanishads indexed in Colonel Jacob’s ‘Concordance’ the word only occurs in one — in the little tract called the Parama-haɱsa Upanishad.

Whenever it may have arisen, the peculiar institution of the Bhikshu is quite as likely, if not more likely, to have originated in Kshatriya circles than among the learned Brahmans. All our authorities-Brahman Upanishads, Buddhist Piṭakas, Jain Aṅgas-agree in ascribing to Kshatriyas a most important, not to say predominant, part in such religious activity as lay apart from sacrifice. To take for granted that [216] the Brahmans must have originated the idea, or the practice, is to ignore all these authorities. And it is only in the Kshatriya books — those of the Buddhists and Jains — that the details of the practice receive much weight, or are dealt with in full detail.

The oldest law book has barely a page on the rules for Bhikshus, whereas the regulations, of about the same age, preserved in the Buddhist texts, fill the three volumes translated, under the title ‘Vinaya Texts,’ in the ‘sacred Books of the East.’ And as time goes on the priestly literature continues to treat the life of a Bhikshu as entirely subordinate, and in the curtest manner. Even Manu has only three or four pages on the subject. The inconsistency, brevity, and incompleteness of the regulations in the priestly books lead one to suppose that, at the time when they were written, there were not enough Bhikshus, belonging to those circles, to make the regulations intended for them alone a matter of much practical importance. In other words, the development also of the Bhikshu idea was due rather to the Kshatriyas than to the sacrificing priests.

The latter were naturally half-hearted in the matter. Even after they had invented the āsrama theory, they did not seem to be very keen about it. On the contrary, there are several passages the other way. Āpastamba closes his exposition of them with a remark that upsets the whole theory: ‘There is no reason to place one āsrama before another.’^[24] And just before that he quotes a saying of Prajāpati from which it follows that those who become Bhikshus do not gain salvation at all, ‘they become dust and perish.’

This was no doubt the real inmost opinion of the more narrow-minded of the priests. But the first maker of the phrase did not quite like to put this forward in his own name — the idea of the Bhikshu as a man worthy of special esteem had already become too strong for that. So he makes the god his stalking — horse; and tries, by using his name, to gain respectability and acceptance for his view. And it survives accordingly as late as the earlier portion of Manu (II, 230), where mention is made of ‘the Three āsramas,’ omitting the Bhikshu. We ought not to be surprised to find that, though the whole passage is reproduced, in other respects, in the Institutes of Vishṇu (XXXI, 7), this very curious and interesting phrase is replaced by another which avoids the difficulty.

[217] Baudhāyana also actually quotes with approval another old saying: ‘There was forsooth an Asura, Kapila by name, the son of Prahlāda. Striving against the gods he made these divisions (the āṣramas). A wise man should not take heed of them.^[25]

If the priests, when the custom of ‘going forth’ as a Bhikshu was becoming prevalent, had wished to counteract it, to put obstacles in the way, and especially to prevent any one doing so without first having become thoroughly saturated with the priestly view of things, they could scarcely have taken a more efficacious step than the establishment of this theory. And so far as it served this purpose, and so far only, do they seem to have cared much for it. We have no evidence that the theory had, at any time, become a practical reality — that is, that any considerable number of the twice-born, or even of the Brahmans, did actually carry out all the four āsramas. Among the circles led by the opinion of learned and orthodox priests it was, no doubt, really held improper for any man to become a religieux until he was getting old, or without having first gone through a regular course of Vedic study. And whenever he did renounce the world he was expected to follow such of the ancient customs (now preserved in the priestly books under the three heads of Vānaprastha, Parivrājaka, and Vedasaɱnyāsin) as he chose to follow. But even then he need not observe a clear distinction between these various heads. The percentage of elderly Brahmans who followed any of the three at all must always have been very small indeed, and of these a good many probably became Veda-saɱnyāsins, a group which lies outside of the āṣramas. The rules are admitted to be obsolete now. Saṅkara says they were not observed in his time.^[26] And the theory seems to be little more than a priestly protest against the doctrine, acted upon by Buddhists, Jains, and others, and laid down in the Madhura Sutta, that even youths might ‘go forth’ without any previous Vedic study.^[27]

There were, in other words, in the Indian community of that time, a number of people — very small, no doubt, compared with the total population, but still amounting to some thousands — who estimated the mystic power of tapas above that of sacrifice; who gave up the latter, and devoted themselves, in the woods, to those kinds of bodily austerity [218] and self-torture of which our Sutta gives the earliest detailed account. There were others who rejected both, and preferred the life of the wandering mendicant. In both classes there were unworthy men who used their religious professions for the ‘low aims’ set out in the tract on the Sīlas incorporated in our Sutta, whose very words, in not a few instances, recur in the old law books.

But there was also no little earnestness, no little ‘plain living and high thinking’ among these ‘irregular friars.’ And there was a great deal of sympathy, both with their aims and with their practice (provided always they keep to the priestly view of things), among the official class, the regular sacrificing priests. Instead of condemning them, the priests tried, therefore, rather to regulate them. One Vikhanas compiled a special book on Tapas, called either after the author the Vaikhānasa Sūtra, or after the subject the Srāmaṇaka Sūtra, which is several times referred to as an authority in the law books whose precepts are doubtless, in part, taken from it.^[28] Tapas was then, in accordance with the general view in the circles in which the law books were composed, regarded as the higher, of the two, and put therefore at the end in the list of āṣramas.

But there was also another view which had already made itself felt in the Upanishads, which is the basis of our Sutta, and which no doubt became more widely spread in consequence of its having been the view taken up by the progressive party we now call Buddhists. According to this view the life of the Bhikshu, of the wandering mendicant, was the higher. This view, disliked by the more narrow-minded, but regarded with favour by the more spiritually-minded of the Brahmans, gradually attained so unquestionably the upper hand, that the order of the last two of the āṣramas had to be changed. Tapas became then a preliminary stage to, instead of the final crown of, the religious life.

But the other view continued to be held by a large and influential minority. The strong leaning of the human heart to impute a singular efficacy to physical self-mortifications [219] of all kinds could not be eradicated. Many of the laity still looked on those who carried out such practices with peculiar favour. The tendency made itself felt even in Buddhism, in spite of our present Sutta, and of many other passages to a similar effect. There is a special name for the ‘extra vows,’ the dhutangas, carried out by such of the brethren as were inclined that way. And these receive special glorification in a whole book at the end of the Milinda.^[29] It is true that, even in these ‘extra vows,’ all the extreme forms of tapas are omitted. But this is only a matter of degree. In the priestly law books, also, though they go somewhat further than the dhutangas, the most extreme forms are omitted, especially in the rules for hermits and mendicants contained in the earlier books. This is another point in which the early Buddhists and the more advanced of the learned Brahmans of their time are found to be acting in sympathy. But the discussion of the details would take us too far from our subject.

The Nigaṇṭhas, ājīvakas, and others went to the other extreme, and like the Buddhists, they never admitted any theory like that of the distinction in time between the Four āṣramas.^[30] It is even doubtful how far that distinction became a really valid and practical reality among the learned priests. They alone, as we have seen, always laid stress on the importance of not ‘going forth,’ either as ascetic or as wandering mendicant (tāpasa or bhikshu unless first the years of studentship, and then the life as a sacrificing householder, had been fulfilled. They spoke occasionally of Three Efforts only. And as we have seen the lawyers differed in the order in which they mention the two classes of religieux.^[31]

[220] By the time that the later order was settled the word Bhikshu had come to mean so specially a Buddhist mendicant that the learned Brahmans no longer thought it fitting to apply the term to their own mendicants. This at least may be to the explanation of the fact that it is used in Gautama’s law book, and not afterwards.

The history of the word is somewhat doubtful. It is not found as yet, as we have seen above, in any pre-Buddhistic text. Perhaps the Jains or the Buddhists first used it. But it was more probably a term common before their time, though not long before, to all mendicants. The form is sufficiently curious for Pāṇini to take special notice of it in the rule for the formation from desideratives of nouns in u.^[32] In another rule^[33] he mentions two Bhikshu Sūtras — manuals for mendicants, as the Vaikhānasa Sūtra was for the hermits (tāpasas). These are used by the Pārāṣāriṇas and the Karmandinas, two groups or corporations, doubtless, of Brahmanical mendicants. Professor Weber refers to this in his History of Indian Literature, P. 305, and Professor Kielhorn has been kind enough to inform me that nothing more has been since discovered on the matter. These Sūtras are not mentioned elsewhere. And they can never have acquired so much importance as the Vaikhānasa Sūtra, or they would almost certainly have been referred to in the sections in the later law books on mendicants, just as the Vaikhānasa is in the sections on the tāpasas.

It is also very curious to find Brāhmaṇa Bhikshus with special class names as if they belonged to an Order like those of the Buddhists and the Jains. No such Brahmanical Orders of recluses (pabbajitā) are mentioned in the Piṭakas. When Brāhmaṇa Bhikshus are referred to, it is either as isolated recluses, or by a generic name not implying any separate Order. Thus in an important passage of the Aṅguttara we have the following list of religieux, contemporaries of the Buddha : –

1. Ājivikā.
2. Nigaṇṭhā.
3. Muṇḍa-sāvakā.
4. Jaṭilakā.
5. Paribbājakā.
6. Magaṇḍikā.
7. Tedaṇḍikā.
8. Aviruddhakā.
9. Gotamakā.
10. Devadhammikā.

No. I. The men of the livelihood, among whom Makkhali Gosāla was a recognised leader, were especially addicted to [221] tapas of all kinds, and went always quite naked. The name probably means: ‘Those who claimed to be especially strict in their rules as to means of livelihood.’ The Buddhists also laid special stress on this. The fifth of the eight divisions of the Eightfold Path is sammā ājīvo^[34].

No. 2. The Unfettered are the sect we now call Jains, then under the leadership of the Nātaputta. They were also addicted, but to a somewhat less degree, to tapas; and Buddhaghosa here adds that they wore a loin cloth.

No. 3. The disciples of the Shaveling are stated by Buddhaghosa to be the same as No. 2. The reading is doubtful, and his explanation requires explanation. Perhaps some special subdivision of the Jains is intended.

No. 4. Those who wear their hair in braids. To do so was the rule for the orthodox hermits (the Vānaprasthas or Tāpasas, Gautama III, 34). The Brāhmaṇa Bhikshu, on the other hand, was either to be bald, or to have only a forelock (ibid. 22).

No. 5. The Wanderers. This is a generic term for wandering mendicants. They went, according to Buddhaghosa, fully clad.

Nos. 6-10 are said by Buddhaghosa to be followers of the Titthiyā, that is the leaders of all schools that were non-Buddhist. It is precisely here that the list becomes most interesting, the first five names being otherwise known. And it is much to be regretted that the tradition had not preserved any better explanation of the terms than the vague phrase repeated by Buddhaghosa.

No. 6 is quite unintelligible at present.

No. 7. The Bearers of the triple staff have not been found elsewhere, as yet, earlier than the latest part of Manu (XII, 10). It is very possibly the name given in the Buddhist community to the Brāhmaṇa Bhikshus (not Tāpasas). They carried three staves bound up as one, as a sign, it is supposed, of their self-restraint in thought, word, and deed. This explanation may possibly hold good for so early a date. But it may also be nothing more than an edifying gloss on an old word whose original meaning had been forgotten. In that case the gloss would be founded on such passages as Gaut. III, 17,^[35] where the idea of this threefold division of conduct recurs in the law books. But the technical term tridaṇḍin is not mentioned in them.

[222] No. 8. The not opposing ones, the Friends, are not mentioned elsewhere.

No. 9. The followers of Gotama means, almost certainly, the followers of some other member of the Sākya clan, distinct from our Gotama. who also founded an Order. We only know of one who did so, Devadatta. The only alternative is that some Brāhmaṇa, belonging to the Gotama gotra, is here referred to as having had a community of Bhikshus named after him. But we know nothing of any such person.

No. 10. Those who follow the religion of the God are not mentioned elsewhere. Who is ‘the God’? Is it Sakka (Indra) or Siva? The Deva of the names Devadatta, Devaseññhi, Devadaha, etc., is probably the same.

We find in this suggestive list several names, used technically as the designation of particular sects, but in meaning applicable quite as much to most of the others. They all claimed to be pure as regards means of livelihood, to be unfettered, to be friends; they all wandered from place to place, they were all mendicants. And the names can only gradually have come to have the special meaning of the member of one school, or order, only. We should not, therefore, be surprised if the name Bhikshu, also, has had a similar history.^[36]

---

[223]

VIII. Kassapa-Sīhanāda Sutta

The Naked Ascetic

[1] THUS HAVE I HEARD.

The Blessed One was once dwelling at Ujuññā,
in the Kaṇṇakatthala Deer Park.^[37]

Now Kassapa, a naked ascetic,
came to where the Exalted One was,
and exchanged with him the greetings
and compliments of civility and courtesy,
and stood respectfully aside.

And, so standing, he said to the Exalted One:

2. “I have heard it said, O Gotama, thus:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama disparages all penance;
verily he reviles and finds fault with every ascetic,
with everyone who lives a hard life.’

Now those, O Gotama, who said this,
were they therein repeating Gotama’s words,
and not reporting him falsely?

Are they announcing,
as a minor tenet of his,
a matter really following from his Dhamma
(his system)?

Is there nothing in this opinion of his,
so put forward
as wrapt up with his system,
or as a corollary from it,
that could meet with objection?^[38]

For we would fain bring no false accusation
against the venerable Gotama.”

3. “No, Kassapa.

Those who said so
were not [224] following my words.

On the contrary,
they were reporting me falsely,
and at variance with the fact.

Herein, O Kassapa, I am wont to be aware,
with vision bright and purified,
seeing beyond what men can see,
how some men given to asceticism,
living a hard life,
are reborn,
on the dissolution of the body,
after death,
into some unhappy, fallen state
of misery and woe;
while others, living just so,
are reborn into some happy state,
or into a heavenly world —
how some men given to asceticism,
but living a life less hard,
are equally reborn,
on the dissolution of the body,
after death
into some unhappy, fallen state
of misery and woe;
while others, living just so,
are reborn in some happy state,
or into a heavenly world.

How then could I, O Kassapa,
who am thus aware,
as they really are,
of the states whence men have come,
and whither they will go,
as they pass away from one form of existence,
and take shape in another, —
how could I disparage all penance;
or bluntly revile
and find fault
with every ascetic,
with everyone who lives a life that is hard?

4. Now there are, O Kassapa,
certain recluses and Brahmans
who are clever,
subtle,
experienced in controversy,
hair splitters,
who go about, one would think,
breaking into pieces by their wisdom
the speculations of their adversaries.

And as between them and me
there is, as to some points,
agreement,
and as to some points,
not.

As to some of those things they approve,
we also approve thereof.

As to some of those things they disapprove,
we also disapprove thereof.

As to some of the things they approve,
we disapprove thereof.

As to some of the things they disapprove,
we approve thereof.

And some things we approve of,
so do they.

And some things we disapprove of,
so do they.

And some things we approve,
they do not.

And some things we disapprove of,
they approve thereof.

5. And I went to them, and said:

‘As for those things, my friends,
on which we do not agree,
let us leave them alone.

As to those things on which [225] we agree,
let the wise put questions about them,
ask for reasons as to them,
talk them over,
with or to their teacher,
with or to their fellow disciples,
saying:

“Those conditions of heart, my friends,
which are evil
or accounted as evil among you
which are blameworthy
or accounted as such among you,
which are insufficient
for the attainment of Arahatship,
or accounted as such among you,
depraved
or accounted as such among you –
who is it who conducts himself
as one who has more absolutely
put them away from him,
the Samaṇa Gotama,
or, the other venerable ones,
the teachers of schools?”‘

6. Then it may well be, O Kassapa,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
should say:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama conducts himself
as one who has absolutely
put those conditions away from him;
whereas the venerable ones,
the other teachers of schools,
have done so only partially.’

Thus is it, O Kassapa, that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
would, for the most part,
speak in praise of us therein.

7. And again, O Kassapa,
let the wise put questions one to another,
ask for reasons,
talk the matter over,
with or to their teacher,
with or to their fellow disciples,
saying:

‘Those conditions of heart,
which are good
or accounted as such among you,
which are blameless
or accounted as such among you,
which suffice to lead a man to Arahatship
or are accounted as sufficient among you,
which are pure
or accounted as such among you –
who is it who conducts himself
as one who has more completely
taken them upon him,
the Samaṇa Gotama,
or the other venerable ones,
the teachers of schools?’

8. Then it may well be, O Kassapa,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over, should say:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama conducts himself
as one who has completely
taken these conditions upon him,
whereas the venerable [226] ones,
the other teachers of schools,
have done so only partially.’

Thus it is, O Kassapa,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
would, for the most part,
speak in praise of us therein.

§

9.^[39] And further, also, O Kassapa, I went to them, and said:

‘As for those things, my friends,
on which we do not agree,
let us leave them alone.

As to those things on which we agree,
let the wise put questions about them,
ask for reasons as to them,
talk them over,
with or to their teacher,
with or to their fellow disciples,
saying:

“Those conditions of heart, my friends,
which are evil
or accounted as evil among you
which are blameworthy
or accounted as such among you,
which are insufficient
for the attainment of Arahatship,
or accounted as such among you,
depraved
or accounted as such among you –
whose body of disciples
are more addicted
to that which is generally acknowledged to be good,
refrain themselves more completely
from that which is generally acknowledged to be evil,
than the body of disciples of the Samaṇa Gotama
or, the disciples of the other venerable ones,
the teachers of schools?”‘

10. Then it may well be, O Kassapa,,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
should say:

‘The body of the disciples of Samaṇa Gotama conduct themselves
as those who have absolutely
put those conditions away from themselves;
whereas the the disciples of the other venerable ones,
the other teachers of schools,
have done so only partially.’

Thus is it, O Kassapa, that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
would, for the most part,
speak in praise of us therein.

11. And again, O Kassapa,
let the wise put questions one to another,
ask for reasons,
talk the matter over,
with or to their teacher,
with or to their fellow disciples,
saying:

‘Those conditions of heart,
which are good
or accounted as such among you,
which are blameless
or accounted as such among you,
which suffice to lead a man to Arahatship
or are accounted as sufficient among you,
which are pure
or accounted as such among you –
whose body of disciples
are more addicted
to that which is generally acknowledged to be good,
refrain themselves more completely
from that which is generally acknowledged to be evil,
than the body of disciples of the Samaṇa Gotama
or, the disciples of the other venerable ones,
the teachers of schools?”‘

12. Then it may well be, O Kassapa,,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
should say:

‘The body of disciples of the Samaṇa Gotama conduct themselves
as those who have absolutely
put those conditions away from themselves;
whereas the the disciples of the other venerable ones,
the other teachers of schools,
have done so only partially.’

Thus it is, O Kassapa,
that the wise,
so putting questions one to the other,
asking for reasons,
talking the matter over,
would, for the most part,
speak in praise of us therein.

§

13. Now there is, O Kassapa, a way,
there is a method
which if a man follow
he will of himself,
both see and know that:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama
is one who speaks in due season,
speaks that which is,
that which redounds to advantage,
that which is the Norm
(the Dhamma),
that which is the law of self-restraint
(the Vinaya).’

And what, Kassapa, is that way,
what that method,
which if a man follow,
he will, of himself,
know that,
and see that?

Verily it is this Noble Eightfold Path,
that is to say:

Right Views,
Right Aspirations,
Right Speech,
Right Action,
Right Mode of Livelihood,
Right Effort,
Right Mindfulness,
and Right Rapture.

This, Kassapa, is that way,
this that method,
which if a man follow,
he will of himself,
both know and see that:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama
is one who speaks in due season,
speaks that which is,
that which redounds to profit,
that which is the Norm,
that which is the law of self-restraint.'”

14. And when he had spoken thus,
Kassapa, the naked ascetic, said to the Exalted One:

“And so also, Gotama,
are the following ascetic practices accounted,
in the opinion of some Samaṇas [227] and Brāhmaṇas,
as Samaṇa-ship and Brāhmaṇa-ship:^[40]

‘He goes naked.’

‘He is of loose habits
(performing his bodily functions, and eating food, in a standing posture, not crouching down or sitting down, as well-bred people do).’

‘He licks his hands clean
(after eating, instead of washing them, as others do).‘^[41]

‘(When on his rounds for alms, if politely requested to step nearer, or to wait a moment, in order that food may be put into his bowl), he passes stolidly on
(lest he should incur the guilt of following another person’s word).’

‘He refuses to accept food brought
(to him, before he has started on his daily round for alms).’

‘He refuses to accept
(food, if told that it has been prepared)
especially for him.’

‘He refuses to accept any invitation
(to call on his rounds at any particular house, or to pass along any particular street, or to go to any particular place).’

‘He will not accept
(food taken direct) from the mouth of the pot
or pans^[42]
(in which it is cooked; lest [228] those vessels should be struck or scraped, on his account, with the spoon).’

‘(He will)
not
(accept food placed)
within the threshould
(lest it should have been placed there specially for him).’

‘(He will)
not
(accept food placed)
among the sticks^[43]
(lest it should have been placed there specially for him).’

‘(He will)
not
(accept food placed)
among the pestles
(lest it should have been placed there specially for him).’

‘When two persons are eating together
he will not accept
(food, taken from what they are eating, if offered to him by only one of the two).’

‘He will not accept food
from a woman with child
(lest the child should suffer want).’

‘He will not accept food
from a woman giving suck
(lest the milk should grow less).’

‘He will not accept food
from a woman in intercourse with a man^[44]
(lest their intercourse be hindered).’

[229] ‘He will not accept food
collected
(by the faithful in time of drought).’^[45]

‘He will not accept food
where a dog is standing by
(lest the dog should lose a meal).’

‘He will not accept food
where flies are swarming round
(lest the flies should suffer).’

‘He will not accept fish,
nor meat,
nor strong drink,
nor intoxicants,
nor gruel.’^[46]

‘He is a “One-houser”,
(turning back from his round as soon as he has received an alms at any one house)
a “One-mouthful-man”.’

‘Or he is a ‘Two-houser;
a “Two-mouthful-man”

‘Or he is a ‘Three-houser;
a “Three-mouthful-man”

‘Or he is a ‘Four-houser;
a “Four-mouthful-man”

‘Or he is a ‘Five-houser;
a “Five-mouthful-man”

‘Or he is a ‘Six-houser;
a “Six-mouthful-man”

‘Or he is a “Seven-houser,”
a “Seven-mouthful-man”.’

‘He keeps himself going
on only one alms,^[47]
or only two,
or only three,
or only four,
or only five,
or only six,
or only seven.’

‘He takes food
only once a day,
or once every two days,
or once every three days,
or once every four days,
or once every five days,
or once every six days,
or once every seven days.

Thus does he dwell
addicted to the practice
of taking food according to rule,
at regular intervals,
up to even half a month.’

And so also, Gotama,
are the following ascetic practices accounted,
in the opinion of some Samaṇas and Brāhmaṇas,
as Samaṇaship and Brāhmaṇaship:

[230] ‘He feeds on potherbs,
on wild rice,^[48]
on Nivāra seeds,
on leather parings,^[49]
on the water-plant called Haṭa,
on the fine powder
which adheres to the grains of rice beneath the husk,
on the discarded scum of boiling rice,
on the flour of oil-seeds,^[50]
on grasses,
on cow-dung,
on fruits and roots from the woods,
on fruits that have fallen of themselves.’

And so also, Gotama,
are the following ascetic practices accounted,
in the opinion of some Samaṇas and Brāhmaṇas,
as Samaṇaship and Brāhmaṇaship:

‘He wears coarse hempen cloth.’

‘He wears coarse cloth
of interwoven hemp and other materials.’

‘He wears cloths
taken from corpses
and thrown away.’^[51]

‘He wears clothing
made of rags picked up from a dust heap.’

‘He wears clothing
made of the bark of the Tirītaka tree.’^[52]

‘He wears the natural hide
of a black antelope.’

‘He wears a dress
made of a network of strips
of a black antelope’s hide.’^[53]

‘He wears a dress
made of Kusa grass fibre.’

‘He wears a garment of bark.’

[231] ‘He wears a garment
made of small slips or slabs of wood
(shingle)
pieced together.’^[54]

‘He wears, as a garment,
a blanket of human hair.’^[55]

‘He wears, as a garment,
a blanket made of horses’ tails.’^[56]

‘He wears, as a garment,
a blanket made of the feathers of owls.’

‘He is a “plucker-out-of-hair-and-beard,”
addicted to the practice
of plucking out both hair and beard.’

‘He is a “stander-up,”
rejecting the use of a seat.’

‘He is a “croucher-down-on-the-heels,”
addicted to exerting himself
when crouching down on his heels.’^[57]

‘He is a “bed-of-thorns-man,”
putting iron spikes
or natural thorns
under the skin on which he sleeps.’^[58]

‘He uses a plank bed.’

‘He sleeps on the bare ground.’^[59]

‘He sleeps always on one side.’

‘He is a “dust-and-dirt-wearer,”
(smearing his body with oil he stands where dust clouds blow, and lets the dust adhere to his body).’

‘He lives and sleeps
in the open air.’^[60]

‘Whatsoever seat is offered to him,
that he accepts
[232] (without being offended at its being not dignified enough).’

‘He is a “filth-eater,”
addicted to the practice of feeding
on the four kinds of filth
(cow-dung, cow’s urine, ashes, and clay).’^[61]

‘He is a “non-drinker,”
addicted to the practice of never drinking cold water
(lest he should injure the souls in it).’^[62]

‘He is an “evening-third-man,”
addicted to the practice
of going down into water
thrice a day
(to wash away his sins).'”

§

15. “If a man, O Kassapa, should go naked;
be of loose habits;
lick his hands clean;
pass stolidly on;
refuse to accept food brought;
refuse to accept food prepared especially for him;
refuse to accept any invitation;
will not accept food taken from the mouth of the pot or pan;
not accept food placed within the threshould;
not accept food placed among the sticks;
not accept food placed among the pestles;
not accept food when two persons are eating together;
not accept food from a woman with child;
not accept food from a woman giving suck;
not accept food from a woman in intercourse with a man;
not accept food collected where a dog is standing by;
not accept food where flies are swarming round;
not accept fish,
nor meat,
nor strong drink,
nor intoxicants,
nor gruel;

If a man, O Kassapa be a ‘One-houser’;
or a ‘One-mouthful-man’;
or a ‘Two-houser;
or a “Two-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Three-houser;
or a “Three-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Four-houser;
or a “Four-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Five-houser;
or a “Five-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Six-houser;
or a “Six-mouthful-man”;
or a “Seven-houser,”
a “Seven-mouthful-man”;

Or he keeps himself going
on only one alms,
on only two alms,
on only three alms,
on only four alms,
on only five alms,
on only six alms,
on only seven alms;

Or he takes food
only once a day,
or once every two days,
or once every three days,
or once every four days,
or once every five days,
or once every six days,
or once every seven days;

Taking food according to rule,
at regular intervals,
up to even half a month;

■

[233] If a man, O Kassapa feed on potherbs,
on wild rice,
on Nivāra seeds,
on leather parings,
on the water-plant called Haṭa,
on the fine powder
which adheres to the grains of rice beneath the husk,
on the discarded scum of boiling rice,
on the flour of oil-seeds,
on grasses,
on cow-dung,
on fruits and roots from the woods,
on fruits that have fallen of themselves;

and the state of blissful attainment
in conduct,
in heart,
in intellect,
have not been practised by him,
realized by him,
then is he far from Samaṇaship,
far from Brāhmaṇaship.

But from the time, O Kassapa,
when a Bhikkhu has cultivated
the heart of love
that knows no anger,
that knows no ill-will —
from the time when,
by the destruction of the deadly intoxications
(the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance),
he dwells in that emancipation of heart,
that emancipation of mind,
that is free from those intoxications,
and that he, while yet in this visible world,
has come to realize and know —
from that time, O Kassapa,
is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaṇa,
is called a Brāhmaṇa!

■

If a man, O Kassapa is a “plucker-out-of-hair-and-beard,”
addicted to the practice
of plucking out both hair and beard;
if a man is a “stander-up,”
rejecting the use of a seat;
if a man is a “croucher-down-on-the-heels,”
addicted to exerting himself
when crouching down on his heels;
if a man is a “bed-of-thorns-man,”
putting iron spikes
or natural thorns
under the skin on which he sleeps;

If a man, O Kassapa uses a plank bed;
if a man sleeps on the bare ground;
if a man sleeps always on one side;
if a man is a “dust-and-dirt-wearer;
if a man lives and sleeps in the open air;
if a man accepts whatsoever seat is offered to him;
if a man is a “filth-eater,”
addicted to the practice of feeding
on the four kinds of filth;
if a man is a “non-drinker,”
addicted to the practice of never drinking cold water;
if a man is an “evening-third-man,”
addicted to the practice
of going down into water
thrice a day;

and the state of blissful attainment
in conduct,
in heart,
in intellect,
have not been practised by him,
realized by him,
then is he far from Samaṇaship,
far from Brāhmaṇaship.

But from the time, O Kassapa,
when a Bhikkhu has cultivated
the heart of love
that knows no anger,
that knows no ill-will —
from the time when,
by the destruction of the deadly intoxications
(the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance),
he dwells in that emancipation of heart,
that emancipation of mind,
that is free from those intoxications,
and that he, while yet in this visible world,
has come to realize and know —
from that time, O Kassapa,
is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaṇa,
is called a Brāhmaṇa!^[63]

■

[234] 16. And when he had thus spoken,
Kassapa, the naked ascetic, said to the Blessed One:

“How hard then, Gotama,
must Samaṇaship be to gain,
how hard must Brāhmaṇaship be to gain!”

“That, Kassapa, is a common saying in the world
that the life of a Samaṇa
and of a Brāhmaṇa
is hard to lead.

But if the hardness,
the very great hardness,
of that life
depended merely on this ascetism,
on the carrying out of any
or all of those practices you have detailed,
then it would not be fitting
to say that the life of the Samaṇa,
of the Brāhmaṇa,
was hard to lead.

It would be quite possible
for a householder,
or for the son of a householder,
or for any one,
down to the slave girl who carries the water-jar,
to say:

‘Let me now go naked,
let me become of low habits,
of loose habits;
lick my hands clean;
pass stolidly on;
refuse to accept food brought;
refuse to accept food prepared especially for me;
refuse to accept any invitation;
not accept food taken from the mouth of the pot or pan;
not accept food placed within the threshould;
not accept food placed among the sticks;
not accept food placed among the pestles;
not accept food when two persons are eating together;
not accept food from a woman with child;
not accept food from a woman giving suck;
not accept food from a woman in intercourse with a man;
not accept food collected where a dog is standing by;
not accept food where flies are swarming round;
not accept fish,
nor meat,
nor strong drink,
nor intoxicants,
nor gruel;

Let me now be a ‘One-houser’;
or a ‘One-mouthful-man’;
or a ‘Two-houser;
or a “Two-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Three-houser;
or a “Three-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Four-houser;
or a “Four-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Five-houser;
or a “Five-mouthful-man”;
or a ‘Six-houser;
or a “Six-mouthful-man”;
or a “Seven-houser,”
a “Seven-mouthful-man”;

Let me now keep myself going
on only one alms,
on only two alms,
on only three alms,
on only four alms,
on only five alms,
on only six alms,
on only seven alms;

Let me now take food
only once a day,
or once every two days,
or once every three days,
or once every four days,
or once every five days,
or once every six days,
or once every seven days;

Taking food according to rule,
at regular intervals,
up to even half a month;

Let me now feed on potherbs,
on wild rice,
on Nivāra seeds,
on leather parings,
on the water-plant called Haṭa,
on the fine powder
which adheres to the grains of rice beneath the husk,
on the discarded scum of boiling rice,
on the flour of oil-seeds,
on grasses,
on cow-dung,
on fruits and roots from the woods,
on fruits that have fallen of themselves;

Let me now be a “plucker-out-of-hair-and-beard,”
addicted to the practice
of plucking out both hair and beard;
a “stander-up,”
rejecting the use of a seat;
a “croucher-down-on-the-heels,”
addicted to exerting himself
when crouching down on his heels;
a “bed-of-thorns-man,”
putting iron spikes
or natural thorns
under the skin on which I sleep;

Let me now use a plank bed;
sleep on the bare ground;
sleep always on one side;
let me now be a “dust-and-dirt-wearer;
live and sleep in the open air;
accept whatsoever seat is offered to me;
a “filth-eater,”
addicted to the practice of feeding
on the four kinds of filth;
a “non-drinker,”
addicted to the practice of never drinking cold water;
an “evening-third-man,”
addicted to the practice
of going down into water
thrice a day.’

■

But since, Kassapa,
quite apart from these matters,
quite apart from all kinds of penance,
the life is hard,
very hard to lead;
therefore is it that it is fitting to say:

‘How hard must Samaṇaship be to gain,
how hard must Brāhmaṇaship be to gain!’

For from the time, O Kassapa,
when a Bhikkhu has cultivated
the heart of love that knows no anger,
that knows no ill-will —
from the time when,
by the destruction of the deadly intoxications
(the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance),
he dwells in that emancipation of heart,
in that emancipation of mind,
that is free from those intoxications,
and that he,
while yet in this visible world,
has come to realize and know –
from that time, O Kassapa,
is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaṇa,
is called a Brāhmaṇa!”^[64]

§

17. And when he had thus spoken,
Kassapa, the naked ascetic,
said to the Blessed One:

“Hard is it, Gotama,
to know when a man is a Samaṇa,
hard to know when a man is a Brāhmaṇa!”

“That, Kassapa, is a common saying in the world
[235] that it is hard to know a Samaṇa,
hard to know a Brāhmaṇa.

But if being a Samaṇa,
if being a Brāhmaṇa,
depended merely on this ascetism,
on the carrying out of any
or all of those practices you have detailed,
then it would not be fitting
to say that a Samaṇa is hard to recognize,
to say that a Brāhmaṇa is hard to recognize.

It would be quite possible
for a householder,
or for the son of a householder,
or for any one,
down to the slave girl who carries the water-jar,
to know:

‘This man goes naked,
is of low habits,
of loose habits;
licks his hands clean;
passes stolidly on;
refuses to accept food brought;
refuses to accept food prepared especially for him;
refuses to accept any invitation;
does not accept food taken from the mouth of the pot or pan;
does not accept food placed within the threshould;
does not accept food placed among the sticks;
does not accept food placed among the pestles;
does not accept food when two persons are eating together;
does not accept food from a woman with child;
does not accept food from a woman giving suck;
does not accept food from a woman in intercourse with a man;
does not accept food collected where a dog is standing by;
does not accept food where flies are swarming round;
vnot accept fish,
does nor meat,
vnor strong drink,
does nor intoxicants,
does nor gruel;

This man is a ‘One-houser’;
a ‘One-mouthful-man’;
a ‘Two-houser;
a “Two-mouthful-man”;
a ‘Three-houser;
a “Three-mouthful-man”;
a ‘Four-houser;
a “Four-mouthful-man”;
a ‘Five-houser;
a “Five-mouthful-man”;
a ‘Six-houser;
a “Six-mouthful-man”;
a “Seven-houser,”
a “Seven-mouthful-man”;

This man keeps himself going
on only one alms,
on only two alms,
on only three alms,
on only four alms,
on only five alms,
on only six alms,
on only seven alms;

This man takes food
only once a day,
or once every two days,
or once every three days,
or once every four days,
or once every five days,
or once every six days,
or once every seven days;

Taking food according to rule,
at regular intervals,
up to even half a month;

This man feeds on potherbs,
on wild rice,
on Nivāra seeds,
on leather parings,
on the water-plant called Haṭa,
on the fine powder
which adheres to the grains of rice beneath the husk,
on the discarded scum of boiling rice,
on the flour of oil-seeds,
on grasses,
on cow-dung,
on fruits and roots from the woods,
on fruits that have fallen of themselves;

This man is a “plucker-out-of-hair-and-beard,”
addicted to the practice
of plucking out both hair and beard;
a “stander-up,”
rejecting the use of a seat;
a “croucher-down-on-the-heels,”
addicted to exerting himself
when crouching down on his heels;
a “bed-of-thorns-man,”
putting iron spikes
or natural thorns
under the skin on which he sleeps;

This man uses a plank bed;
sleeps on the bare ground;
sleeps always on one side;
is a “dust-and-dirt-wearer;
lives and sleeps in the open air;
accepts whatsoever seat is offered to him;
is a “filth-eater,”
addicted to the practice of feeding
on the four kinds of filth;
a “non-drinker,”
addicted to the practice of never drinking cold water;
an “evening-third-man,”
addicted to the practice
of going down into water
thrice a day.’

■

But since, Kassapa,
quite apart from these matters,
quite apart from all kinds of penance,
it is hard to recognise a Samaṇa,
hard to recognise a Brāhmaṇa,
therefore is it that it is fitting to say:

‘Hard it is
to know when a man is a Samaṇa,
hard to know
when a man is a Brāhmaṇa!”

For from the time, O Kassapa,
when a Bhikkhu has cultivated
the heart of love that knows no anger,
that knows no ill-will —
from the time when,
by the destruction of the deadly intoxications
(the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance),
he dwells in that emancipation of heart,
in that emancipation of mind,
that is free from those intoxications,
and that he,
while yet in this visible world,
has come to realize and know –
from that time, O Kassapa,
is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaṇa,
is called a Brāhmaṇa!”

18. And when he had thus spoken,
Kassapa, the naked ascetic, said to the Blessed One:

“What then, Gotama, is that blissful attainment in conduct,
in heart,
and in mind?”

§

[236]

“Suppose, Kassapa,
there appears in the world
one who has won the truth, an Arahat,
a fully awakened one,
abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy,
who knows all worlds,
unsurpassed as a guide
to mortals willing to be led,
a teacher for gods and men,
a Blessed One, a Buddha.

He, by himself, thoroughly knows and sees,
as it were, face-to-face this universe,
— including the worlds above of the gods,
the Brahmas, and the Māras,
and the world below with its recluses and Brahmans,
its princes and peoples, —
and having known it,
he makes his knowledge known to others.

The truth, lovely in its origin,
lovely in its progress,
lovely in its consummation,
doth he proclaim,
both in the spirit and in the letter,
the higher life doth he make known,
in all its fullness and in all its purity.

■

A householder or one of his children,
or a man of inferior birth in any class
listens to that truth;
and on hearing it he has faith in the Tathāgata (the one who has found the truth);
and when he is possessed of that faith,
he considers thus within himself:

‘Full of hindrances is household life,
a path for the dust of passion.

Free as the air is the life
of him who has renounced all worldly things.

How difficult is it for the man who dwells at home
to live the higher life in all its fullness,
in all its purity,
in all its bright perfection!

Let me then cut off my hair and beard,
let me clothe myself in the orange-coloured robes,
and let me go forth
from the household life
into the homeless state.’

■

Then, before long,
forsaking his portion of wealth,
be it great or small,
forsaking his circle of relatives,
be they many or be they few,
he cuts off his hair and beard,
he clothes himself in the orange-coloured robes,
and he goes forth from the household life
into the homeless state.

When he has thus become a recluse
he lives self-restrained by that restraint that should be binding on a recluse.
Uprightness is his delight,
and he sees danger
in the least of those things he should avoid.

He adopts, and trains himself in, the precepts.

He encompasses himself with good deeds in act and word.
Pure are his means of livelihood,
good is his conduct,
guarded the doors of his senses.

Mindful and self-possessed
he is altogether happy.

§

And how, Kassapa, is his conduct good?

In this, Kassapa, that the Bhikshu,
putting away the killing of living things,
holds aloof from the destruction of life.

The cudgel and the sword he has laid aside,
and ashamed of roughness,
and full of mercy,
he dwells compassionate and kind
to all creatures that have life.

Putting away the taking
of what has not been given,
he lives aloof from grasping
what is not his own.

He takes only what is given,
and expecting that gifts will come,
he passes his life in honesty
and purity of heart.

Putting away unchastity,
he is chaste.

He holds himself aloof,
far off from the vulgar practice,
from the sexual act.

Putting away lying words,
he holds himself aloof from falsehood.

He speaks truth,
from the truth he never swerves;
faithful and trustworthy,
he breaks not his word to the world.

Putting away slander,
he holds himself aloof from calumny.

What he hears here
he repeats not elsewhere
to raise a quarrel
against the people here;
what he hears elsewhere
he repeats not here
to raise a quarrel
against the people there.

Thus does he live as a binder together
of those who are divided,
an encourager of those who are friends,
a peacemaker,
a lover of peace,
impassioned for peace,
a speaker of words that make for peace.

Putting away rudeness of speech,
he holds himself aloof from harsh language.

Whatsoever word is blameless,
pleasant to the car,
lovely,
reaching to the heart,
urbane,
pleasing to the people,
beloved of the people –
such are words he speaks.

Putting away frivolous talk,
he holds himself aloof from vain conversation.

In season he speaks,
in accordance with the facts,
words full of meaning,
on religion,
on the discipline of the Order.

He speaks, and at the right time,
words worthy to be laid up in one’s heart,
fitly illustrated,
clearly divided,
to the point.

He holds himself aloof
from causing injury to seeds or plants.

He takes but one meal a day,
not eating at night,
refraining from food after hours
(after midday).

He refrains from being a spectator
at shows at fairs,
with nautch dances,
singing, and music.

He abstains from wearing,
adorning,
or ornamenting himself
with garlands, scents, and unguents.

He abstains from the use
of large and lofty beds.

He abstains from accepting silver or gold.

He abstains from accepting uncooked grain.

He abstains from accepting raw meat.

He abstains from accepting women or girls.

He abstains from accepting bondmen or bondwomen.

He abstains from accepting sheep or goats.

He abstains from accepting fowls or swine.

He abstains from accepting elephants, cattle. horses, and mares.

He abstains from accepting cultivated fields or waste.

He abstains from acting as a go-between or messenger.

He abstains from buying and selling.

He abstains from cheating
with scales or bronzes or measures.

He abstains from the crooked ways
of bribery, cheating, and fraud.

He abstains from maiming,
murder,
putting in bonds,
highway robbery,
dacoity,
and violence.

§

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to the injury of seedlings
and growing plants
whether propagated from roots
or cuttings
or joints
or buddings
or seeds
the Bhikshu holds aloof from such injury
to seedlings and growing plants.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to the use
of things stored up;
stores, to wit,
of foods,
drinks,
clothing,
equipages,
bedding,
perfumes,
and curry-stuffs —
the Bhikshu holds aloof from such use
of things stored up.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to visiting shows;
that is to say:

(1) Nautch dances (naccaɱ);

(2) Singing of songs (gītaɱ);

(3) Instrumental music (vāditaɱ);

(4) Shows at fairs (pekkhaɱ);

(5) Ballad recitations (akkhānaɱ);

(6) Hand music (pāṇissaraɱ);

(7) The chanting of bards (vetālaɱ);

(8) Tam – tam playing (kumbhathūnaɱ);

(9) Fairy scenes (Sobhanagarakaɱ);

(10) Acrobatic feats by Kaṇḍālas (Kaṇḍāla-vaɱsa-dhopanaɱ);

(11) Combats of elephants,
horses,
buffaloes,
bulls,
goats,
rams,
cocks,
and quails;

(12) Bouts at quarter-staff,
boxing,
wrestling;

(13) Sham-fights.

(14) roll-calls.

(15) manoeuvres.

(16) reviews —

the Bhikshu holds aloof from visiting such shows.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to games and recreations;
that is to say:

(1) Games on boards with eight,
or with ten,
rows of squares;

(2) The same games
played by imagining such boards in the air;

(3) Keeping going over diagrams drawn on the ground
so that one steps only where one ought to go;

(4) Either removing the pieces or men from a heap
with one’s nail,
or putting them into a heap,
in each case without shaking it,
he who shakes the heap, loses;

(5) Throwing dice;

(6) Hitting a short stick with a long one;

(7) Dipping the hand with the fingers stretched out
in lac,
or red dye,
or flower-water,
and striking the wet hand
on the ground
or on a wall,
calling out
‘What shell it be?’
and showing the form required —
elephants, horses, etc.;

(8) Games with balls;

(9) Blowing through toy pipes made of leaves;

(10) Ploughing with toy ploughs;

(11) Turning summersaults;

(12) Playing with toy windmills made of palm-leaves;

(13) Playing with toy measures made of palm-leaves;

(14, 15) Playing with toy carts or toy bows;

(16) Guessing at letters traced in the air, or on a. playfellow’s back;

(17) Guessing the play fellow’s thoughts;

(18) Mimicry of deformities;

The Bhikshu holds aloof from such games and recreations.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to the use of high and large couches;
that is to say:

(1) Moveable settees,
high, and six feet long;

(2) Divans with animal figures carved on the supports (Pallanko);

(3) Goats’ hair coverlets
with very long fleece (Gonako);

(4) Patchwork counterpanes of many colours (Cittakā);

(5) White blankets (Paṭikā);

(6) Woollen coverlets embroidered with flowers (Paṭalikā);

(7) Quilts stuffed with cotton wool (Tūlikā);

(8) Coverlets embroidered with figures of lions, tigers, etc. (Vikatikā);

(9) Rugs with fur on both sides (Uddalomī);

(10) Rugs with fur on one side (Ekantalomī);

(11) Coverlets embroidered with gems (Kaṭṭhissaɱ);

(12) Silk coverlets (Koseyyaɱ);

(13) Carpets large enough for sixteen dancers (Kuttakaɱ);

(14) Elephant rugs;

(15) horse rugs;

(16) chariot rugs;

(17) Rugs of antelope skins sewn together (Ajina-paveṇi);

(18) Rugs of skins of the plantain antelope;

(19) Carpets with awnings above them (Sauttara-cchadaɱ);

(20) Sofas with red pillows
for the head and feet.

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such things.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to the use
of means for adorning
and beautifying themselves;
that is to say:

Rubbing in scented powders on one’s body,
shampooing it,
and bathing it;

Patting the limbs with clubs
after the manner of wrestlers;

The use of mirrors,
eye-ointments,
garlands,
rouge,
cosmetics,
bracelets,
necklaces,
walking-sticks,
reed cases for drugs,
rapiers,
sunshades,
embroidered slippers,
turbans,
diadems,
whisks of the yak’s tail,
and long-fringed white robes;

The Bhikshu holds aloof
from such means of adorning and beautifying the person.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to such low conversation as these:

Tales of kings,
of robbers,
of ministers of state,
tales of war,
of terrors,
of battles;
talk about foods and drinks,
clothes,
beds,
garlands,
perfumes;
talks about relationships,
equipages,
villages,
town,
cities,
and countries;
tales about women,
and about heroes;
gossip at street corners,
or places whence water is fetched;
ghost stories;
desultory talk;
speculations about the creation of the land or sea,
or about existence and non-existence;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low conversation.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to the use of wrangling phrases such as:

‘You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline,
I do.’;

‘How should you know about this doctrine and discipline?’;

‘You have fallen into wrong views.

It is I who am in the right.’;

‘I am speaking to the point,
you are not.’;

‘You are putting last
what ought to come first,
first what ought to come last.’;

‘What you’ve excogitated so long,
that’s all quite upset.’;

‘Your challenge has been taken up.’;

‘You are proved to be wrong.’;

‘Set to work to clear your views.’;

‘Disentangle yourself if you can.’;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such wrangling phrases.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
continue addicted to taking messages,
going on errands,
and acting as go-betweens;
to wit,
on kings,
ministers of state,
Kshatriyas,
Brahmans,
or young men,
saying:

‘Go there,
come hither,
take this with you,
bring that from thence’;

the Bhikshu abstains from such servile duties.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
are tricksters,
droners out (of holy words for pay),
diviners,
and exorcists,
ever hungering to add gain to gain —
the Bhikshu holds aloof from such deception and patter.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as these:

(1) Palmistry —
prophesying long life,
prosperity, etc.
from marks on child’s hands,
feet. etc.;

(2) Divining by means of omens and signs;

(3) Auguries drawn from thunderbolts
and other celestial portents;

(4) Prognostication by interpreting dreams;

(5) Fortune-telling from marks on the body;

(6) Auguries from the marks on cloth gnawed by mice;

(7) Sacrificing to Agni;

(8) Offering oblations from a spoon;

(9-13) Making offerings to gods
of husks,
of the red powder between the grain and the husk,
of husked grain ready for boiling,
of ghee,
and of oil;

(14) Sacrificing by spewing mustard seeds, etc.,
into the fire out of one’s mouth;

(15) Drawing blood from one’s right knee
as a sacrifice to the gods;

(16) Looking at the knuckles, etc.,
and, after muttering a charm,
divining whether a man is well born
or lucky or not;

(17) Determining whether the site
for a proposed house or pleasance,
is lucky or not;

(18) Advising on customary law;

(19) Laying demons in a cemetery;

(20) Laying ghosts;

(21) Knowledge of the charms to be used
when lodging in an earth house;

(22) Snake charming;

(23) The poison craft;

(24) The scorpion craft;

(25) The mouse craft;

(26) The bird craft;

(27) The crow craft;

(28) Foretelling the number of years
that a man has yet to live.

(29) Giving charms to ward off arrows;

(30) The animal wheel;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as these:

Knowledge of the signs
of good and bad qualities
in the following things
and of the marks in them
denoting the health or luck of their owners: —
to wit,
gems,
staves,
garments,
swords,
arrows,
bows,
other weapons,
women,
men,
boys,
girls,
slaves,
slave-girls,
elephants,
horses,
buffaloes,
bulls,
oxen,
goats,
sheep,
fowls,
quails,
iguanas,
earrings,
tortoises,
and other animals;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as soothsaying,
to the effect that:

‘The chiefs will march out’;

‘The chiefs will march back’;

‘The home chiefs will attack,
and the enemies’ retreat’;

‘The enemies’ chiefs will attack,
and ours will retreat’;

‘The home chiefs will gain the victory,
and the foreign chiefs suffer defeat’;

‘The foreign chiefs will gain the victory,
and ours will suffer defeat’;

‘Thus will there be victory on this side,
defeat on that’

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by such low arts as foretelling:

(1) ‘There will be an eclipse of the moon’;

(2) ‘There will be en eclipse of the sun’;

(3) ‘There will be en eclipse of a star’
(Nakshatra);

(4) ‘There will be aberration of the sun or the moon’;

(5) ‘The sun or the moon will return to its usual path’;

(6) ‘There will be aberrations of the stars’;

(7) ‘The stars will return to their usual course’;

(8) ‘There will be a fall of meteors’;

(9) ‘There will be a jungle fire’;

(10) ‘There will be an earthquake’;

(11) ‘The god will thunder’;

(12-15) ‘There will be rising and setting,
clearness and dimness,
of the sun or the moon or the stars’,|| ||

or foretelling of each of these fifteen phenomena
that they will betoken such and such a result;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as these:

Foretelling an abundant rainfall;

Foretelling a deficient rainfall;

Foretelling a good harvest;

Foretelling scarcity of food;

Foretelling tranquillity;

Foretelling disturbances;

Foretelling a pestilence;

Foretelling a healthy season;

Counting on the fingers;

Counting without using the fingers;

Summing up large totals;

Composing ballads, poetising;

Casuistry, sophistry;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as:

(1) Arranging a lucky day for marriages
in which the bride or bridegroom is brought home;

(2) Arranging a lucky day for marriages
in which the bride or bridegroom is sent forth;

(3) Fixing a lucky time for the conclusion of treaties of peace
[or using charms to procure harmony;

(4) Fixing a lucky time
for the outbreak of hostilities
[or using charms to make discord];

(5) Fixing-a lucky time
for the calling in of debts
[or charms for success in throwing dice];

(6) Fixing a lucky time
for the expenditure of money
[or charms to bring ill luck to an opponent throwing dice];

(7) Using charms to make people lucky;

(8) Using charms to make people unlucky;

(9) Using charms to procure abortion;

(10) Incantations to bring on dumbness;

(11) Incantations to keep a man’s jaws fixed;

(12) Incantations to make a man throw up his hands;

(13) Incantations to bring on deafness;

(14) Obtaining oracular answers by means of the magic mirror;

(15) Obtaining oracular answers through a girl possessed;

(16) Obtaining oracular answers from a god;

(17) The worship of the Sun;

(18) The worship of the Great One;

(19) Bringing forth flames from one’s mouth;

(20) Invoking Siri, the goddess of Luck —

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

■

Whereas some recluses and Brahmans,
while living on food provided by the faithful,
earn their living by wrong means of livelihood,
by low arts,
such as these:

(1) Vowing gifts to a god if a certain benefit be granted;

(2) Paying such vows;

(3) Repeating charms while lodging in an earth house;

(4) Causing virility;

(5) Making a man impotent;

(6) Fixing on lucky sites for dwelling;

(7) Consecrating sites;

(8) Ceremonial rinsings of the month;

(9) Ceremonial bathings;

(10) Offering sacrifices;

(11-14) Administering emetics and purgatives;

(15) Purging people to relieve the head
(that is by giving drugs to make people sneeze);

(16) Oiling people’s ears
(either to make them grow or to heal sores on them);

(17) Satisfying people’s eyes
(soothing them by dropping medicinal oils into them);

(18) Administering drugs through the nose;

(19) Applying collyrium to the eyes;

(20) Giving medical ointment for the eyes;

(21) Practising as an oculist;

(22) Practising as a surgeon;

(23) Practising as a doctor for children;

(24) Administering roots and drugs;

(25) Administering medicines in rotation;

the Bhikshu holds aloof from such low arts.

§

And then that Bhikshu, Kassapa,
being thus master of the minor moralities,
sees no danger from any side,
that is, so far as concerns his self-restraint in conduct.

Just, Kassapa, as a sovereign, duly crowned,
whose enemies have been beaten down,
sees no danger from any side;
that is, so far as enemies are concerned,
so is the Bhikshu confident.

And endowed with this body of morals,
so worthy of honour,
he experiences, within himself,
a sense of ease without alloy.

Thus is it, Kassapa, that the Bhikshu becomes righteous.

§

[203] And how, Kassapa,
is the Bhikshu guarded
as to the doors of his senses?

‘When, Kassapa, he sees an object with his eye
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his sense of sight.

He keeps watch upon his faculty of sight,
and he attains to mastery over it.

■

When, Kassapa, he hears a sound with his ear
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his sense of hearing.

He keeps watch upon his faculty of hearing,
and he attains to mastery over it.

This, Kassapa, is that uprightness.

■

When, Kassapa, he smells an odour with his nose
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his sense of smell.

He keeps watch upon his faculty of smell,
and he attains to mastery over it.

This, Kassapa, is that uprightness.

■

When, Kassapa, he tastes a flavour with his tongue
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his sense of taste.

He keeps watch upon his faculty of taste,
and he attains to mastery over it.

This, Kassapa, is that uprightness.

■

When, Kassapa, he feels a touch with his body
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his sense of touch.

He keeps watch upon his faculty of touch,
and he attains to mastery over it.

This, Kassapa, is that uprightness.

■

When, Kassapa, he cognises a phenomenon with his mind
he is not entranced in the general appearance
or the details of it.

He sets himself to restrain
that which might give occasion for evil states,
covetousness and dejection,
to flow in over him
so long as he dwells unrestrained
as to his mental (representative) faculty.

He keeps watch upon his representative faculty,
and he attains to mastery over it.

■

And endowed with this self-restraint,
so worthy of honour,
as regards the senses,
he experiences, within himself, a sense of ease
into which no evil state can enter.

Thus is it, Kassapa,
that the Bhikshu becomes guarded
as to the doors of his senses.

§

And how, Kassapa, is the Bhikshu
mindful and self-possessed?

In this matter, Kassapa,
the Bhikshu
in going forth or in coming back
whether looking forward,
or in looking round;
in stretching forth his arm,
or in drawing it in again;
in eating or drinking,
in masticating or swallowing,
in obeying the calls of nature,
in going or standing or sitting,
in sleeping or waking,
in speaking or in being still,
he keeps himself aware
of all it really means.

Thus is it, Kassapa,
that the Bhikshu becomes mindful and self-possessed.

§

And how, Kassapa, is the Bhikshu content?

‘In this matter, Kassapa,
the Bhikshu is satisfied with sufficient robes
to cherish his body,
with sufficient food
to keep his stomach going.

Whithersoever he may go forth,
these he takes with him as he goes
– just as a bird with his wings, Kassapa,
whithersoever he may fly,
carries his wings with him as he flies.

Thus is it, Kassapa,
that the Bhikshu becomes content.

§

Then, master of this so excellent body of moral precepts,
gifted with this so excellent self-restraint as to the senses,
endowed with this so excellent mindfulness and self-possession,
filled with this so excellent content,
he chooses some lonely spot
to rest at on his way
— in the woods,
at the foot of a tree,
on a hill side,
in a mountain glen,
in a rocky cave,
in a charnel place,
or on a heap of straw in the open field.

And returning thither
after his round for alms
he seats himself, when his meal is done,
cross-legged,
keeping his body erect,
and his intelligence alert, intent.

§

Putting away the hankering after the world,
he remains with a heart that hankers not,
and purifies his mind of lusts.

■

Putting away the corruption
of the wish to injure,
he remains with a heart free from ill temper,
and purifies his mind of malevolence.

■

Putting away torpor of heart and mind,
keeping his ideas alight,
mindful and self-possessed,
he purifies his mind of weakness and of sloth.

■

Putting away flurry and worry,
he remains free from fretfulness,
and with heart serene within,
he purifies himself of irritability
and vexation of spirit.

■

Putting away wavering,
he remains as one passed beyond perplexity;
and no longer in suspense as to what is good,
he purifies his mind of doubt.

■

Then just, Kassapa,
as when a man, after contracting a loan,
should set a business on foot,
and his business should succeed,
and he should not only be able
to pay off the old debt he had incurred,
but there should be a surplus over
to maintain a wife.

Then would he realize:

‘I used to have to carry on my business
by getting into debt,
but it has gone so well with me
that I have paid off what I owed,
and have a surplus over
to maintain a wife.’

And he would be of good cheer at that,
would be glad of heart at that: —

■

Then just, Kassapa,
as if a man were a prey to disease,
in pain, and very ill,
and his food would not digest,
and there were no strength left in him;
and after a time
he were to recover from that disease,
and his food should digest,
and his strength come back to him;
then, when he realized his former and his present state,
he would be of good cheer at that,
he would be glad of heart at that: —

■

Then just, Kassapa,
as if a man were bound in a prison house,
and after a time
he should be set free from his bonds,
safe and sound,
and without any confiscation of his goods;
when he realized his former and his present state,
he would be of good cheer at that,
he would be glad of heart at that: —

■

Then just, Kassapa,
as if a man were a slave,
not his own master,
subject to another,
unable to go whither he would;
and after a time
he should be emancipated from that slavery,
become his own master,
not subject to others,
a free man,
free to go whither he would;
then, on realising his former and his present state,
he would be of good cheer at that,
he would be glad of heart at that: —

■

Then just, Kassapa,
as if a man, rich and prosperous,
were to find himself on a long road,
in a desert, where no food was,
but much danger;
and after a time
were to find himself out of the desert,
arrived safe,
on the borders of his village,
in security and peace;
then, on realising his former and his present state,
he would be of good cheer at that,
he would be glad of heart at that: —

■

Just so, Kassapa, the Bhikshu,
so long as these five hindrances
are not put away within him
looks upon himself as in debt,
diseased,
in prison,
in slavery,
lost on a desert road.

But when these five hindrances
have been put away within him,
he looks upon himself as freed from debt,
rid of disease,
out of jail,
a free man,
and secure.

And gladness springs up within him
on his realising that,
and joy arises to him thus gladdened,
and so rejoicing
all his frame becomes at ease,
and being thus at ease
he is filled with a sense of peace,
and in that peace his heart is stayed.

§

Then estranged from lusts,
aloof from evil dispositions,
he enters into and remains in the First Rapture
— a state of joy and ease born of detachment,
reasoning and investigation going on the while.

His very body does he so pervade,
drench,
permeate,
and suffuse
with the joy and ease born of detachment,
that there is no spot in his whole frame
not suffused therewith.

Just, Kassapa, as a skilful bathman
or his apprentice
will scatter perfumed soap powder
in a metal basin,
and then besprinkling it with water,
drop by drop,
will so knead it together
that the ball of lather,
taking up the unctuous moisture,
is drenched with it,
pervaded by it,
permeated by it within and without,
and there is no leakage possible.

■

Then further, Kassapa,
the Bhikshu suppressing all reasoning and investigation
enters into and abides in the Second Jhāna,
a state of joy and ease,
born of the serenity of concentration,
when no reasoning or investigation goes on,
— a state of elevation of mind,
a tranquillisation of the heart within.

‘And his very body does he so pervade,
drench,
permeate,
and suffuse with the joy and ease born of concentration,
that there is no spot in his whole frame
not suffused therewith.

‘Just, Kassapa,
as if there were a deep pool,
with water welling up into it
from a spring beneath,
and with no inlet from the east or west,
from the north or south,
and the god should not
from time to time
send down showers of rain upon it.
Still the current of cool waters
rising up from that spring
would pervade,
fill,
permeate,
and suffuse the pool
with cool waters,
and there would be no part or portion of the pool
unsuffused therewith.

■

Then further, Kassapa, the Bhikshu,
holding aloof from joy,
becomes equable;
and mindful and self-possessed
he experiences in his body
that ease which the Arahats talk of when they say:
“The man serene and self-possessed
is well at ease,”
and so he enters into
and abides in the Third Jhāna.

And his very body
does he so pervade,
drench,
permeate,
and suffuse with that ease
that has no joy with it,
that there is no spot in his whole frame
not suffused therewith.

Just, Kassapa,
as when in a lotus tank
the several lotus flowers,
red or white or blue,
born in the water,
grown up in the water,
not rising up above the surface of the water,
drawing up nourishment from the depths of the water,
are so pervaded,
drenched,
permeated,
and suffused
from their very tips
down to their roots
with the cool moisture thereof,
that there is no spot in the whole plant,
whether of the red lotus,
or of the white,
or of the blue,
not suffused therewith.

■

Then further, Kassapa, the Bhikshu,
by the putting away alike of ease and of pain,
by the passing away alike of any elation,
any dejection,
he had previously felt,
enters into and abides in the Fourth Jhāna,
a state of pure self-possession and equanimity,
without pain and without ease.

And he sits there
so suffusing even his body
with that sense of purification,
of translucence of heart,
that there is no spot in his whole frame
not suffused therewith.

Just, Kassapa,
as if a man were sitting
so wrapt from head to foot in a clean white robe,
that there were no spot in his whole frame
not in contact with the clean white robe
— just so, Kassapa, does the Bhikshu sit there,
so suffusing even his body
with that sense of purification,
of translucence of heart,
that there is no spot in his whole frame
not suffused therewith.

§

With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he applies and bends down his mind
to that insight that comes from knowledge.

He grasps the fact:

‘This body of mine has form,
it is built up of the four elements,
it springs from father and mother,
it is continually renewed
by so much boiled rice and juicy foods,
its very nature is impermanence,
it is subject to erasion,
abrasion,
dissolution,
and disintegration;
and therein is this consciousness of mine, too, bound up,
on that does it depend.’

Just, Kassapa,
as if there were a veluriya gem,
bright, of the purest water,
with eight facets,
excellently cut,
clear, translucent,
without a flaw,
excellent in every way.
And through it a string,
blue, or orange-coloured,
or red, or white, or yellow
should be threaded.
If a man, who had eyes to see,
were to take it into his hand,
he would clearly perceive
how the one is bound up with the other.

§

[85] With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he applies and bends down his mind
to the calling up of a mental image.

He calls up from this body
another body,
having form,
made of mind,
having all (his own body’s) limbs and parts,
not deprived of any organ.

Just, Kassapa,
as if a man were to pull out a reed from its sheath.

He would know:

‘This is the reed,
this the sheath.

The reed is one thing,
the sheath another.

It is from the sheath
that the reed has been drawn forth.”

And similarly were he to take a snake out of its slough,
or draw a sword from its scabbard.

■

[87] With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he applies and bends down his mind
to the modes of the Wondrous Gift.

He enjoys the Wondrous Gift in its various modes
— being one he becomes many,
or having become many becomes one again;
he becomes visible or invisible;
he goes, feeling no obstruction,
to the further side of a wall or rampart or hill,
as if through air;
he penetrates up and down through solid ground,
as if through water;
he walks on water without breaking through,
as if on solid ground;
he travels cross-legged in the sky,
like the birds on wing;
even the Moon and the Sun,
so potent, so mighty though they be,
does he touch and feel with his hand;
he reaches in the body
even up to the heaven of Brahmā.

Just, Kassapa,
as a clever potter or his apprentice
could make,
could succeed in getting out of properly prepared clay
any shape of vessel he wanted to have
— or an ivory carver out of ivory,
or a goldsmith out of gold.

■

[89] With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he applies and bends down his mind
to the Heavenly Ear.

With that clear Heavenly Ear
surpassing the ear of men
he hears sounds both human and celestial,
whether far or near.

Just, Kassapa,
as if a man were on the high road
and were to hear the sound of a kettledrum
or a tabor or the sound of chank horns and small drums
he would know:

‘This is the sound of a kettledrum,
this is the sound of a tabor,
this of chank horns,
and of drums.”

■

With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he directs and bends down his mind
to the knowledge which penetrates the heart.

Penetrating with his own heart
the hearts of other beings, of other men,
he knows them.

He discerns —

The passionate mind to be passionate,
and the calm mind calm;
the angry mind to be angry,
and the peaceful mind peaceful;
the dull mind to be dull,
and the alert mind alert;
the attentive mind to be attentive,
and the wandering mind wandering;
the broad mind to be broad,
and the narrow mind narrow;
the mean mind to be mean,
and the lofty mind lofty;
the stedfast mind to be stedfast,
and the wavering mind to be wavering;
the free mind to be free,
and the enslaved mind enslaved.

Just, Kassapa,
as a woman or a man or a lad,
young and smart,
on considering attentively
the image of his own face
in a bright and brilliant mirror
or in a vessel of clear water
would, if it had a mole on it,
know that it had,
and if not,
would know it had not.

■

With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he directs and bends down his mind
to the knowledge of the memory
of his previous temporary states.

He recalls to mind
his various temporary states in days gone by
— one birth,
or two or three or four or five births,
or ten or twenty or thirty or forty or fifty
or a hundred or a thousand
or a hundred thousand births,
through many an aeon of dissolution,
many an aeon of evolution,
many an aeon of both dissolution and evolution.

‘In such a place such was my name,
such my family,
such my caste,
such my food,
such my experience of discomfort or of ease,
and such the limits of my life.

When I passed away from that state,
I took form again in such a place.
There I had such and such a name
and family
and caste
and food
and experience of discomfort or of ease,
such was the limit of my life.

When I passed away from that state
I took form again here.’

— thus does he call to mind
his temporary states in days gone by
in all their details,
and in all their modes.

Just, Kassapa,
as if a man were to go from his own to another village,
and from that one to another,
and from that one should return home.

Then he would know:

‘From my own village I came to that other one.

There I stood in such and such a way,
sat thus, spake thus, and held my peace thus.

Thence I came to that other village;
and there I stood in such and such a way,
sat thus, spake thus, and held my peace thus.

And now, from that other village,
I have returned back again home.’

■

[95] With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he directs and bends down his mind
to the knowledge of the fall and rise of beings.

With the pure Heavenly Eye,
surpassing that of men,
he sees beings as they pass away
from one form of existence
and take shape in another;
he recognises the mean and the noble,
the well favoured and the ill favoured,
the happy and the wretched,
passing away according to their deeds:

‘Such and such beings, my brethren,
evil-doers in act and word and thought,
revilers of the noble ones,
holding to wrong views,
acquiring for themselves that Karma
which results from wrong views,
they, on the dissolution of the body, after death,
are reborn in some unhappy state of suffering or woe.

But such and such beings, my brethren,
well-doers in act and word and thought,
not revilers of the noble ones,
holding to right views,
acquiring for themselves that Karma
that results from right views,
they, on the dissolution of the body, after death,
are reborn in some happy state in heaven.’

Thus with the pure Heavenly Eye,
surpassing that of men,
he sees beings as they pass away from one state of existence,
and take form in another;
he recognises the mean and the noble,
the well favoured and the ill favoured,
the happy and the wretched,
passing away according to their deeds.

Just, Kassapa,
as if there were a house with an upper terrace on it
in the midst of a place where four roads meet,
and a man standing thereon,
and with eyes to see,
should watch men entering a house,
and coming forth out of it,
and walking hither and thither along the street,
and seated in the square in the midst.

Then he would know:

‘Those men are entering a house,
and those are leaving it,
and those are walking to and fro in the street,
and those are seated in the square in the midst.’

■

With his heart thus serene,
made pure, translucent,
cultured, devoid of evil,
supple, ready to act,
firm, and imperturbable,
he directs and bends down his mind
to the knowledge of the destruction of the Deadly Floods.

He knows as it really is:

‘This is pain.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the origin of pain.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the cessation of pain.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the Path that leads to the cessation of pain.’

He knows as they really are:

‘These are the Deadly Floods.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the origin of the Deadly Floods.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the cessation of the Deadly Floods.’

He knows as it really is:

‘This is the Path that leads to the cessation of the Deadly Floods.’

■

To him, thus knowing, thus seeing,
the heart is set free
from the Deadly Taint of Lusts,
is set free from the Deadly Taint of Becomings,
is set free from the Deadly Taint of Ignorance.

In him, thus set free,
there arises the knowledge of his emancipation,
and he knows:

‘Rebirth has been destroyed.

The higher life has been fulfilled.

What had to be done has been accomplished.

After this present life
there will be no beyond!’

Just, Kassapa,
as if in a mountain fastness
there were a pool of water,
clear, translucent, and serene;
and a man, standing on the bank,
and with eyes to see,
should perceive the oysters and the shells,
the gravel and the pebbles
and the shoals of fish
as they move about or lie within it:
he would know:

‘This pool is clear, transparent, and serene,
and there within it
are the oysters and the shells,
and the sand and gravel,
and the shoals of fish are moving about
or lying still.

And there is no other state of blissful attainment
[237] in conduct
and heart
and mind
which is, Kassapa, higher and sweeter than this.^[65]

§

21. Now there are some recluses and Brahmans, Kassapa,
who lay emphasis on conduct.

They speak, in various ways,
in praise of morality.

But so far as regards the really noble,
the highest conduct,
I am aware of no one who is equal to myself,
much less superior.

And it is I
who have gone the furthest therein;
that is, in the highest conduct
(of the Path).

There are some recluses and Brahmans, Kassapa,
who lay emphasis on self-mortification,
and scrupulous care of others.

They speak in various ways
in praise of self-torture
and of austere scrupulousness.

But so far as regards the really noblest,
the highest sort of self-mortification
and scrupulous regard for others,
I am aware of no one else
who is equal to myself,
much less superior.

And it is I
who have gone the furthest therein;
that is, in the highest sort
of self-mortification
of scrupulous regard for others.^[66]

There are some recluses and Brahmans, Kassapa,
who lay emphasis on intelligence.

They speak, in various ways,
in praise of intelligence.

But so far as regards the really noblest,
the highest intelligence,
I am aware of no one else
who is equal to myself,
much less superior.

And it is I
who have gone the furthest therein;
that is, in the highest Wisdom^[67]
(of the Path).

[238] There are some recluses and Brahmans, Kassapa,
who lay emphasis on emancipation.

They speak, in various ways,
in praise of emancipation.

But so far as regards the really noblest,
the highest emancipation,
I am aware of no one else
who is equal to myself,
much less superior.

And it is I
who have gone the furthest therein;
that is, in the most complete emancipation
(of the Path).

22. Now it may well be, Kassapa,
that the recluses of adverse schools may say:

‘The Samaṇa Gotama utters forth a lion’s roar;
but it is in solitude that he roars,
not where men are assembled.’

Then should they be answered:

‘Say not so.

The Samaṇa Gotama utters his lion’s roar,
and that too
in the assemblies where men congregate.’

And it may well be, Kassapa,
that the recluses of adverse schools
should thus, in succession,
raise each of the following objections:

‘But it is not in full confidence that he roars.’

‘But men put no questions to him.’

‘But even when questioned,
he cannot answer:

‘But even when he answers,
he gives no satisfaction
by his exposition of the problem put.’

‘But men do not hold his opinion
worthy to be listened to.’

‘But even when men listen to his word,
they experience no conviction therefrom.’

‘But even when convinced,
men give no outward sign of their faith.’

‘But even when they give such outward sign,
they arrive not at the truth.’

‘But even when they arrive at the truth
they cannot carry it out.’

Then in each such case, Kassapa,
they should be answered as before,
until the answer runs: —

“Say not so.

For the Samaṇa Gotama both utters forth his [239] lion’s roar,
and that too in assemblies where men congregate,
and in full confidence in the justice of his claim,
and men put their questions to him on that,
and on being questioned
he expounds the problem put,
and by his exposition thereof
satisfaction arises in their hearts,
and they hold it worthy to listen to his word,
and in listening to it
they experience conviction,
and being convinced
they give outward signs thereof,
and they penetrate even to the truth,
and having grasped it
they are able also to carry the truth out!

23. I was staying once, Kassapa,
at Rājagaha,
on the hill called the Vulture’s Peak.

And there a follower of the same mode of life as yours,
by name Nigrodha,
asked me a question about
the higher forms
of austere scrupulousness of life.

And having been thus questioned
I expounded the problem put.

And when I had thus answered what he asked,
he was well pleased,
as if with a ‘great joy.'”^[68]

“And who, Sir,
on hearing the doctrine of the Exalted One,
would not be well pleased,
as if with a great joy?

I also, who have now heard
the doctrine of the Exalted One,
am thus well pleased,
even as if with a great joy.

Most excellent, Lord,
are the words of thy mouth,
most excellent,
just as if a man were to set up
what has been thrown down,
or were to reveal
that which has been hidden away,
or were to point out the right road
to him who has gone astray,
or were to bring a lamp into the darkness,
so that those who have eyes
could see external forms –
just even so, Lord,
has the truth been made known to me,
in many a figure,
by the Exalted One.

And I, even I,
betake myself as my guide
to the Exalted One,
and to the Doctrine
and to the Brotherhood.

I would fain, Lord,
renounce the world under the Exalted One;
I would fain be admitted to his Order.”

24. “Whosoever, Kassapa, having formerly been a member of another school,
wishes to renounce the world
and receive initiation in this doctrine [240] and discipline,
he remains in probation for four months.^[69]

And at the end of the four months
the brethren, exalted in spirit,
give him initiation,
and receive him into the Order,
raising him up into
the state of a Bhikkhu.

But nevertheless
I recognise, in such cases,
the distinction there may be
between individuals.”

“Since, Lord, the four months’ probation
is the regular custom,
I too, then, will remain on probation for that time.

Then let the brethren,
exalted in spirit,
give me initiation
and raise me up into
the state of a Bhikkhu.”

So Kassapa, the naked ascetic,
received initiation,
and was admitted to membership of the Order
under the Exalted One.

And from immediately after his initiation
the venerable Kassapa remained alone
and separate,
earnest,
zealous,
and master of himself.

And e’er long
he attained to that supreme goal^[70]
for the sake of which
clansmen go forth from the household life
into the homeless state:
yea, that supreme goal did he,
by himself,
and while yet in this visible world,
bring himself to the knowledge of,
and continue to realize,
and to see face-to-face.

And he became sure
that rebirth was at an end for him,
that the higher life had been fulfilled,
that everything that should be done
had been accomplished,
and that after this present life
there would be no beyond!

And so the venerable Kassapa
became yet another among the Arahats.

HERE ENDS THE KASSAPA-S§HANĀDA SUTTANTA^[71].

---

^[1] ‘Buddhist Suttas’ (S.B.E.), p. 147.

^[2] M. I, 79 = Jāt. I, 390.

^[3] So also Kāṭhaka Upanishad II, 7-13.

^[4] See Bṛihad. III, 5, 1; 8, 10; IV, 4, 2 1-23; Chānd. IV, 1, 7.

Compare Āpastamba I, 8, 23, 6; Vas. VI, 3, 23, 2 5; XXVI, 11 = Manu III 87 = Vishṇu LV, 21; the passages quoted from the Mahābhārata by Muir, ‘Metrical Translations,’ pp. 263-4, and Deussen, ‘Vedānta-system,’ p. 155.

^[5] Satapatha-Br. VI, 1, 1, 13, and several times in the early Upanishads.

^[6] So Chānd. Up. III, 17, 2 and 4.

^[7] Tait. I, 9. Compare, on the ethics, Manu VI, 92 and the Ten Pāramitās. The idea that Veda-learning is tapas is a common one.

^[8] Chānd. Up. II, 23, 1.

^[9] Chānd. Up. V, 10; Bṛihad.. VI, 2; Praṣna I, 9; V, 4, 5.

^[10] So Manu V, 137 ; VI, 87. Compare VIII, 390, and VI, 97

^[11] See Max Müller’s interesting note in his translation of the Upanishads (Part I, pp. 82-84).

^[12] See Jacob’s Concordance under the words.

^[13] Comp. Baudhāyana II, 10, 17, 6, and Āpastamba II, 4, 9, 13.

^[14] He ventures on a conjecture as to possible date in the case of Āpastamba only. Him he places on linguistic grounds not later than the third century B.C.; and, if the argument resting on the mention of Svetaketu hold good, then a century or two older. Burnell, whom Bühler (Baudh. p. xxx) calls ‘the first authority on the literature of the Schools of the Taittirīya Veda,’ to which Āpastamba belonged, was not convinced by the arguments leading up to the above conclusion. He only ventured, after reading them, to put Āpastamba ‘at least B.C.’. (Manu, p. xxvii). Baudhāyana was some generations older than Āpastamba (see Bühler, āp. pp. xxi-xxii). And Gautama was older still.

^[15] Vas. VII, 2.

^[16] Thus Bühler uses the one term ‘ascetic’ to render a number of Sanskrit words-for saṅnyāsin at Baudh. II, 10, 17; for bhikshu at Gaut. III, 2, 11 ; for parivrājaka at Vās. X, 1; for yati at Manu VI, 54, 56, 69, 86; for tāpasa at Manu VI, 27; for muni at Manu VI, 11. Of these the last two refer to the hermit in the woods (the tāpasa), the others to the wandering mendicant (the bhikshu). Even for the old Brahman who remains at home under the protection of his son (the Veda-saɱnyāsin), he has ‘become an ascetic’ (saɱnyased in the Sanskrit, Manu VI, 94).

This rendering can, in each case, be easily justified. Each of the Sanskrit words means one or other form, one or other degree, of what may be called asceticism. But the differences might be made clear by variety of rendering.

^[17] Gautama has altogether ten rules for the hermit, none of which were applicable to the Buddhist Bhikshu (Gaut. III, 26-35).

^[18] Baudhāyana II, 10, 18, 4, 5. Manu VI, 27 (of the hermit). So also Vas. X, 31, according to the commentator. But Bühler thinks otherwise; and Manu VI, 94 confirms Bühler’s view.

^[19] Bṛihad. Āraṇyaka Upanishad III, 5, 1.

^[20] Afterwards an epithet often used, in the priestly literature of the hermit (the tāpasa), in the Buddhist books of the Arahat.

^[21] Bṛihad.. IV, 4, 22.

^[22] ‘Sechzig Upanishads,’ p. 465

^[23] Perhaps, on this third notion, Chānd. IV, 1, 7 is another passage of about the same date. A wise Sūdra is apparently there called a Brāhmaṇa. But the application is by no means certain.

^[24] Āp. II, 9, 24, 15.

^[25] Baudh. II, 6, 11, 28.

^[26] See the passage quoted by Deussen, ‘Vedānta-system,’ p.40.

^[27] See the full text in Chalmers’s paper in the J.R.A.S. for 1894

^[28] See Bühler’s ‘Manu,’ XXVII, and the commentators referred to in Bühler’s notes, pp. 202 and 203. Also Vas. IX, 10; Gaut. III, 27 Baudh. II, 6, 11, I 4, I 5 (which proves the identity of the two) ; III, 3, 15-18. Haradatta on Āpastamba II, 9, 21, 21 (where he also says they are the same). Dr. Burnell had in his possession fragments of this work, or what, in his opinion, seemed to be so. He says it was used by followers of the Black Yajur-veda. Bühler also (Āp. p. 154, note) says the Sūtra is in existence, and procurable in Gujarāt.

^[29] My ‘Milinda,’ II, 244 – 274.

^[30] The Buddhists admitted a distinction in class as between tāpasas and bhikkhus. They often distinguish between the simple pabbajjā of the latter and the tāpasa-pabbajjā of the former. See for instance Jāt. III, 119 (of non-Buddhists).

^[31] When the warrior hero of the Rāmāyaṇa brutally murders a peaceful hermit, it is not necessary to call in the āsrama rules to justify the foul deed. The offence (in the view of the poet on the part of the hermit, in the view of most Westerns on the part of the hero) is simply social insolence. Would public opinion, in Kosala, have sanctioned such an act, or enjoyed such a story, in the time of the Piṭakas? The original Rāmāyaṇa probably arose, as Professor Jacobi has shown, in Kosala; but this episode (VII, 76) is not in the oldest part. The doctrine for which the poet claims the approval of the gods (and which, therefore, was not unquestioned among men, or he need not have done so) is that a Sūdra may not become a tāpasa.

^[32] II, 3, 54.

^[33] IV, 3, 110.

^[34] See on this Order the passages quoted above in the note at p.71; and Leumann in the ‘Vienna Oriental Journal,’ III, 128.

^[35] Comp. Baudhāyana XI, 6, 11, 23; Manu V, 165; IX, 29.

^[36] There is a similar list, also full of interesting puzzles, but applicable of course to a date later by some centuries than the above, in the Milinda p.191. Worshippers of Siva are there expressly mentioned.

^[37] Miga-dāye. That is, a place set apart for deer to roam in, in safety, a public park in which no hunting was allowed.

^[38] It would, perhaps, be more agreeable to the context if one could render this idiomatic phrase: ‘Is there anything in this opinion of theirs as to his system, or as to this corollary they have drawn from it, which amounts to being a matter he would object to?’ But I do not see how this could be reconciled with the syntax of the Pāli sentence. And Buddhaghosa takes it as rendered above, summarising it in the words: ‘Is your opinion herein altogether free from blame?’

^[39] The four paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are here repeated in full in the text with the change only of reading ‘the body of the disciples of the Samaṇa Gotama’ instead of the Samaṇa Gotama’ and similarly for the other teachers. [Ed.: Here unabridged.]

^[40] The following description of the naked ascetic recurs in the Majjhima I, 77, 238, 342, II, 161, and in the Puggala Paññatti IV, 24. It consists of a string of enigmatic phrases which are interpreted in my translation, according to Buddhaghosa here, and the unknown commentator on the Puggala. These two are very nearly word for word the same. The differences are just such as would arise when two authors are drawing upon one uniform tradition.

It would seem from M. I, 238, if compared with I, 524, that it was the ājīvakas (see note above on p. 71) who were more especially known for the practice of these forms of asceticism: and from M. I, 77 that it was these forms that had been followed by Gotama himself before his eyes were opened, before he attained to Nirvāṇa. (M. I, 167.)

^[41] Hatthāpalekhano. The tradition was in doubt about this word. Both commentators give an alternative rendering: ‘He scratched himself clean with his hand after stooling.’ And the Puggala Paññatti commentator adds a very curious piece of old folklore as his reason for this explanation.

^[42] Kaḷopi; not in Childers. It no doubt means some cooking vessel of a particular shape, but the exact signification, and the derivation of it are both unknown. It may possibly be a Kolarian or Dravidian word. Many centuries afterwards karoṭa and karoṭi were included in the Vyutpatti, and the Amara Kosa, as meaning ‘vessel.’ It is of course out of the question that a word of the fifth century B.C. can be derived from either of them; but they are evidently the descendants of allied forms. Childers gives another form khalopī on the authority of the Abhidhāna Padīpikā (twelfth century), verse 456, where it occurs in a list of names of pots. Another — khaḷopi — is put in his text by Trenckner at Milinda, p.107, from one MS., but the other two differ. Both commentators paraphrase it here by ukkhali pacchi vā.

^[43] Na Daṇḍa-m-antaraɱ. That is, perhaps, among the firewood; but the expression is not clear. The Commentaries only give the reason. Dr. Neumann (on Majjhima I, 77) has, ‘he does not spy beyond the lattice’ or perhaps ‘beyond the bars of the grate’ (spake nicht uber das Gitter), but this seems putting a great deal of meaning into the sticks, and not sufficiently reproducing the force of antaraɱ. And how can paṭigaṇhāti mean ‘spy’? We have, no doubt, to fill out an elliptical phrase. But it is just such cases as those in this paragraph where we are more likely to go right if we follow the ancient tradition.

^[44] Na purisantara-gatāya. The commentators only give the reason. On the meaning of the word compare Jāt. I, 290.

^[45] Na saṅkhittisu. Both meaning and derivation are uncertain. Dr. Neumann has not from the dirty.’

^[46] Thusodaka It is not fermented. The traditional interpretation here is: ‘a drink called Suvīrakaɱ (after the country Suvīra) made of the constituents, especially the husk, of all cereals.’ The use of salt Sovīraka as a cure for wind in the stomach is mentioned at Mahā Vagga VI, 16. 3; and it was allowed, as a beverage, if mixed with water, to the Buddhist Bhikkhus. In Vimāna Vatthu XIX, 8 it is mentioned in a list of drinks given to them. Childers calls it ‘sour gruel’ following Subhūti in the first edition (1865) of the Abhidhāna Padīpikā (verse 460), but in the Abh. Pad. Sūci (published in 1893) Subhūti renders it ‘kongey’; something of the same sort as barley water. Buddhaghosa adds: ‘Every one agrees that it is wrong to drink intoxicants. These ascetics see sin even in this.’ The corresponding Sanskrit word, tusodaka, is found only in Suṣruta.

^[47] Datti. A small pot,’ says Buddhaghosa,’ in which special titbits are put aside, and kept.’

^[48] Sāmāka, not in Childers. See M. I, 156. Jāt. II, 365, III, 144.

^[49] Daddula, not in Childers. See M. I, 78, 156, 188.

^[50] Piññaka, not in Childers. See Vin. IV, 341. The commentators here merely say: ‘This is plain.’

^[51] Chava-dussāni pi dhāreti. The commentators give an alternative explanation: ‘Clothing made of Eraka grass tied together.’ Was such clothing then used to wrap dead bodies in?

^[52] Tirītāni pi dhāreti. This custom is referred to at Mahā Vagga VIII, 29, as having been there followed by ascetics. The use of such garments is there forbidden to the Bhikkhus.

^[53] Ajinakkhipam pi dhāreti. Buddhaghosa gives here an explanation different from that given by him on Vin. III, 34 (quoted ‘Vinaya Texts,’ II, 247), where the word also occurs. The Puggala Paññatti gives both explanations as possible. Khipa at A. I, 33 means some sort of net. Ajinakkhipa is referred to at S. I, 117 as the characteristic dress of an old Brahman.

^[54] Phalaka-cīram pi dhāreti. See Mahā Vagga VIII, 28. 2; Culla Vagga V, 29. 3.

^[55] So of Ajita of the garment of hair, above, p. 73. Both commentators say the hair is human hair.

^[56] Vāla-kambalam pi dhāreti. So the commentators here. The alternative rendering given by us at ‘Vinaya Texts,’ II, 247, ‘skin of a wild beast,’ should be corrected accordingly. That would be vāḷa, and all the passages where our word occurs read vāla. Comp. A. I, 240.

^[57] Ukkuṭikappadhāna. Compare Dhp. 141-2 = Divy. 339. The commentator says he progressed in this posture by a series of hops. The posture is impossible to Europeans, who, if they crouch down on their heels, cannot keep their balance when the heels touch the ground. But natives of India will sit so for hours without fatigue.

^[58] Both commentators add: ‘or stands, or walks up and down.’

^[59] Thaṇḍila-seyyam pi kappeti. The Burmese MSS. and Buddhaghosa, but not the Siamese edition, read taṇḍila. So does my MS. at Dhp. 141. The Puggala omits the word. S. IV, 118, and Mil. 351 have the Ñh.

^[60] Abbhokāsiko ca hoti. There is no comment on this. But compare Jāt. IV, 8; Mil. 342

^[61] Vekaṭiko. So of an ājīvaka at Jāt. I, 390, and compare ‘Vinaya Texts,’ II, 59. My rendering of the word at Mil. 259 ought, I think, to be corrected accordingly. But why was not this entered among the foods above, where one of them was already mentioned? It looks like an afterthought, or a gloss.

^[62] Apānako. Compare my Milinda II, 85 foll. on this curious belief.

^[63] That is, of course, a true recluse, an actual Arahat. Throughout these sections Gotama is purposely at cross purposes with his questioner. Kassapa uses the word Brāhmaṇa in his own sense; that is, not in the ordinary sense, but of the ideal religieux. Gotama, in his answer, keeps the word; but he means something quite different, he means an Arahat. On the persistent way in which the Piṭaka texts try to put this new meaning into the word, see above, in the Introduction to the Kūṭadanta.

^[64] This paragraph, like the last and like the next, is, in the Pāli, broken up into three sections, one for each of the three lists of penances.

^[65] ‘And by this,’ says Buddhaghosa, ‘he means Arahatship. For the doctrine of the Exalted One has Arahatship as its end.’

^[66] At Aṅguttara II, 200 (compare M. I, 240-242) it is said that those addicted to tapo-jigucchā are incapable of Arahatship. Gotama must either, therefore, be here referring to his years of penance before he attained Nirvāṇa under the Tree of Wisdom; or he must be putting a new meaning into the expression, and taking ‘the higher scrupulousness’ in the sense of the self-control of the Path. Probably both are implied.

Jigucchā is translated by Childers as ‘disgust, loathing,’ following the Sanskrit dictionaries. The example of it given at M. I, 78 is ‘being so mindful, in going out or coming in, that pity is stirred up in one even towards a drop of water, to the effect that: “May I not bring injury on the minute creatures therein.”‘ It comes therefore to very nearly the same thing as ahiɱsā.

^[67] Adhipaññā. From Aṅguttara II, 93 it is clear that this is the wisdom of the higher stages only of the Path, not of Arahatship. For the man who has adhipaññā has then to strive on till he attains to Arahatship. Puggala Paññatti IV, 26 is not really inconsistent with this.

^[68] The whole conversation will be translated below. It forms the subject of the Udumbarīka Sīhanāda Suttanta, No. 25 in the Dīgha.

^[69] According to the rule laid down in Vinaya I, 69.

^[70] That is, Arahatship, Nirvāṇa.

^[71] The Burmese MSS. call it the Mahā Sīhanāda Sutta, which is also the name given in the MSS. to the Twelfth Sutta in the Majjhima – called there in the text (p. 83) and in the Milinda (P.396), the Lomahaɱsana Pariyāya. We have had an instance above (p.55) of several different names being given, in the text itself, to the same Sutta. And I had already, in 1880, called attention in my ‘Buddhist Birth Stories’ (pp. lx, lxi) to the numerous instances in the Jātaka Book of the same Jātaka being known, in the collection itself, by different names. It is evident that the titles were considered a very secondary matter.