Dialogues of the Buddha, Part II — trans. T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids (1910)

by polite persons in addressing a man 1. It means ' belonging to the Kusika family,' and occurs D. II, 270; M. I, 252. It is used once in the Rig Veda of Indra, in what exact sense is not known. Have we a survival here from the time when Indra was only the god of a Kusika clan?

Vasava, as chief of the Vasu gods'- (D. II, 260, 274;
S. I, 223-30; SN. 384).

Purindada, ' the generous giver in former births '(S. 1,230;
P. V. II, 9, 12, 13 ; Jat. V, 395), no doubt with ironical allusion
to the epithet of Indra, Purandara, ' destroyer of cities.'

Sujampati, the husband of Suja. (S. I, 225, 234-6;
SN. 1024).

Maghava, because, as a man, he had once been a brahmin of that name (S. I, 230 ; cp. Jat. IV, 403 = V, 137). This had been also, for another reason, an epithet of Indra and other gods.

Thousand-eyed (Sahassa-cakkhu, sahassakkha, S. I,
230, sahassa-netta, S. I, 226; SN. 346). This also had been
used of Indra.

Yakkha. Scarcely perhaps an epithet : but it is interesting to notice that even so high a god as Sakka was considered to be a Yaksha (M. I, 252 ; see S. I, 206).

Inda ( = Indra). This is used occasionally of the Vedic god (e.g. D. I, 244; ii. 274; SN. 310), but is applied also to Sakka himself (D. I, 221, 261, 274 ; SN. 316, 679, 1024). The god Indaka, of S. I, 206 and PV. 11,9, *s quite another person.

Conclusions.

Now what are the conclusions which can fairly be drawn from the above facts? In the first place it is evident that Sakka and Indra are quite different conceptions. Of course Indra is also a complex conception, and not by any means only the savage ideal of a warrior, big and blustering and given to drink. But we shall not be far wrong if we say that no single item of the personal character of Sakka is identical with any point in the character of the Vedic Indra, and not one single item of the character of Indra has been reproduced in the descriptions of Sakka. Some of the epithets are the same, and are certainly borrowed, though they are explained differently in harmony with the new conception. Some of the details of the outward conditions may be, and probably are, the outgrowth of corresponding details as told of the older

1 This point has been discussed above, Vol. I, pp. 193-6.

2 Their names (ten of them) in PVA., p. 111.

god, but varied and softened m harmony with the new conception.

And further, all these mythological dialogues are Tendenzschriften, written with the object of persuading the Kosala clansmen that they need not be in the least afraid, for their own gods were on the side of the reformation. The storytellers who invented them have twisted the details to suit their purpose. But they will not have changed the figure of the god so much that there could be any doubt as to the god they talked of being the then popular god. To do so would have been to defeat their object. We may be sure that at the time when Buddhism arose the popular god in Kosala was already very different from Indra, so different that he was spoken of under a new name. This remains true, though he probably was a degeneration, as the brahmins would say, or a development, as their opponents would say, of the old Vedic hero-god.