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

It is probable that all the great religious teachers of antiquity appealed, in support of their views, to the wise men of still older times. It is so recorded of most of them ; and where it is not recorded, as in the cases of Lao Tsii and Zarathustra, that is probably due to the meagreness of the extant records. In every country where the level of intelligence was sufficient to produce a great leader of men in matters of religion, it was sufficient also to bear in remembrance the names at least, and a vague notion as to some of the doctrines, of former, if perhaps less successful and famous, reformers.

ill. B

INTRODUCTION.

But a Wisdom-Being, appearing from aeon to aeon under similar circumstances to propound a similar faith ! This is an exclusively Indian conception ; in Indian literature it is mainly Buddhist ; and in Buddhist literature its first appearance is in documents of the date of our Suttanta. Did the Buddha himself know anything of this theory ? Possibly not. The theory of a number of successive Buddhas presupposes the conception of a Buddha as a different and more exalted personage than an Arahant. Now in our oldest documents these two conceptions are still in a state of fusion. The word Buddha does not occur in its later, special, technical sense. It occurs often enough in ambiguous phrases, where it may be translated by 'Converted One, Awakened One.' Thus at Sutta Nipata 48 it is said, of Gotama, 'The Awakened One (Buddho) came to Rajagaha' ; but the time referred to is some years before he had become a Buddha in the later technical sense. And at Sutta Nipata 167 it is said : ' Let us ask Gotama, the awakened one who has passed beyond anger and fear ' ; but the very same adjectives are used at Itivuttaka, No. 68, of any ordinary Arahant. So the phrases used to describe the mental crises in Gotama's career are invariably precisely the same as those used under similar circumstances of his disciples ; and this holds good both of his going forth, and of his victory and attainment of Nirvana under the Tree of Wisdom. Further than that, in long descriptions of Gotama — such for instance as that in Sutta Nipata, verses 153 to 167 — all the epithets used are found elsewhere applied to one or other of his disciples. The teacher never called himself a Buddha (as distinct from an Arahant). When addressed as Buddha, or spoken of as such, by his followers, it is always doubtful whether anything more is meant than an enlightened Arahant.

It is needless to state that this does hot in the least imply any sense of equality between the teacher and his disciples. The very oldest documents represent the difference as immeasurable ; but as a difference of degree, not of kind. The question is as to the manner of the gVowth and hardening of this sense of difference ; and as to the consequent gradual change in the connotation of words.

In the episode of the events between the Wisdom Tree and the First Discourse, in which — for the first time perhaps — we twice have the epithet Sammasambuddha1, it is in a similar way associated both times on equal terms with A rah a. So

1 Majjhima I, 171; Vinaya I, 8, 9; Katha Vatthu 289; compare
D'vy» 393; Mahavastu III, 326; Jataka II, 284.

INTRODUCTION.

the word Bodhisatta has gradually changed its meaning and implication. First used of Gotama between the Going Forth and the Nirvana, it is then used of him from the moment of conception ; then of all the Buddhas from conception to Arahantship ; then of those beings on earth — men or animals — who were eventually to become Buddhas ; then of gods ; and finally it became a sort of degree in theology, and was used as a term of respect for any learned and able Mahayanist doctor.