Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And if any one, out of jealousy, were to raise up any obstacle in that case, then would his head split into a hundred or into a thousand pieces.’ 26. ‘There are four things, O king, connected with the Tath4gatas, to which no one can do any harm. And what are the four? To the alms intended for, and got ready for the Blessed One— to the halo of a fathom’s length when it has once spread out from him—to the treasure of the knowledge of his omniscience—and to his life. All these things, O king, are one in essence—they are free from defect, immovable, unassailable by other beings, unchangeable by other circumstances’. And Mara, the evil one, lay in ambush, out of sight, when he possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sala trees, It was as when robbers, O king, 1 Aphus4ni kiriyAni, which I do not pretend to understand, and Mr. Trenckner says is unintelligible to him. Hinaf-kumburé has: Anya kriyfawak no woedagann4 beewin apusana (sic) kriy4yo ya. TV, 2, 26. MARA. 223 hiding out of sight in the inaccessible country over the border, beset the highways. But if the king caught sight of them, do you think those robbers would be safe ?’ ‘No, Sir, he might have them cut into a hundred or a thousand pieces with an axe,’ ‘Well, just so it was, hiding out of sight, that Mara possessed them. It was as when a married woman, in ambush, and out of sight, frequents the company of her paramour. [158] But if, O king, she were to carry on her intrigues in her husband’s presence, do you think she would be safe ?’ ‘No, Sir, he might slay her, or wound her, or put her in bonds, or reduce her to slavery.’ ‘Well. It was like that, hiding out of sight, that Méra possessed them. But if, O king, he had raised any obstacle in the case of an alms intended for, got ready for, or in possession of the Blessed One, then his head would have split into a hundred or a thousand pieces.’ ‘That is so, Nagasena. Mara, the evil one, acted after the manner of robbers, he lay in ambush, possessing the Brahmans and householders of the Five SAla trees. But if the same Mara, the evil one, had interfered with any alms intended for, or made ready for the Blessed One, or with his partaking thereof, then would his head have been split into a hundred or a thousand pieces, or his bodily frame have been dissipated like a handful of chaff.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [ Here ends the dilemma as to Mara’s interference with alms. ] 224 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 27. [UNCONSCIOUS CRIME.]
2That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [ Here ends the dilemma as to Mara’s interference with alms. ] 224 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 27. [UNCONSCIOUS CRIME.] 27. ‘Venerable Nagasena, your people say: “Whosoever deprives a living being of life, without knowing that he does so, he accumulates very serious demerit'.” But on the other hand it was laid down by the Blessed One in the Vinaya: “There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance*,” If the first passage is correct, the other must be false; and if the second is right, the first must be wrong. This too is a double-pointed problem, hard to master, hard to overcome. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 28. ‘Both the passages you quote, O king, were spoken by the Blessed One. But there is a difference between the sense of the two. And what is that difference ? [159] There is a kind of offence which is committed without the co-operation of the mind’, and there is another kind which has that co-operation. It was with respect to the first of the ' Not traced as yet, in so many words. And though there are several injunctions in the Vinaya against acts which might haply, though unknown to the doer, destroy life (such, for instance, as drinking water without the use of a strainer), when these are all subjects of special rule, and in each case there is an exception in favour of the Bhikkhu who acts in ignorance of there being living things which could be killed. (See, for instance, Paittiya 62, on the drinking of water.) * Ag&nantassa n&patti. Pésittiya LXI, 2, 3 (in the Old Commentary, not ascribed to the Buddha). * Saa#a-vimokkh&. Iam not sure of the exact meaning of this difficult compound, which has only been found in this passage. Hinafi-kumburé (p. 199) has: Mah4 ragéneni, &ittangayen abh4wayen midena bcewin saf##&-wimoksha-namwi Apattit atteya, &c. (mid = mué). IV, 2, 30. BUDDHA AND HIS FOLLOWERS. 225 two that the Blessed One said: “There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance !,”’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to sins in ignorance. ] [THE BUDDHA AND HIS FOLLOWERS. ] 29. ‘Venerable Nagasena, it was said by the Blessed One; “Now the Tath4gata thinks not, Ananda, that is he who should lead the brotherhood, or that the Order is dependent upon him ?.” But on the other hand when describing the virtues and the nature of Metteyya, the Blessed One, he said thus: “He will be the leader of a brotherhood several thousands in number, as I am now the leader of a brotherhood several hundreds in number’.” If the first statement be right, then the second is wrong. If the second passage is right, the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’
3If the second passage is right, the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 30. ‘You quote both passages correctly, O king. But in the dilemma that you put the sense in the one passage is inclusive, in the other it is not. It is not the Tathagata, O king, who seeks after a following, but the followers who seek after him. 1 The Simhalese has here a further page, giving examples of the two kinds of offences referred to, and drawing the conclusion for each. * Book of the Great Decease, II, 32 (translated in my ‘ Buddhist Suttas,’ p. 37), just after the passage quoted above, IV, 2, 4. 5 Not in any of the published texts. Metteyya is, of course, the Buddha to come, the expected messiah. [35] Q 226 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 30. [160] It is a mere commonly received opinion, O king, that “ This is I,” or “ This is mine,” it is not-a transcendental truth'. Attachment is a frame of mind put away by the TathAgata, he has put away clinging, he is free from the delusion that “ This is mine,” he lives only to be a help to others% Just as the earth, O king, is a support to the beings in the world, and an asylum to them, and they depend upon it, but the broad earth has no longing after them in the idea that “ These belong to me ”—just so is the TathAgata a support and an asylum to all beings, but has no longing after them in the idea that “ These belong to me.” And just as a mighty rain cloud, O king, pours out its rain, and gives nourishment to grass and trees, to cattle and to men, and maintains the lineage thereof, and all these creatures depend for their livelihood upon its rain, but the cloud has no feelings of longing in the idea that “ These are mine”—just so does the Tathagata give all beings to know what are good qualities and maintains them in goodness, and all beings have their life in him, but the TathAgata has no feelings of longing in the idea that “ These are mine.” And why is it so? Because of his having abandoned all self-regard *’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! The problem has been well solved by variety of examples. The jungle has been made open, the darkness has been turned 1 Sammuti....naparamattho. * Upfidaya avassayo hoti. * Attanudis/hiy4 pahinatt4. See the passages quoted by Dr. Morris in the ‘ Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1886, pp. 113, 114. IV, 2, 32. SCHISM. 227 to light, the arguments of the adversaries have been broken down, insight has been awakened in the sons of the Conqueror.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha and his following.] [scuIsm. ]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And if any one, out of jealousy, were to raise up any obstacle in that case, then would his head split into a hundred or into a thousand pieces.’ 26. ‘There are four things, O king, connected with the Tath4gatas, to which no one can do any harm. And what are the four? To the alms intended for, and got ready for the Blessed One— to the halo of a fathom’s length when it has once spread out from him—to the treasure of the knowledge of his omniscience—and to his life. All these things, O king, are one in essence—they are free from defect, immovable, unassailable by other beings, unchangeable by other circumstances’. And Mara, the evil one, lay in ambush, out of sight, when he possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sala trees, It was as when robbers, O king, 1 Aphus4ni kiriyAni, which I do not pretend to understand, and Mr. Trenckner says is unintelligible to him. Hinaf-kumburé has: Anya kriyfawak no woedagann4 beewin apusana (sic) kriy4yo ya. TV, 2, 26. MARA. 223 hiding out of sight in the inaccessible country over the border, beset the highways. But if the king caught sight of them, do you think those robbers would be safe ?’ ‘No, Sir, he might have them cut into a hundred or a thousand pieces with an axe,’ ‘Well, just so it was, hiding out of sight, that Mara possessed them. It was as when a married woman, in ambush, and out of sight, frequents the company of her paramour. [158] But if, O king, she were to carry on her intrigues in her husband’s presence, do you think she would be safe ?’ ‘No, Sir, he might slay her, or wound her, or put her in bonds, or reduce her to slavery.’ ‘Well. It was like that, hiding out of sight, that Méra possessed them. But if, O king, he had raised any obstacle in the case of an alms intended for, got ready for, or in possession of the Blessed One, then his head would have split into a hundred or a thousand pieces.’ ‘That is so, Nagasena. Mara, the evil one, acted after the manner of robbers, he lay in ambush, possessing the Brahmans and householders of the Five SAla trees. But if the same Mara, the evil one, had interfered with any alms intended for, or made ready for the Blessed One, or with his partaking thereof, then would his head have been split into a hundred or a thousand pieces, or his bodily frame have been dissipated like a handful of chaff.’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [ Here ends the dilemma as to Mara’s interference with alms. ] 224 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 27. [UNCONSCIOUS CRIME.]
2That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [ Here ends the dilemma as to Mara’s interference with alms. ] 224 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 27. [UNCONSCIOUS CRIME.] 27. ‘Venerable Nagasena, your people say: “Whosoever deprives a living being of life, without knowing that he does so, he accumulates very serious demerit'.” But on the other hand it was laid down by the Blessed One in the Vinaya: “There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance*,” If the first passage is correct, the other must be false; and if the second is right, the first must be wrong. This too is a double-pointed problem, hard to master, hard to overcome. It is now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 28. ‘Both the passages you quote, O king, were spoken by the Blessed One. But there is a difference between the sense of the two. And what is that difference ? [159] There is a kind of offence which is committed without the co-operation of the mind’, and there is another kind which has that co-operation. It was with respect to the first of the ' Not traced as yet, in so many words. And though there are several injunctions in the Vinaya against acts which might haply, though unknown to the doer, destroy life (such, for instance, as drinking water without the use of a strainer), when these are all subjects of special rule, and in each case there is an exception in favour of the Bhikkhu who acts in ignorance of there being living things which could be killed. (See, for instance, Paittiya 62, on the drinking of water.) * Ag&nantassa n&patti. Pésittiya LXI, 2, 3 (in the Old Commentary, not ascribed to the Buddha). * Saa#a-vimokkh&. Iam not sure of the exact meaning of this difficult compound, which has only been found in this passage. Hinafi-kumburé (p. 199) has: Mah4 ragéneni, &ittangayen abh4wayen midena bcewin saf##&-wimoksha-namwi Apattit atteya, &c. (mid = mué). IV, 2, 30. BUDDHA AND HIS FOLLOWERS. 225 two that the Blessed One said: “There is no offence to him who acts in ignorance !,”’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to sins in ignorance. ] [THE BUDDHA AND HIS FOLLOWERS. ] 29. ‘Venerable Nagasena, it was said by the Blessed One; “Now the Tath4gata thinks not, Ananda, that is he who should lead the brotherhood, or that the Order is dependent upon him ?.” But on the other hand when describing the virtues and the nature of Metteyya, the Blessed One, he said thus: “He will be the leader of a brotherhood several thousands in number, as I am now the leader of a brotherhood several hundreds in number’.” If the first statement be right, then the second is wrong. If the second passage is right, the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’
3If the second passage is right, the first must be false. This too is a double-pointed problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’ 30. ‘You quote both passages correctly, O king. But in the dilemma that you put the sense in the one passage is inclusive, in the other it is not. It is not the Tathagata, O king, who seeks after a following, but the followers who seek after him. 1 The Simhalese has here a further page, giving examples of the two kinds of offences referred to, and drawing the conclusion for each. * Book of the Great Decease, II, 32 (translated in my ‘ Buddhist Suttas,’ p. 37), just after the passage quoted above, IV, 2, 4. 5 Not in any of the published texts. Metteyya is, of course, the Buddha to come, the expected messiah. [35] Q 226 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 2, 30. [160] It is a mere commonly received opinion, O king, that “ This is I,” or “ This is mine,” it is not-a transcendental truth'. Attachment is a frame of mind put away by the TathAgata, he has put away clinging, he is free from the delusion that “ This is mine,” he lives only to be a help to others% Just as the earth, O king, is a support to the beings in the world, and an asylum to them, and they depend upon it, but the broad earth has no longing after them in the idea that “ These belong to me ”—just so is the TathAgata a support and an asylum to all beings, but has no longing after them in the idea that “ These belong to me.” And just as a mighty rain cloud, O king, pours out its rain, and gives nourishment to grass and trees, to cattle and to men, and maintains the lineage thereof, and all these creatures depend for their livelihood upon its rain, but the cloud has no feelings of longing in the idea that “ These are mine”—just so does the Tathagata give all beings to know what are good qualities and maintains them in goodness, and all beings have their life in him, but the TathAgata has no feelings of longing in the idea that “ These are mine.” And why is it so? Because of his having abandoned all self-regard *’ ‘Very good, Nagasena! The problem has been well solved by variety of examples. The jungle has been made open, the darkness has been turned 1 Sammuti....naparamattho. * Upfidaya avassayo hoti. * Attanudis/hiy4 pahinatt4. See the passages quoted by Dr. Morris in the ‘ Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1886, pp. 113, 114. IV, 2, 32. SCHISM. 227 to light, the arguments of the adversaries have been broken down, insight has been awakened in the sons of the Conqueror.’ [Here ends the dilemma as to the Buddha and his following.] [scuIsm. ]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.