Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1‘Learning them, investigating their meaning, love of the virtuous law laid down in them,’ expands Hina/i-kumburé, ® Uddero. There is a lacuna here in the Simhalese. It has nothing more till we come to the shaven head. * Amrita maha avakasa bhimiyaéa says the Simhalese (p. 205). 10 Arahati. I have endeavoured to imitate the play upon the words, 232 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3> 3- reverence and to show respect to the Bhikkhu, though be may be, as yet, unconverted. It is because he sees him to be in the company of those in whom all evil has been destroyed, because he feels that he is not in such society', that the converted layman thinks it worthy of him to do reverence and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu. It is because he knows that he has joined the noblest brotherhood, and that he himself has reached no such state, that the converted layman holds it right to do reverence and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu— because he knows that he listens to the recitation of the Patimokkha, while he himself can not—because he knows that he receives men into the Order, and thus extends the teaching of the Conqueror, which he himself is incapable of doing—because he knows that he carries out innumerable precepts, which he himself cannot observe—because he knows that he wears the outward signs of Samazaship,and carries out the intention of the Buddha, while he himself is gone away far from that—because he knows that he, though he has given up his hair and beard, and is unanointed and wears no ornaments, yet is anointed with the perfume of righteousness, while he is himself addicted to jewelry and fine apparel—that the converted layman thinks it right to do reverence, and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu.’ 3. ‘And moreover, O king, it is because he knows that not only are all these twenty personal qualities which go to make a Samaza, and the two outward signs, found in the Bhikkhu, but that he carries them 1 N’atthi me so samayo ti: E sdmagrf labhaya ma/a neteeyi sita. IV, 3) 4+ THE DHARMA. 233 on, and trains others in them, that the converted layman, realising that he has no part in that tradition!, in that maintenance of the faith, thinks it right to reverence and to show respect to the converted Bhikkhu. [164] Just, O king, as a royal prince who learns his knowledge, and is taught the duties of a Khattiya, at the feet of the Brahman who acts as family chaplain?, when after a time he is anointed king, pays reverence and respect to his master in the thought of his being the teacher, and the carrier on of the traditions of the family, so is it right for the converted Bhikkhu to do reverence and to pay respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu.’
24. ‘And moreover, O king, you may know by this fact the greatness and the peerless glory of the condition of the Bhikkhus—that if a layman, a disciple of the faith, who has entered upon the Excellent Way, should attain to the realisation of Arahatship, one of two results must happen to him, and there is no other—he must either die away on that very day, or take upon himself the condition of a Bhikkhu. For immovable, O king, is that state of renunciation, glorious, and most exalted—I mean the condition of being a member of the Order!’ ‘Venerable Nagasena, this subtle problem has been thoroughly unravelled by your powerful and great wisdom. No one else could solve it so unless he were wise as you.’ [Here ends the problem as to the precedence of the Dharma.] 1 Agamo, which the Simhalese repeats. * Purohita, which the Simhalese repeats. 234 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 3,5. [THE HARM OF PREACHING.] 5. ‘Venerable NAgasena, you Bhikkhus say that the Tath4gata averts harm from all beings, and does them good’. And again you say that when he was preaching the discourse based on the simile of the burning fire * hot blood was ejected from the mouths of about sixty Bhikkhus. By his delivery of that discourse he did those Bhikkhus harm and not good. So if the first statement is correct, the second is false ; and if the second is correct, the first [165] is false. This too is a double-pointed problem put to you, which you have to solve.’ 6. ‘Both are true. What happened to them was not the Tath4gata’s doing, but their own.’ ‘But, Nagasena, if the Tathagata had not delivered that discourse, then would they have vomited up hot blood ?’ ‘No. When they took wrongly what he said, then was there a burning kindled within them, and hot blood was ejected from their mouths.’ ‘Then that must have happened, Nagasena, through the act of the Tathagata, it must have been the Tathagata who was the chief cause *® to destroy them. Suppose a serpent, Nagasena, had crept into an anthill, and a man in want of earth were to break into the anthill, and take the earth of it away. And by his doing so the entrance-hole to the anthill ? Icannot give chapter and verse for the words, but the sentiment is common enough. * This is not the Aditta-pariyaya given in the Mahi4vagga I, 21, and the Aggikkhandipama Sutta in the 7th Book of the Anguttara, ® Adhikara. Pradh4na is the Siahalese translation. IV, 3, 8. PREACHING. 235 were closed up, and the snake were to die in consequence from want of air. Would not the serpent have been killed by that man’s action ?’ ‘Yes, O king.’ ‘Just so, Nagasena, was the Tathagata the prime cause of their destruction.’
3Pradh4na is the Siahalese translation. IV, 3, 8. PREACHING. 235 were closed up, and the snake were to die in consequence from want of air. Would not the serpent have been killed by that man’s action ?’ ‘Yes, O king.’ ‘Just so, Nagasena, was the Tathagata the prime cause of their destruction.’ 7. ‘When the Tath4gata delivered a discourse, O king, he never did so either in flattery or in malice. In freedom both from the one and from the other did he speak. And they who received it aright were made wise', but they who received it wrongly, fell. Just, O king, as when a man shakes a mango tree or a jambu tree or a mee tree’, such of the fruits on it as are full of sap and strongly fastened to it remain undisturbed, but such as have rotten stalks, and are loosely attached, fall to the ground—[166] so was it with his preaching. It was, O king, as when a husbandman, wanting to grow a crop of wheat, ploughs the field, but by that ploughing many hundreds and thousands of blades of grass are killed—or it was as when men, for the sake of sweetness, crush sugarcane in a mill, and by their doing so such small creatures as pass into the mouth of the mill are crushed also—so was it that the Tathagata making wise those whose minds were prepared, preached the Dhamma without flattery and without malice. And they who received it aright were made wise, but they who received it wrongly, fell.’ 8. ‘Then did not those Bhikkhus fall, Nagasena, just because of that discourse ?’ 1 Bugghanti: unto Arahatship adds Hina/i-kumburé. * Madhuka. See Gataka IV, 434. The Simhalese (p. 208) has mfgahak (Bassia Latifolia). 236 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _IYV, 3,9. ‘ How, then, could a carpenter by doing nothing to a piece of timber, and simply laying it by, make it straight and fit for use ?’ ‘No, Sir. He would have to get rid of the bends out of it, if he wanted it straight and ready for use.’ ‘Just so, O king, the Tath4gata could not, by merely watching over his disciples, have opened the eyes of those who were ready tosee. But by getting rid of those who took the word wrongly he saved those prepared to be saved. And it was by their own act and deed, O king, that the evil-minded fell ; just as a plantain tree, or a bambd, or a she-mule are destroyed by that to which they themselves give birth’, And just, O king, as it is by their own acts that robbers come to have their eyes plucked out, or to impalement, or to the scaffold, just so were the evil-minded destroyed by their own act, and fell from the teaching of the Conqueror.’ 9. ‘And so [167] with those sixty Bhikkhus, they fell neither by the act of the Tath4gata nor of any one else, but solely by their own deed *. Suppose, O king, a man were to give ambrosia ‘ to all the people, and they, eating of it, were to become healthy and long-lived and free from every bodily ill. But one man, on eating it, were by his own bad digestion, to ? Rakkhanto, which Hina/i-kumburé expands in the sense adopted above.
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.
1‘Learning them, investigating their meaning, love of the virtuous law laid down in them,’ expands Hina/i-kumburé, ® Uddero. There is a lacuna here in the Simhalese. It has nothing more till we come to the shaven head. * Amrita maha avakasa bhimiyaéa says the Simhalese (p. 205). 10 Arahati. I have endeavoured to imitate the play upon the words, 232 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. IV, 3> 3- reverence and to show respect to the Bhikkhu, though be may be, as yet, unconverted. It is because he sees him to be in the company of those in whom all evil has been destroyed, because he feels that he is not in such society', that the converted layman thinks it worthy of him to do reverence and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu. It is because he knows that he has joined the noblest brotherhood, and that he himself has reached no such state, that the converted layman holds it right to do reverence and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu— because he knows that he listens to the recitation of the Patimokkha, while he himself can not—because he knows that he receives men into the Order, and thus extends the teaching of the Conqueror, which he himself is incapable of doing—because he knows that he carries out innumerable precepts, which he himself cannot observe—because he knows that he wears the outward signs of Samazaship,and carries out the intention of the Buddha, while he himself is gone away far from that—because he knows that he, though he has given up his hair and beard, and is unanointed and wears no ornaments, yet is anointed with the perfume of righteousness, while he is himself addicted to jewelry and fine apparel—that the converted layman thinks it right to do reverence, and to show respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu.’ 3. ‘And moreover, O king, it is because he knows that not only are all these twenty personal qualities which go to make a Samaza, and the two outward signs, found in the Bhikkhu, but that he carries them 1 N’atthi me so samayo ti: E sdmagrf labhaya ma/a neteeyi sita. IV, 3) 4+ THE DHARMA. 233 on, and trains others in them, that the converted layman, realising that he has no part in that tradition!, in that maintenance of the faith, thinks it right to reverence and to show respect to the converted Bhikkhu. [164] Just, O king, as a royal prince who learns his knowledge, and is taught the duties of a Khattiya, at the feet of the Brahman who acts as family chaplain?, when after a time he is anointed king, pays reverence and respect to his master in the thought of his being the teacher, and the carrier on of the traditions of the family, so is it right for the converted Bhikkhu to do reverence and to pay respect to the unconverted Bhikkhu.’
24. ‘And moreover, O king, you may know by this fact the greatness and the peerless glory of the condition of the Bhikkhus—that if a layman, a disciple of the faith, who has entered upon the Excellent Way, should attain to the realisation of Arahatship, one of two results must happen to him, and there is no other—he must either die away on that very day, or take upon himself the condition of a Bhikkhu. For immovable, O king, is that state of renunciation, glorious, and most exalted—I mean the condition of being a member of the Order!’ ‘Venerable Nagasena, this subtle problem has been thoroughly unravelled by your powerful and great wisdom. No one else could solve it so unless he were wise as you.’ [Here ends the problem as to the precedence of the Dharma.] 1 Agamo, which the Simhalese repeats. * Purohita, which the Simhalese repeats. 234 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _ IV, 3,5. [THE HARM OF PREACHING.] 5. ‘Venerable NAgasena, you Bhikkhus say that the Tath4gata averts harm from all beings, and does them good’. And again you say that when he was preaching the discourse based on the simile of the burning fire * hot blood was ejected from the mouths of about sixty Bhikkhus. By his delivery of that discourse he did those Bhikkhus harm and not good. So if the first statement is correct, the second is false ; and if the second is correct, the first [165] is false. This too is a double-pointed problem put to you, which you have to solve.’ 6. ‘Both are true. What happened to them was not the Tath4gata’s doing, but their own.’ ‘But, Nagasena, if the Tathagata had not delivered that discourse, then would they have vomited up hot blood ?’ ‘No. When they took wrongly what he said, then was there a burning kindled within them, and hot blood was ejected from their mouths.’ ‘Then that must have happened, Nagasena, through the act of the Tathagata, it must have been the Tathagata who was the chief cause *® to destroy them. Suppose a serpent, Nagasena, had crept into an anthill, and a man in want of earth were to break into the anthill, and take the earth of it away. And by his doing so the entrance-hole to the anthill ? Icannot give chapter and verse for the words, but the sentiment is common enough. * This is not the Aditta-pariyaya given in the Mahi4vagga I, 21, and the Aggikkhandipama Sutta in the 7th Book of the Anguttara, ® Adhikara. Pradh4na is the Siahalese translation. IV, 3, 8. PREACHING. 235 were closed up, and the snake were to die in consequence from want of air. Would not the serpent have been killed by that man’s action ?’ ‘Yes, O king.’ ‘Just so, Nagasena, was the Tathagata the prime cause of their destruction.’
3Pradh4na is the Siahalese translation. IV, 3, 8. PREACHING. 235 were closed up, and the snake were to die in consequence from want of air. Would not the serpent have been killed by that man’s action ?’ ‘Yes, O king.’ ‘Just so, Nagasena, was the Tathagata the prime cause of their destruction.’ 7. ‘When the Tath4gata delivered a discourse, O king, he never did so either in flattery or in malice. In freedom both from the one and from the other did he speak. And they who received it aright were made wise', but they who received it wrongly, fell. Just, O king, as when a man shakes a mango tree or a jambu tree or a mee tree’, such of the fruits on it as are full of sap and strongly fastened to it remain undisturbed, but such as have rotten stalks, and are loosely attached, fall to the ground—[166] so was it with his preaching. It was, O king, as when a husbandman, wanting to grow a crop of wheat, ploughs the field, but by that ploughing many hundreds and thousands of blades of grass are killed—or it was as when men, for the sake of sweetness, crush sugarcane in a mill, and by their doing so such small creatures as pass into the mouth of the mill are crushed also—so was it that the Tathagata making wise those whose minds were prepared, preached the Dhamma without flattery and without malice. And they who received it aright were made wise, but they who received it wrongly, fell.’ 8. ‘Then did not those Bhikkhus fall, Nagasena, just because of that discourse ?’ 1 Bugghanti: unto Arahatship adds Hina/i-kumburé. * Madhuka. See Gataka IV, 434. The Simhalese (p. 208) has mfgahak (Bassia Latifolia). 236 THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. _IYV, 3,9. ‘ How, then, could a carpenter by doing nothing to a piece of timber, and simply laying it by, make it straight and fit for use ?’ ‘No, Sir. He would have to get rid of the bends out of it, if he wanted it straight and ready for use.’ ‘Just so, O king, the Tath4gata could not, by merely watching over his disciples, have opened the eyes of those who were ready tosee. But by getting rid of those who took the word wrongly he saved those prepared to be saved. And it was by their own act and deed, O king, that the evil-minded fell ; just as a plantain tree, or a bambd, or a she-mule are destroyed by that to which they themselves give birth’, And just, O king, as it is by their own acts that robbers come to have their eyes plucked out, or to impalement, or to the scaffold, just so were the evil-minded destroyed by their own act, and fell from the teaching of the Conqueror.’ 9. ‘And so [167] with those sixty Bhikkhus, they fell neither by the act of the Tath4gata nor of any one else, but solely by their own deed *. Suppose, O king, a man were to give ambrosia ‘ to all the people, and they, eating of it, were to become healthy and long-lived and free from every bodily ill. But one man, on eating it, were by his own bad digestion, to ? Rakkhanto, which Hina/i-kumburé expands in the sense adopted above.
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.