The Questions of King Milinda, Part II — SBE Vol. 36 (trans. T. W. Rhys Davids, 1894)

4 Viruddha, ' placed in a class' (wcedcerum wu), says the Sinhalese, p. 453. It is literally ' opposed/ and the idiom is curious.

[36] Np. 1 even of Arahatship — how much more) l is he worthy to penetrate at a glance into the four truths ! '

' The following is the reason, O king, for my saying [311] that an infant, even though he regulate his life aright, cannot attain to insight. If, O king, one under seven years of age could feel passion about things exciting to passion, could go wrong in things leading to iniquity, could be befooled in matters that mislead, could be maddened as to things that infatuate, could understand a heresy, could distinguish between content and discontent, could think out virtue and vice, then might insight be possible to him. But the mind of one under seven years of age, O king, is powerless and weak, mean, small, slight, obscure, and dull, whereas the essential principle of Nirvana is transcendental, important, weighty, wide - reaching, and extensive. Therefore is it, O king, that the infant, wTith so imperfect a mind, is unable to grasp an idea so great. It is like the case of Sineru, O king, the king of the mountains, heavy and ponderous, wide-reaching and mighty as it is, — could now a man, by his ordinary strength and power and energy, root that mountain up2?'

* Certainly not, Sir/

' But why not ? '

' Because of the weakness of the man, and because of the mightiness of Sineru, the mountain king/

1 The words in brackets are added from the Sinhalese.

2 Similar metaphors have already been used in the 71st Dilemma (p. 283 of the Pali) and in the 74th Dilemma (p. 295 of the Pali).

p. 79

'Just so, O king, is the relation of the infant's mind to Nirvana1.

55. ' And again, it is like the broad earth, O king, long and wide, great in expanse and extension, large and mighty — would now a tiny drop of water be able to wet and turn to mud that broad earth 2 ? '

' Certainly not, Sir/

* But why not, O king ? '

' Because of the minuteness of the drop of water, and because of the greatness of the broad earth/

* Just so, O king, is the relation of the infant's mind to Nirvana.

[312] 56. 'Or again, O king, suppose there were weak and powerless, minute, tiny, limited, and dull fire — would it be possible, with so insignificant a fire, to overcome darkness and make light appear over the whole world of gods and men ?'

' Certainly not, Sir/

' But why not, O king ? '

' Because of the dullness of the fire, and because of the greatness of the world/

'

' Because of the dullness of the fire, and because of the greatness of the world/

'Just so, O king, the mind of one under seven years of age is powerless and weak, limited, insignificant, obscure, and dull ; it is veiled, moreover, with the thick darkness of ignorance. Hard would it be, therefore, for it to shine forth with the light of knowledge. And that is the reason, O king, why to an infant, to one under seven years of age, even though he order his conduct aright, there can be no attainment of insight into the Truth.

1 In the text the whole comparison is repeated.

2 For a similar metaphor see above, IV, 8, 31 (p. 296 of the
Pali).

N 2

l8o THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 57.

57. ' Or again, O king, suppose there were a Salaka1, minute in the measure of its body, and rendered lean by disease, and it on seeing an elephant king, which showed the signs of rut in three places, and was nine cubits in length, and three in breadth, and ten in girth, and seven in height 2, coming to its lair, were to begin to drag the elephant towards it with the view of swallowing it — now would the Salaka, O king, be able to do so3 ? '

' Certainly not, Sir/

* But why not, O king ? '

' Because of the minuteness of the Salaka's body, and because of the magnitude of the elephant king/

' Just so, O king, the mind of one under seven years of age is powerless and weak, limited, insignificant, obscure, and dull. Grand and transcendental is the ambrosial essence of Nirvana4. With that mind so powerless and weak, so limited, insignificant, obscure, and dull, he cannot penetrate into the grand and transcendental essence of NirIV, 8, 58. OF MILINDA THE KING. l8lva/za. And that is the reason, O king, why to an infant, one under seven years of age, even though he order his conduct aright, there can be no attainment to insight of the Truth/

1 It is unknown what this kimi (insect, vermin, small creature) is, and it is not mentioned elsewhere. Sujruta mentions a sarikamukha insect, and as in one rare word at least, which the Pali translator did not sufficiently understand to restore to the ordinary Pali form (kalasi for karisi, see above, I, xxiii), we find la stood in our author's dialect for ri, there may be some connection between the two. It would be particularly interesting to be able to determine the species and habitat of this creature, as it might throw some light on the district in which our author flourished.

2 These measurements differ slightly from those given above, IV, 8, 14 (p. 282 of the Pali), for a fine elephant.

3 Compare the tale of the frog who wanted to swallow the bull in JEsop's fables (not yet traced in the Gatakas). Is the Salaka a kind of frog, much smaller than ours ?

4 So Hina/i-kumbure, p. 455.

' Very good, Nagasena ! That is so, and I accept it as you say/

[Here ends the dilemma on conversion and conduct.]

[dilemma the seventy-ninth.

the pain of nirvaiva1.]

That is so, and I accept it as you say/

[Here ends the dilemma on conversion and conduct.]

[dilemma the seventy-ninth.

the pain of nirvaiva1.]

[313] 58. 'Venerable Nagasena, how is it? Is
Nirvana all bliss, or is it partly pain2 ? '

1 The following pages will seem only so much verbiage, and will convey no idea to a European reader, unless he realises that the Nirvana discussed is of course not a salvation to be enjoyed by a 'soul' after death, and in some other world; but a state of mind to be realised and enjoyed by a man here, on this earth, in this life, and in this life only.

Though I had pointed this out already in 1876 the animistic interpretation of Nirvana is still the prevalent one, and still continues to lead to endless confusion. Why is it then, the reader may ask, that our author does not contradict the Christian interpretation of the Buddhist summum bonum in so many words? Simply because it never occurred to him as possible. It was probably even as inconceivable to him as the Buddhist interpretation of it seems to be to most Western writers.

2 This dilemma and the next have been translated into French in the 'Revue de Thistoire des Religions' for 1885 (vol. xi, pp. 336 and following). The authors name being given as Mr. Lewis da Sylva, of Colombo, the article as it stands is presumably a translation into French, made in Paris, of Mr. da Sylva's version in English from the Sinhalese, which may account for the fact that there is scarcely a sentence which is not misleading.

l82 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 58.

' Nirvana is all bliss, O king. There is no intermingling of pain in it/