4. “Jīvaka, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact.
5. “Jīvaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.574
6. “Here, Jīvaka, some bhikkhu lives in dependence upon a certain village or town. He abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will. Then a householder or a householder’s son comes to him and invites him for the next day’s meal. The bhikkhu accepts, if he likes. When the night is ended, in the morning he dresses, and taking his bowl and outer robe, goes to the house of that householder or householder’s son and sits down on a seat made ready. Then the householder or householder’s son serves him with good almsfood. He does not think: ‘How good that the householder or householder’s son serves me with good almsfood! If only a householder or householder’s son might serve me with such good almsfood in the future!’ He does not think thus. He eats that almsfood without being tied to it, infatuated with it, and utterly committed to it, seeing the danger in it and understanding the escape from it. What do you think, Jīvaka? Would that bhikkhu on such an occasion choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Does not that bhikkhu sustain himself with blameless food on that occasion?”
7. “Yes, venerable sir. I have heard this, venerable sir: ‘Brahmā abides in loving-kindness.’ Venerable sir, the Blessed One is my visible witness to that; for the Blessed One abides in loving-kindness.”
“Jīvaka, any lust, [370] any hate, any delusion whereby ill will might arise have been abandoned by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are no longer subject to future arising.575 If what you said referred to that, then I allow it to you.”
“Venerable sir, what I said referred to precisely that.”
8-10. “Here, Jīvaka, a bhikkhu lives in dependence upon a certain village or town. He abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion…with a mind imbued with altruistic joy…with a mind imbued with equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with equanimity, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will. Then a householder or a householder’s son comes to him and invites him for the next day’s meal. The bhikkhu accepts, if he likes…What do you think, Jīvaka? Would that bhikkhu on such an occasion choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Does not that bhikkhu sustain himself with blameless food on that occasion?”
11. “Yes, venerable sir. I have heard this, venerable sir: ‘Brahmā abides in equanimity.’ Venerable sir, the Blessed One is my visible witness to that; for the Blessed One abides in equanimity.”
“Jīvaka, any lust, any hate, any delusion whereby cruelty or discontent or aversion might arise have been abandoned by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are no longer subject to future arising.576 If what you said referred to that, then I allow it to you.” [371]
“Venerable sir, what I said referred to precisely that.”
12. “If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathāgata or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances. When he says: ‘Go and fetch that living being,’ this is the first instance in which he lays up much demerit. When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter, this is the second instance in which he lays up much demerit. When he says: ‘Go and slaughter that living being,’ this is the third instance in which he lays up much demerit. When that living being experiences pain and grief on being slaughtered, this is the fourth instance in which he lays up much demerit. When he provides the Tathāgata or his disciple with food that is not permissible, this is the fifth instance in which he lays up much demerit. Anyone who slaughters a living being for the Tathāgata or his disciple lays up much demerit in these five instances.”
13. When this was said, Jīvaka Komārabhacca said to the Blessed One: “It is wonderful, venerable sir, it is marvellous! The bhikkhus sustain themselves with permissible food. The bhikkhus sustain themselves with blameless food. Magnificent, venerable sir! Magnificent, venerable sir!…From today let the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life.”577
Upāli Sutta
To Upāli
1. THUS HAVE I HEARD. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Nāḷandā in Pāvārika’s Mango Grove.
2. Now on that occasion the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta was staying at Nāḷandā with a large assembly of Nigaṇṭhas. Then, when the Nigaṇṭha [named] Dīgha Tapassī578 had wandered for alms in Nāḷandā and had returned from his almsround, after his meal he went to Pāvārika’s Mango Grove to see the Blessed One. [372] He exchanged greetings with the Blessed One, and when this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he stood at one side. As he stood there, the Blessed One said to him: “There are seats, Tapassī, sit down if you like.”
3. When this was said, Dīgha Tapassī took a low seat and sat down at one side. Then the Blessed One asked him: “Tapassī, how many kinds of action does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action?”
“Friend Gotama, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is not accustomed to use the description ‘action, action’; the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is accustomed to use the description ‘rod, rod.’”579
“Then, Tapassī, how many kinds of rod does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action?”
“Friend Gotama, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes three kinds of rod for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action; that is, the bodily rod, the verbal rod, and the mental rod.”580
“How then, Tapassī, is the bodily rod one, the verbal rod another, and the mental rod still another?”
“The bodily rod is one, friend Gotama, the verbal rod is another, and the mental rod is still another.”
“Of these three kinds of rod, Tapassī, thus analysed and distinguished, which kind of rod does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action: the bodily rod or the verbal rod or the mental rod?”
“Of these three kinds of rod, friend Gotama, thus analysed and distinguished, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the bodily rod as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”
“Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassī?”
“I say the bodily rod, friend Gotama.”
“Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassī?”
“I say the bodily rod, friend Gotama.”
“Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassī?”
“I say the bodily rod, friend Gotama.”
Thus the Blessed One made the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī maintain his statement up to the third time. [373]
4. Then the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī asked the Blessed One: “And you, friend Gotama, how many kinds of rod do you describe for the performance
of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action?”
“Tapassī, the Tathāgata is not accustomed to use the description ‘rod, rod’; the Tathāgata is accustomed to use the description ‘action, action.’”
“But, friend Gotama, how many kinds of action do you describe for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action?”
“Tapassī, I describe three kinds of action for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action: that is, bodily action, verbal action, and mental action.”
“How then, friend Gotama, is bodily action one, verbal action another, and mental action still another?”
“Bodily action is one, Tapassī, verbal action is another, and mental action is still another.”
“Of these three kinds of action, friend Gotama, thus analysed and distinguished, which kind of action do you describe as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action: bodily action or verbal action or mental action?”
“Of these three kinds of action, Tapassī, thus analysed and distinguished, I describe mental action as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much bodily action and verbal action.”581
“Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?”
“I say mental action, Tapassī.”
“Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?”
“I say mental action, Tapassī.”
“Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?”
“I say mental action, Tapassī.”
Thus the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī made the Blessed One maintain his statement up to the third time, after which he rose from his seat and went to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta.
5. Now on that occasion the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta was seated together with a large assembly of laymen from Bālaka headed by Upāli. The Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta saw the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī coming in the distance and asked him: “Now where are you coming from in the middle of the day, Tapassī?”
“I am coming from the presence of the recluse Gotama, venerable sir.”
“Did you have some conversation with the recluse Gotama, Tapassī?” [374]
“I had some conversation with the recluse Gotama, venerable sir.”
“What was your conversation with him like, Tapassī?”
Then the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī related to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta his entire conversation with the Blessed One.
6. When this was said, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta told him: “Good, good, Tapassī! The Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī has answered the recluse Gotama like a well-taught disciple who understands his teacher’s dispensation rightly. What does the trivial mental rod count for in comparison with the gross bodily rod? On the contrary, the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”
7. When this was said, the householder Upāli said to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta: “Good, good, venerable sir, [on the part of] Dīgha Tapassī! The venerable Tapassī has answered the recluse Gotama like a well-taught disciple who understands his teacher’s dispensation rightly. What does the trivial mental rod count for in comparison with the gross bodily rod? On the contrary, the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod. Now, venerable sir, I shall go and refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine on the basis of this statement. If the recluse Gotama maintains before me what the venerable Dīgha Tapassī made him maintain, then just as a strong man582 might seize a long-haired ram by the hair and drag him to and drag him fro and drag him round about, so in debate I will drag the recluse Gotama to and drag him fro and drag him round about. Just as a strong brewer’s workman might throw a big brewer’s sieve into a deep water tank, and taking it by the corners, might drag it to and drag it fro and drag it round about, so in debate I will drag the recluse Gotama to and drag him fro and drag him round about. Just as a strong brewer’s mixer might take a strainer by the corners and shake it down and shake it up and thump it about, so in debate I will shake the recluse Gotama down [375] and shake him up and thump him about. And just as a sixty-year-old elephant might plunge into a deep pond and enjoy playing the game of hemp-washing, so I shall enjoy playing the game of hemp-washing with the recluse Gotama . Venerable sir, I shall go and refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine on the basis of this statement.”
“Go, householder, and refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine on the basis of this statement. For either I should refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine or else the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī or you yourself.”
8. When this was said, the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī said to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta: “Venerable sir, I do not agree that the householder Upāli should [try to] refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine. For the recluse Gotama is a magician and knows a converting magic by which he converts disciples of other sectarians.”
“It is impossible, Tapassī, it cannot happen that the householder Upāli should go over to discipleship under the recluse Gotama; but it is possible, it can happen that the recluse Gotama might come over to discipleship under the householder Upāli. Go, householder, and refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine. For either I should refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine or else the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī or you yourself.”
For the second time…For the third time, the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī said to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta: “Venerable sir, I do not agree that the householder Upāli should [try to] refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine. For the recluse Gotama is a magician and knows a converting magic by which he converts disciples of other sectarians.”
“It is impossible, Tapassī, it cannot happen that the householder Upāli should go over to discipleship under the recluse Gotama; but it is possible, it can happen that the recluse Gotama might come over to discipleship under the householder Upāli. Go, householder, and refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine. For either I should refute the recluse Gotama’s doctrine or else the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī or you yourself.”
9. “Yes, venerable sir,” the householder Upāli replied, and he rose from his seat, and after paying homage to the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, keeping him on his right, he left to go to the Blessed One in Pāvārika’s Mango Grove. [376] There, after paying homage to the Blessed One, he sat down at one side and asked the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, did the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī come here?”
“The Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī came here, householder.”
“Venerable sir, did you have some conversation with him?”
“I had some conversation with him, householder.”
“What was your conversation with him like, venerable sir?”
Then the Blessed One related to the householder Upāli his entire conversation with the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī.
10. When this was said, the householder Upāli said to the Blessed One: “Good, good, venerable sir, on the part of Tapassī! The Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī has answered the Blessed One like a well-taught disciple who understands his teacher’s dispensation rightly. What does the trivial mental rod count for in comparison with the gross bodily rod? On the contrary, the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”
“Householder, if you will debate on the basis of truth, we might have some conversation about this.”
“I will debate on the basis of truth, venerable sir, so let us have some conversation about this.”
11. “What do you think, householder? Here some Nigaṇṭha might be afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill [with an illness needing treatment by cold water, which his vows prohibit] and he might refuse cold water [though mentally longing for it] and use only [the permi
ssible] hot water [thus keeping his vows bodily and verbally]. Because he does not get cold water he might die. Now, householder, where would the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe his rebirth [as taking place]?”
“Venerable sir, there are gods called ‘mind-bound’; he would be reborn there. Why is that? Because when he died he was still bound [by attachment] in the mind.”583
“Householder, householder, pay attention how you reply! What you said afterwards does not agree with what you said before, nor does what you said before agree with what you said afterwards. Yet you made this statement: ‘I will debate on the basis of truth, venerable sir, so let us have some conversation about this.’”
“Venerable sir, although the Blessed One has spoken thus, yet the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”584
12. “What do you think, [377] householder? Here some Nigaṇṭha might be restrained with four checks—curbed by all curbs, clamped by all curbs, cleansed by all curbs, and claimed by all curbs585—and yet when going forward and returning he brings about the destruction of many small living beings. What result does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for him?”
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha Page 52