Many years after the Buddha Kassapa had passed away, his teachings were falling into decline. Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis were following house-holder’s ways and having sons and daughters together. In general, people were falling into the ways of wrong conduct and when they died, taking lower rebirth for the most part.
Sakka became concerned that no new devas were appearing in Tāvatiṃsa and looking over the earthly realm, he saw the reason why. “What can be done?” he wondered. Pondering the question he decided, “I have the means. I shall manifest a terrifying form to the humans and afterward teach them the Dhamma and in that way I shall stop the decline of the teachings and make the sāsana (religion) last another thousand years.”
For this purpose, Sakka transformed Mātali into a huge and horrible black dog, with four canine teeth as big as bananas and a belly as fat as a pregnant woman’s. Sakka himself took on the form of a woodsman, armed with a huge bow and a javelin of iron and led the dog by a cord around its neck. They descended to earth at a spot one yojana from the city of Bārāṇasi. Sakka cried out in a loud voice, “This world will be no more!” (nassati loko), terrifying the populace. Sakka and Mātali approached the entrance to the city and he repeated the cry.
The king ordered the city gates shut, but Sakka together with his dog leapt over the wall, eighteen hattha (cubits) high and stood within the city. Trembling with fear, the people fled to hide in their houses. The big black dog chased them through the streets and many fled into the palace grounds. The king together with his wives fled into the upper storey of the palace.
The big black dog reared up with his front paws on the window ledge and uttered a tremendous bark. This bark was heard from the lowest niraya to the highest devaloka. The whole world-system was filled with the one sound of Mātali’s bark. This was one of the four great shouts heard throughout the whole world.627
The people were too terrified to say a word, but the king raised his courage and addressed Sakka, “Dear huntsman, why does your dog bark?” “He is hungry, great king.” So the king ordered all the food in his house-hold to be given to the dog, who gulped the whole down in one great bite and roared again. Sakka said he was still hungry. So the king had all the food of the horses and elephants brought to the dog, and again he swallowed the lot in one bite. He did the same again when all the food of the entire city was brought to him. The king thought, “This is no ordinary dog. This is without a doubt a yakkha. I must determine why they have come here.”
When asked, Sakka replied, “This dog has not come to hunt game, great king, but to bring misfortune to men.” Alarmed, the king asked, “Will this dog eat the flesh of all men, or your enemies only?” “Just my enemies, great king. Those fond of misconduct and behaving in wrong ways” (adhammābhiratā visamacārino). (Jāt 469)
There follows in the text a long set of verses describing the various types of misconduct by bhikkhus and lay people with the refrain, “on these I will release the dog.” At the end of the Jātaka the Buddha reveals that he was Sakka at that time, and that Mātali was Ānanda.
3:5:20 ERĀVAṆA
In a previous chapter we recounted in brief the story of how Magha and his companions became Sakka and the other Thirty-Three great devas (§ 3:5,16). Near the beginning of Magha’s career of good works, the village head-man made a false accusation against Magha and the others and the king ordered them to be put to death by trampling, but the royal elephants refused to harm them. When Magha’s good name had been restored, the king gave him much wealth including the chief of the royal elephants. This animal served Magha in his good works, and when he died he was reborn as a deva in Tāvatiṃsa who could assume the form of a magnificent magical elephant. This was Erāvaṇa, Sakka’s great royal elephant.
The elephant was reborn as a devaputta named Erāvaṇa. There are no animal births in the deva realm. When it is time to depart for the pleasure gardens, he abandons his own form and becomes a one hundred and fifty yojana long elephant named Erāvaṇa. For the use of the Thirty-Three he creates thirty-three heads measuring two or three gavutas, in the middle of all is the thirty yojana head named Sudassana for the use of Sakka. On top of Sudassana is a twelve yojana jewelled howdah, and from time to time he raises a yojana high standard made of the seven precious things. Around the howdah is a net of tinkling bells; these are moved by a gentle wind and produce a sound like a five-piece musical ensemble playing divine music. In the middle of the howdah is a one yojana jewel seat, and there sits Sakka. The rest of the Thirty-Three sits each on his own head on a jewel seat.
On each of the thirty-three heads, Erāvaṇa has created seven tusks, each fifty yojana long. On each tusk are seven ponds, in each pond are seven lotus plants, on each plant are seven flowers, on each flower are seven petals and on each petal seven devadhītas dance. Thus everywhere on the fifty-yojana tusk is a dancing show. This is the great magnificence in which Sakka the devarājā travels.628
3:5:21 NOTE ON ANIMALS IN TĀVATIṂSA
In the descriptions of the vimānas in the Vimānavatthu we come across multiple references to song-birds, (Vv-a 11: 35 & 36) elephants,629 horses630 and even to fish in lotus pools (Vv-a 44 & 81) as among the marvellous adornments of a deva existence. We have seen that Sakka has a chariot pulled by one thousand horses and a marvellous elephant named Erāvaṇa. Nevertheless, the commentarial tradition is quite insistent that there are no animals in Tāvatiṃsa. It is carefully explained in the above passage that Erāvaṇa is a normal three gāvuta high anthropomorphic deva who transforms into the shape of an elephant when Sakka wishes to ride. In other texts it is said that Erāvaṇa is only called an elephant by convention, (DN-a 20) and that he takes the form of an elephant “for fun” (kīḷanakāle hatthirūpena) (Vv-a 1). As for Sakka’s thousand Sindh horses, it is stated that they are manomaya, “mind-made” (Jāt 494). This would imply that they are apparitional, not real beings with their own minds and kamma. Presumably, the same concept would apply to the various animals mentioned in the Vimānavatthu.631
The presence of real animals in Tāvatiṃsa was one of the early controversies among Buddhist schools. The Katthāvatthu is a late addition to the Abhidhamma that consists of summaries of controversies between the schools on various points. It probably served as a Theravāda debating manual. It includes a discussion on this point. The Theravāda position is given that “there are no animals in the deva realm” which is countered by an Andhaka opponent by citing the examples of Erāvaṇa and Sakka’s horses. The Theravāda reply is a reductio ad absurdum: “are there then elephant stables and barns full of fodder there? Are there moths and scorpions too?” (Kv 20: 4)
It would seem from this that the objection to actual animal life in Tāvatiṃsa is the intrusion of the grossly biological into an otherwise subtle and refined existence. The idea of the animals being either temporary transformations of ordinary devas or purely apparitional is not inconsistent with the generally protean and dream-like nature of existence in these realms. It is slightly odd that the Theravāda and the Andhaka debaters take the opposite position in a parallel controversy concerning the reality of the punishing demons in niraya. In this case, the Andhakas insist the “hell-wardens” are strictly apparitional, generated by the evil-doer’s own kamma, while the Theravāda spokesman counters with textual references to prove that they are actual beings (Kv 20: 3).
While it is held to be impossible to be born as an animal in Tāvatiṃsa, it is possible for an animal to be reborn as a deva. Erāvaṇa is one example: Kanthaka, the horse who carried Siddhattha away from the palace for his great renunciation is another. His rebirth as a deva is recounted in the Vimānavatthu (Vv-a 81). There also was the curious case of a frog that was drawn from his pond by attraction to the sound of the Buddha’s voice and was accidentally trod upon by one of the audience. He too was reborn in a heavenly vimāna surrounded by accharas (Vv-a 51).
3:5:22 GANDHABBAS
Gandhabbas are primarily known as a class of minor devas in the saggas who serv
e as celestial musicians. The word gandhabba (Skt. gandharva) is also used in three other senses, which partially overlap in meaning. It may refer to a special class of earth-bound devas and is sometimes used to refer to human musicians. Finally, it is used to refer to the “entity seeking rebirth”, one of the three factors needed for conception. The concept of gandharvas as a race of minor devas, or as beings intermediate between humans and devas, was known to the Vedas and Brahmanas but they were defined vaguely in the pre-Buddhist literature, only acquiring their role as musicians very late, in the Mahābharata.632
Leaving aside for the moment the last, and most problematic, use of the term as referring to an agent in the rebirth process and the use of gandhabba to refer to human musicians,633 a usage parallel to that of deva as an honorific term for human kings, we are left with two somewhat divergent concepts of gandhabba as minor deva. There are those living in the saggas and serving the higher devas, mostly but not exclusively, as entertainers and there are those who live on the earthly level as minor entities of the forest. These two conceptions of a gandhabba’s nature could be seen as entirely separate, or as a single race of beings existing on a spectrum and performing different roles.
Considering the terrestrial kind first, there is a short chapter devoted to gandhabbas in the Saṃyutta Nikāya,634 where they are described as dwelling in fragrant roots, fragrant flowers, fragrant sap and so forth (gandha is the Pali word for “scent”). They are long-lived, beautiful and abounding in happiness. It is considered a meritorious rebirth and some humans desire rebirth in that realm, which may be had by making merit with body, speech and mind, and making an aspiration for such rebirth, or particularly by making gifts of fragrant roots, flowers and so on. In another place we are told that they go through the air; the word used is vihaṅgamo, (AN 4:36) which is elsewhere a poetic synonym for bird. Two other references to gandhabba depart somewhat from this gentle, sylvan image. The Ātānātiya Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya includes the gandhabbas among those beings who may “with hostile intent” disturb solitary bhikkhus in their meditation, some of them being “wild, fierce and terrible” (DN 32). In another place they are listed among those great beings (mahā bhūta) that live in the ocean, together with the sea-monsters, asuras and nāgas (AN 8:19). In several places, where races of beings are listed, gandhabbas are distinguished from devas; for example when the brahmin Doṇa asks the Buddha, “are you a human? Are you a deva? A gandhabba? A yakkha?” (AN 4:36) Likewise, when it is said that many kinds of beings revere and follow the Buddha the gandhabbas are included along with devas, humans, asuras and nāgas (DN 30). The Cātumahārājika deva Dhataraṭṭha, the Great King of the East, is the lord of the gandhabbas, and he “enjoys their songs and dances” (DN 20 & 32).
Turning to the gandhabbas born into the sagga realms, principally Tāvatiṃsa: they are definitely considered to be the lowest class of devas residing there. A devout human woman, who was reborn as a male deva of Tāvatiṃsa, spoke disparagingly about three bhikkhus who had been reborn as gandhabbas: “Three bhikkhus following the holy life under the Buddha were reborn into the inferior (hīna) bodies of gandhabbas. They were devoted to the pleasures of the five senses and they served us and attended upon us.” The commentary to this passage says this was by making music for the devas. After being rebuked by the deva, “It is a sorry sight to see followers of the Buddha reborn into the lowly state of gandhabbas,” two of them renounced sense pleasure and were reborn as brahmās, but one proved incorrigible.635 In another place it is said that virtuous beings are reborn into one of the various classes of devas, or “at the least,” among the gandhabbas (DN 18). The music of the gandhabbas can serve as the accompaniment to the dancing shows of the accharas (Vv-a 64). We hear of the gandhabbas performing as an orchestra of five instruments in the Citralatāvana, one of the wonderful pleasure parks of Tāvatiṃsa (Vv-a 64). The gandhabbas may also serve as messengers for the higher devas, as when the gandhabba Pañcasikha is sent to report to the Buddha about the proceedings in a council of the devas (DN 19).
The role of gandhabbas in the rebirth process is very problematic, and discussion of this point has been lively.636 My purpose here will not be to attempt a resolution, but merely to lay out the problem from the relevant sources. To begin with, there are two passages in the Majjhima Nikāya which describe the start of a new life at conception. Both are essentially identical:
Conception (gabbhassāvakkanti lit. “appearance of the embryo”) occurs with three (factors): union of mother and father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present (paccupaṭṭhit.).637
The commentary to this passage says:
Gandhabba is a being arriving at that place (tatrūpagasatto). It does not stand nearby watching the union of the mother and father. It is a being which, through the mechanism of kamma (kammayantayantito), takes the opportunity to be reborn. (MN-a 38)
The sub-commentary says that the being is attending to a sign (nimitta) of a suitable rebirth (uppajjanagatiyā) and that this sign is called a “scent” (gandha) (MN-ṭ 38). Hence, the being taking rebirth is called gandhabba because it figuratively “smells” the place of rebirth.
This last definition seems contrived, and it probably was. The orthodox Theravāda doctrine, as codified in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, does not allow for any kind of “intermediate state” (antarābhava). “Immediately after the death-consciousness has ceased, a rebirth-linking consciousness is established in the subsequent existence.”638 In other words, as soon as a person dies, he or she is immediately reborn into a new womb. This is in stark contrast to many other schools of Buddhism. The Kathavatthu contains a debate on this question where the Theravāda interlocutor is forced to defend his position against a Buddhist of another school.639 The doctrine of an “intermediate state” between death and rebirth reaches its most elaborate formulation in the Tibetan teachings about the Bardo.
Thus, the idea of a dead person becoming some kind of disembodied spirit and physically travelling to the point of conception, whether we call this entity a gandhabba or not, is anathema to the orthodox Theravāda interpretation. Obviously, this makes the formulation in the Majjhima problematic, hence the attempt of the sub-commentator to explain it away as a figure of speech. It certainly makes the gandhabba of the rebirth process completely distinct from the other kinds of gandhabba.
Leaving aside the Theravāda for the moment, when we look at the Abhidharmakośa we find an interpretation that synthesizes some of the divergent ideas about gandhabbas. This text definitely classifies the gandharva (the Sanskrit form is used here) as an intermediate being. It is “mind-made” (manomaya), travels through the air and feeds on odours. It is to be considered as belonging to the continuity of the new life, thus is already a human-to-be or a deva-to-be etc. Lower gandharvas feed on foul odours, higher ones on sweet odours. It is invisible to ordinary vision and its travels are not impeded by any material object; the gandharva can pass even through diamond. Vasubandhu cites controversy about the length of time a being spends as a gandharva; some say seven days, others seven weeks and yet others say it is indeterminate. When the gandharva is to become a human being, it eventually finds the copulating couple who are to be its parents. If it is to become a male, the gandharva develops sensual attraction to the woman (its future mother) and animosity as a rival towards the man (its future father). These gender roles are reversed if the gandharva is to be reborn female.
When the mind is troubled by these two erroneous thoughts, it attaches itself through the desire for sex to the place where the organs are joined together, imagining that it is he with whom they unite. Then the impurities of blood and semen is found in the womb; the intermediate being, enjoying its pleasures, installs itself there. Then the skandhas (“aggregates”, Pali khandha) harden; the intermediate being perishes; and birth arises that is called “reincarnation” (pratisaṃdhi).640
No doubt Buddhaghosa was aware of this doctrine and rejected it when he was composing the comme
ntary to the Majjhima passage cited above. That is why he felt the need to explicitly state that the gandhabba is not “a being standing nearby watching the union of the mother and father.”
3:5:23 PAÑCASIKHA
One individual gandhabba whom the sources frequently mention is Pañcasikha. He is depicted as playful, sensuous and of a youthful and pleasing appearance; when the brahmā Sanankumāra assumed a coarse form in order to be visible to the devas of Tāvatiṃsa, it is the form of Pañcasikha that he chose because “the form of Pañcasikha is dear to all the devas.”641 He plays a vīṇā, a string-instrument to akin to a lute (DN 21). But this is no ordinary vīṇā, it is the beluvapaṇḍuvīṇā, a magical vīṇā made of beluva wood (from the bael or stone-apple tree, Aegle marmelos (PED). Ordinarily, the base would be fashioned from a gourd). When a string is plucked, the beautiful tone reverberates for four months (Sn-a 3:2). Its various fittings are fashioned from gold, sapphire and coral (DN-a 21).
The beluvapaṇḍuvīṇā had originally belonged to Māra:
For seven years Māra had sought to find some weakness in the Buddha by which he could tempt or frighten him. He had been like a crow circling a stone, thinking it was a piece of meat, and had reaped only weariness and frustration. At last, Māra acknowledged his defeat and in despair disappeared from the Blessed One’s presence. As he did so with a great weariness overcoming his limbs, the magical vīṇā slipped from under his arm and was immediately picked up by Sakka, king of the devas. This he gave to the Pañcasikha. (Sn-a 3:2)
In his previous human existence Pañcasikha had been a boy who wore his hair in five top-knots. He made much merit building pavilions for travellers at cross-roads and digging wells, but died young. He was reborn as the gandhabba Pañcasikha but retained his youthful appearance.642 His body is of a golden colour. He wears a thousand cart-loads of ornaments and nine jarfuls of scent.643 His celestial garments are brightly coloured and he still wears his golden hair in five top-knots (ibid .).
The Buddhist Cosmos Page 49