The two questions put by Hemavata relate to physical commission of sin, and also whether the Buddha was far and away from jhæna. Then Hemavata put questions relating to sins of speech. “Friend Sætægiri, does your teacher, the Buddha, refrain from telling falsehoods? Does He refrain from using rude, insolent and condemning words? Does He refrain from uttering words which destroy friendliness and unity? said Hemavata.” Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha committed sins of speech, such as, using abusive words, telling lies, and telling tales which could set one person against the other. Unity among friends and allies could be disrupted by someone dropping a few words, quite politely, hinting at something which could create misunderstanding. During the time of the Buddha, King Ajætasattu wanted to invade Vajji where Licchavø princes were reigning. These princes were ruling the country in harmony and unity, and their unity was strength. Ajætasattu tried to disrupt the unity and undermine the strength of Licchavø princes by employing a ruse. He sent Vassakæra, one of his ministers, into exile, and Vassakæra went to the princes to seek refuge. Some of the princes said to others, “This Bræhmin, Vassakæra, is a cunning man. Don’t let him take refuge.” Others replied “This Bræhmin was exiled because he spoke for us against his own king. So we should take him on.” So Vassækara was received by the Licchavø princes and appointed a teacher to the children of the princes. Vassakæra taught the princes’ children well and thus earned the trust of the princes. Once he obtained the trust and confidence of the princes, Vassakæra started his campaign of setting one prince against another. The ruse he employed was subtle: He called on prince aside and asked in a whisper. “Have you taken your meal?” “What curry did you eat?” The other princes saw this, and asked the prince what the teacher told him. The prince said, truthfully, that the old man asked him whether he had taken his meal and what curry he ate. Other princes did not believe him. They thought to themselves, “One would not ask such questions in a whisper. There must be some important secret.” Next, the Bræhmin called another prince and asked. “Does your father plough the field? How many bullocks draw his plough? ” When the other princes asked him what had passed between the Bræhmin and him, the prince told them truthfully, but none of them believed him. Then the Bræhmin called another prince and asked in a whisper, “Are you cowardly?” The prince asked him in surprise, “Why? Who told you that?” Then the Bræhmin said, “Oh, your friend, that prince” and pointed to another prince. The prince was angry at being so accused and began to misunderstand the other prince. In this way, using simple words. Vassakæra set about setting one prince against another, and within three years he had succeeded in creating misunderstanding among the Licchavø princes. The disruption of the unity was so great that each prince would not like to look at the face of the other. Then Vassakæra sent a secret message to King Ajætasattu who led an army against the kingdom of the Licchavø princes, Vajji. As each prince misunderstood the others as having accused him of cowardice, none of them went out to fight the invading army. They said to themselves, “If they say I am cowardly, let them go out and fight”. So King Ajætasattu could capture the country easily. This furnishes a good lesson about backbiting. Hemavata, therefore, asked:, “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free of speech calculating to create misunderstanding?” The fourth question was: “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free of speech devoid of important and valuable important?” Such kind of talk includes the present-day novels and fairy tales which are devoid of morals and valuable messages for the good of secular life or spiritual life of people. They are written up for pleasure reading; they contain only some “stories” and descriptions just for reading pleasure. Hemavata asked his friend, Sætægiri, whether his teacher, the Buddha, was free of such kind of frivolous speech. Sætægiri said in reply, “Friend Hemavata, Gotama Buddha does not tell lies, He always refrains from falsehood.” Since the time when he was a bodhisatta (would-be Buddha) and received an assuring prophecy from a former Buddha, He had refrained from telling lies. He had always been free of that sin. He always told the truth. For the person who tells lies there is no sin he would not hesitate to commit because he will lie about his deed when asked about it. He dares do any kind of evil deed. The Dhammapada says: “He who leaps over truth or abandons truth and resorts to lies, abandons beneficial effects in his next existence, and so there is no sin he cannot commit.” Leaping over truth means abandoning truth, and that means telling lies. One who does not hesitate to tell lies can commit any kind of sin for he is ready with a false explanation. Such persons will do anything for his personal gain. One who dares do any evil deed has no good future in his next existence, and that means he leaps over the next existence. He cares only for his welfare in the present existence and does not care for what will happen to him in his next existence. Such a person will do any kind of evil deed if only it can produce material benefit for him in the present life. So untruthfulness is the leader of all other sins. The would-be Buddha had avoided this great sin of false speech in all his existences. His avoidance of this sin is, of course, through sampatta virati and samædæna virati but not through sanuccheda virati. Only when he became the Buddha did He avoid this sin through the last-named virati; that is, the avoidance through Arahatta magga. To explain further, the would-be Buddha avoided telling lies though he had not formally taken the precepts. He did not lie and always told the truth. That is avoidance through sampatta virati. If a person has taken the precepts formally, saying:” “I take the precepts formally, saying:” I take the precept of avoidance of telling falsehood,” then he avoided telling lies through samædæna virati. Such instances of avoidance of falsehood are usually in consideration of some factors, such as, advanced age, reputation, fear of censure of fear of committing a sin. However, if one has attained sotæpanna magga though meditational practice, one abandons false speech completely. At that stage telling falsehood is foreign to his nature. The Buddha had abandoned this sin since His attainment of this early stage of sotæpanna magga. When He reached the ultimate stage of Arahatta magga this matter was entirely out of the question. The Buddha had declared that He had already attained that ultimate stage. So Sætægiri gave a definite reply to the query, saying, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has completely abandoned the sin of false speech.” Then to the second question he replied, Also, the Buddha is free of using crude, abusive and contemptuous language besides being free of speech calculated to cause misunderstanding and disruption of amity and unity. In the case of Arahats there were instances of use of rude language because they had such a habit though, of course, they had no evil motives. For instance, Venerable Pilindavaccha had the habit since he was a Bræhmin of calling people “vasala” which means “mean fellow.” Even after he had become an Arahat he did not abandon this habit. As for the Buddha, there was no instance in which He had retained His habits, good or bad, after His attainment of Buddhahood. He was completely clear of all the habits that are usually carried along through one’s series of existences. To the fourth question Sætægiri replied: “Our teacher, the Buddha, speaks only of what is good, appropriate and beneficial either to the secular world or to the spiritual world.” By that Sætægiri meant that the Buddha saw the truth of any matter by His ña¼a and spoke either for the benefit of secular or of spiritual life and that He never indulged in a idle talk. There are four elements of speech. They are: (1) telling the truth, no lies; (2) no slander, saying things with a view to effecting amity and unity (3) using pleasant language, avoiding rude words: (4) avoiding idle talk, using words of no value or benefit. Those four elements apply to communication in worldly affairs as well as religious affairs. If one observes these four rules of speech, one can be said to be of clean speech. Of six kinds of speech two are permissible It is said that there are six kinds of speech in human communication. Number one is the speech that is a lie, that is not of any benefit and also not liked by others. for instance, if one makes a false accusation of immorality against a person who has a clean record, then the accuser’s speech is a lie. His accusation might be believed by another person who will then take the accused person amiss, and thus unwittingly earn demerit. The accused person will also feel badly because he has been wrongly accused. The accuser’s false accusation will not be liked by wise and moral persons. So such speech is malicious and inappropriate. Number Two: A speech is not truth, and there is no benefit from it, but it is liked by many. In this category are included tales, words causing misunderstanding and disunity, and discourses on false religions. Tales, fables and novels or stories are mere fabrications. They are not the accounts of real events, and so reading them gives no benefit to the reader who may be sexually aroused or moved to sorrow, anger or dejection. Yet these tales and stories are liked by many people. Then backbiting constitutes false accusations and descriptions of the other party, designed to cause destruction of amity and unity. The present day propaganda contains many such lies and unwarranted accusation. Such slanders cause distress in the listener but he may often feel that such speech is for his own good and like it. I shall refer to some statements in the Pi¥aka literature of the Buddha’s time. Before the Buddha attained Buddhahood there were in ancient times religions which said that sacrificial offering of animals neuralised evil deeds and brought prosperity and happiness. Even King Pasenadø Kosala had once made arrangements for sacrifice of animals to propitiate the goods. He arranged to have five hundred each of young cows, bulls, goats and sheep killed and sacrificed. At that time, at the instance of Queen Mallikæ the King approached the Buddha and submitted the case. The Buddha said that the sounds and voices that the King had been hearing, had relationship with the propitiation of the gods, that killing the animals for sacrifice was detrimental to the King’s interest, that on the contrary, if the animals were released and allowed to live, the meritorious act would bring him peace and happiness. The King realized his error and ordered the sacrificial animals released. There is no acceptable logic in killing animals for the purpose of obtaining prosperity and happiness for oneself. It is unreasonable to suppose that other’s misery will bring about one’s happiness. Yet there are many people who are in favour of sacrifices. Even in the time of the Buddha, Ajita, a leader of a sect, maintained; “There is neither kusala (good deed) nor akusala (bad deed) and these deeds have no effect because there is no next existence.” If you consider the immediate effects of good and bad deeds, you will see that this argument is not tenable. According to Buddhism, such belief is called uccheda di¥¥hi. The subscriber to such belief will not do any good deed, and he will not shun bad deed. Thus, there will be no moral quality with him that deserves praise. When after his death he goes to the next existence which he has denied, then he will go to one of the nether planes and suffer great misery. Such is his plight, according to the Buddha’s teachings. Such beliefs are of no benefit, yet many people subscribe to them. So the statement, “There is no kamma, or its effect, because there is no afterlife” is not truth and has no benefit for any, but many people like it. This is an example of the Number Two category of speech. Though many people like such statements, they must be avoided because they are not truth and have no benefit. And the Buddha avoided them. Number Three; This category includes speech that is truth but it is of no benefit and is not liked by others. This is, for instance, calling a thief, a thief, a cheat, a cheat, a fool, a fool or a blind person, blind. This is true but there is no benefit and is not liked by the person concerned. This kind of speech was never used by the Buddha. Number Four: This category includes speech which is truth but of no benefit though liked by many. This is, for instance, quoting somebody and setting him against the other. Such speech causes misunderstanding and distress in the person concerned. Though distressed, he might like it because he is under the impression that the reporter lets him know what the other person said about him. This also includes political rum ours and side-talks which may be true and which may be relished by many but it is of no benefit to the people generally; it disturbs the mind of those who are devoting themselves to religious work. Such kind of speech was never made by the Buddha. The two kinds used by the Buddha Number Five: The truth, beneficial though not liked by some persons. Such speech includes a monition which says, “In your previous existences you have done a lot of bad deeds and so you are now in misery. If you don’t mend your ways and continue doing bad deeds it will be difficult for you to save yourself from hell.” This admonition is motivated by a kind wish for the welfare of the person concerned. This direct approach may not be liked by the person concerned though it is a statement of truth, but such speech should be made. And the Buddha made such kind of speech. The Buddha said that Devadatta who tried to set up a parallel organization by persuading some of the monks to renege, thus committing what is called samghabhedaka sin, would fall into hell and suffer misery there for the entire kappa (aeon). This prediction was not liked by the Devadatta group but is was made for the benefit of others who might otherwise happen to commit a similar sin. The Buddha made such speech because He knew that it was truth and beneficial to many though not liked by some. Number Six. True, beneficial and popular. This category includes discourses on dæna (charity) søla (morality) and bhævanæ (meditation). These are the truths beneficial and liked by wise and moral persons, and so the Buddha used this kind of speech on appropriate occasions. The Buddha’s main purpose was to make such kind of speech. Now we have completed the list. Of the six categories the speech which is falsehood and not beneficial should not be made though it may be liked or not liked, by others. Such kind was never used by the Buddha. Truth but not beneficial though it may or may not be liked by others, would never be said by the Buddha. These are the four kinds the Buddha never used. Truth, beneficial though it may be liked or not liked by others, was said by the Buddha. Of course, the Buddha chose the appropriate occasion for the use of such speech. He never said anything irrelevant to the situation. To choose the right words for the right occasion is an important matter. It is not appropriate to say something true and beneficial at a place where festivities are being held. For instance, at a weeding ceremony or an initiation ceremony where people are light-minded, it is not appropriate to give discourses in serious subjects such as meditation on death or insight into the state of nibbæna. In the same way, it is not appropriate to give a discourse on Ma³gala at the alms-food offering ceremony at a funeral house. Summing up, the Buddha used only words which represent the truth and are of benefit to many. So Sætægiri said in reply to Hemavata’s query that the Buddha said what should be said after surveying the benefit in the mundane and spiritual affairs. For the reason that the Buddha used appropriate speech for appropriate occasions, He was in possession of the attribute of Sugata which means “saying good (appropriate) words”. In other words, the Buddha said what was true and beneficial to many though it may or may not be liked by some. So we will say, “The Buddha had the attribute of saying good words whether they are liked or not.” After Sætægiri had made a reply about the Buddha’s abstention from the four sins of speech, Hemavata put questions relating to the sins of the mind. Hemavata said, “Friend Sætægiri. is you teacher, the Buddha, free of desires for sensual pleasures?” Of the three sins of the mind. Abhijjhæ refers to the desire to get other’s possessions and scheming to achieve that purpose. Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha was free from abhijjhæ. People generally want to possess things that please their senses, even those who declared themselves to be Buddhas were not free from abhijjhæ. “Is the mind of your teacher, the Buddha, clear of the desire to kill and destroy?” Hemavata asked. By this he meant whether the Buddha was free of byæpæda, the wish entertained by a person to see others he hates dead or destroyed. People generally wish someone they do not like dead; some even utter the words to express that wish. The bogus Buddhas of those days were not free from this desire. They said that one could kill with impunity. The God who punished his creatures with death cannot be said to be free from this desire. The wish for other’s death, byæpæda is after all an expression of anger, and so it can never be termed clean-mindedness. Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha was so clean-minded; he said, in effect, “Is the mind of your teacher, the Buddha, free of the dirt of evil wishes; is it clean?” Then Hemavata put the next question; “Has the Buddha overcome moha (delusion rendered by ignorance)?” Micchædi¥¥hi, the wrong belief, is a combination of moha and avijjæ (ignorance). So, asking whether the Buddha was clean of micchæddi¥¥hi, which is one of the three signs of the mind. It would appear rude to put such a question about the Buddha but in those days when many leaders of heretics were claiming to be Buddhas, this question was pertinent. Among the bogus Buddhas, Puræ¼a Kassapa preached that killing, stealing and other evil deeds did not constitute sin anymore than alms-giving and other good deeds constitute merit. This belief which rejects the principle of kamma and its effect is called akiriyadi¥¥hi. Ajita, another heretical leader, preached that there was no effect of either good deed or bad deed because after death there would be no new existence. Death spelled the end of life. This belief is called nitthika di¥¥hi-nihilism. Another heretical leader, Makkhali, preached that there was no cause either for defilement and misery or for happiness and purity in all beings. this no-cause belief is called achetukadi¥¥hi. This belief also rejected kamma and its effect. Another heretical leader, Pakudha, said that all beings were composed of the four elements, plus sukha dukkha and jøva (life). and these seven elements could not be annihilated by any force. Any good or bad deed could not affect this composite entity. Therefore, neither sin nor merit had any meaning, he added. These leaders of false faiths had had wrong conceptions and were sunk under moha and avijjæ. Hemavata’s query whether the Buddha was free of micchædi¥¥hi was therefore pertinent. Hemavata asked: “Does your teacher, the Buddha, have the eye of knowledge of see all the dhamma?” Questions relating to the sins of the body, of the speech and of the mind had been mad and categorical answers received, but that by itself did not satisfy the inquiry whether the Buddha was the real Sammæ-sambuddhæ Buddha, for these attributes could be had by paccekabuddhas and Arahats. Paccekabuddha is a non-preaching, lesser, Buddha. So Hemavata put an important question; “Does your teacher, the Buddha, have the eye of knowledge to see all the Dhamma?” Sætægiri said, “Friend Hemavata, our teacher, the Buddha, has never has any sensual desire and is always clean of ta¼hæ.” This is the answer to Hemavata’s first of Number Four in the series of questions. Since the time of renunciation at the age of 29, the Buddha had been clean of sensual desires. Even when He was suffering acutely from extreme asceticism, His mind had not harkened back to the former state of joys and pleasures of the palace. He was far removed from the desire to possess other person’s possessions. When he had attained Buddhahood, the Buddha rejected all elements of ta¼hæ through Arahatta magga. This He had declared when He gave the Dhammacakka sermon, saying that He had rejected all the ingredients constituting samudaya saccæ. The answer to the second question in the series said: “The mind of our teacher is not sullied and it is always clean.” The Buddha’s mind was always permeating with mettæ for all beings and there was not a shadow of byæpæda and dosa. While A³guli Mæla was chasing the Buddha with a sword the Buddha was of a clean mind full of mettæ and karu¼æ for the man who was chasing Him. When the drunken elephant, Næ¹ægøri, rushed to gore Him, the Buddha was likewise of clean mind. So was He when Devadatta rolled down a huge rock upon Him. Even on such critical occasions His mind was clean of desires; nothing need be said of it at other times. The Buddha who had cleaned His mind of byæpæda and dosa through Arahatta magga, had always been of clean mind. Hence Sætægiri’s answer. As an answer to the third question, Sætægiri said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has overcome through the four Ariyæ maggas all moha and avijjæ.” When Hemavata meant to ask was whether the Buddha had overcome ducarita micchæ di¥¥hi based on moha, but Sætægiri’s answer went beyond that and was all-embracing. He said that Buddha had overcome all moha which is obviously a complete answer. Free of micchædi¿¿hi since receiving assuring prediction Since the time when the would-be Buddha was given an assurance by Døpa³karæ, a former Buddha, that he would become a Buddha, he had been free of beliefs which denied the principles of kamma, such beliefs as sassata di¥¥hi and uccheda di¥¥hi. When He attained Buddhahood, He rejected all kilesæ which includes, of course, ducarita micchæ di¥¥hi. He then referred to the false faiths propagated by the heretical leaders, Puræ¼a Kassapa and others, and directed his audience not to follow the wrong paths. The Buddha had said that the belief that killing, stealing and other evil deeds did not produce evil effects was the product of an attachment to rþpa, vedanæ, sañña, sa³khæra, and viññæ¼a, the five ingredients of physical matter. If rþpa was known to be subjected to anicca and dukka, the remaining ingredients would be likewise subjected, and that knowledge could not lead anyone to the wrong beliefs, the Buddha pointed out. The Buddha likened leading heretic Makkhali to a dragnet and urged His disciples to reject that false faith. Let us recount briefly Makkahli’s faith. According to him, there was no cause for either poverty or prosperity, and there was no agency to alter or improve the situation because all beings were predestined, and so they would have their share of poverty and prosperity; all beings got their existences in accordance with predestined, and so they would have their share of poverty and prosperity; all beings got their existences in accordance with predestination, either in higher planes or lower planes of existences. There was no lengthy period of misery for the bad and the foolish, nor a short period for the rich and the wise; each being was to take his own share of misery and happiness, poverty and prosperity, and just as the rolling ball of thread comes to a stop when all the thread has been untwined, so also the samsæra for each being would come to an end when he had lives out his predestined period of existence. Tallies with the theory of “man dies and is reborn as man” This idea of predestination which asserts that one has just to live out his time in the samsæra and need not make any effort for improvement for he will mature automatically and gradually, goes very well with those who do not have to make any effort to do good deeds and also with those who want to do bad deeds. It is quite a good idea for lazybones and bad-hats. It also seems to be in accord with a recently propagated belief that since man has already attained the status of man, he will not get downgraded after his death, for he will gradually mature automatically; the belief assuming the term, in Burmese, lu the lu phyit (man dies, becomes man). The Buddha likened Makkhali as a human dragnet, for once a man gets into the net of his faith he cannot get out but has to die in it. The Buddha meant by this that those who favoured this belief would not do any good volitional act which would enable them to attain to celestial planes and nibbæna, and so they would fall into hell. Now I have heard that there are some who tell their audience that it is enough for them merely to listen what they preach and that it is not necessary for anyone to do any meditation. Such preachers should make a note of the metaphor of the dragnet used by the Buddha for the leading di¥¥hi Makkhali. Not only Makkhali’s faith but also the faiths of Puræ¼a and Ajita fall into the same category of “dragnent faiths” which remove the opportunity for beings to go to celestial planes of existence or to attain nibbæna. When did false faiths spring up? When did the false faiths denying kamma and its effect spring up? According to Cakkavatti sutt, they sprang up during the era in which man’s life span was one thousand years. It is probable that till that era people had in them less amount of lobba, dosa and mahæ, and so were not enamored of this argument about kamma and its effect, but since then people were more and more depraved, and began to subscribe to these faiths. But these faiths were not as popular as they appeared to be, for even at the time of the Buddha when the span of man’s life had gone down to one hundred, they were not liked by many. But now as moral deterioration is gradually increasing, people are becoming more and more immoral, and the false faiths are beginning to flourish. And according to Cokkavatti sutta, at the time when man’s expectation off life is reduced to just ten years, morals will fade out and the term akausala (evil deed) will go out of usage. This theory of rejection of kamma is gradually gaining more favourable attention because people’s labha is increasing and their hankering after sensual pleasures is making a corresponding increase. Nowadays, there are some who are of the opinion that if one avoids evil deeds one will not achieve any useful purpose. That view leads people to these false faiths. The ignorance of kamma and its effect that is becoming rife now is the result of overwhelming lobha superimposed by moha. The Buddha realised this for Himself and so He preached to the people for making efforts to reduce the volume of lobba and moha. The disciples follow the Buddha’s direction and try to reach realisation through meditational practise and thus free themselves from these false faiths. They come to realise that the kamma of the previous existences had made them what they are in the present existence, and the kamma of the present existence, if not yet free of ta¼hæ, will determine the state of the next existence. Thus, they confirm their belief in the true faith. The Buddha was obviously free of micchæ di¥¥hi, but at a time when there were many bogus Buddhas, Hemavata’s query whether the Buddha has overcome moha which makes for micchæ di¥¥hi was quite pertinent, and Sætægiri’s answer went far beyond because it said that the Buddha had overcome all moha (that is, all the accessories of moha). In answer to the fourth question, Sætægiri said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has the type of knowledge which sees all the dhamma.” There are five kinds of eyes. they are: (1) mamsa cakkhu, the eye of flesh, or the ordinary eye; (2) dibba cakkhu, the eye of abhiññæ¼a (higher psychic powers): (3) dhamma cakkhu; the eye of knowledge; (4) samanta cakkhu (all-seeing eye) insight (5) Buddha cakkhu, the eye of the Buddha. (1) The ordinary eye is very clear and can see around to the distance of one yþjanæ. (2) Dibba cakkhu, or the eye of abhiññæ¼a can see all material forms, large or small, near or far: it can see the abodes of devas and Brahmas, the nether regions such as niraya (hell), and (ghosts and spirits); it can see the universes. This eye can see anything anywhere, any shape or colour; it can also see where a being after death has gone to take up its next existence. The Buddha had attained this eye at midnight of the day when He was to attain Buddhahood. He then saw all the 31 planes of existence in which beings of all sorts were either enjoying pleasures or suffering from misery. We need not add that He saw all of the human and animal worlds. (3) As for the eye of knowledge, the term “knowledge” refers to that gained from vippssanæ magga and paccavekkha¼æ, especially to Ariyæ magga. The eye of knowledge is often referred to as the eye of dhamma which is synonymous with sotæpanna magga ñæ¼a. (4) Samanta cakkhu is synonymous with sabbaññuta. It is the eye which sees all the dhamma. The Buddha had declared while giving the first of all His sermons, Dhammacakka sutta, that He had acquired this cakkhu and become the Buddha. (5) Buddha cakkhu means “the eye of the Buddha.” This constitutes indriyaparopriyatta ñæ¼a which is the insight into the grades of maturity of the minds of all beings. saddhæ, viriya, sati, samædhi and paññæ (well-established confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha; diligence; mindfulness; concentration; wisdom respectively) constitute indriya. The Buddha could perceive the degree and grade of maturity of all these aspects. He examined a being’s state of mental faculty to determine how that particular being stood in the matter of perceiving the Dhamma and thus attaining nibbæna. If a certain individual was still lacking in maturity, the Buddha would not yet teach him the Dhamma. The Buddha waited till he reached the stage of maturity, and that period of postponement might extend to years or months or it might be just a matter of hours or minutes. To give an instance of such postponement, a person named Bæhiya-daruciriya came from his residence in Suppæraka in the region of Aparanta on the western coast of India to Jetavana monastery near the city of Sævatthi, 200 yujanæs away. He arrived at the monastery at the time when the Buddha was out to receive alms-food in the city. He did not wait at the monastery, but went into the city to see the Buddha. When he met the Buddha he made obeisance and requested Him to teach him the Dhamma. The Buddha saw that he was not yet mature enough to receive His teaching, and said that it was not fitting to give teachings while going the rounds for alms-food. bæhiya made the request for a second time, and the Buddha refused. When he made the third request, the Buddha saw that his indriya had attained sufficient maturity and gave him the following sermon: “If seeing happens to be mere seeing, if hearing happens to be mere hearing, if arriving happens to be mere arriving, if knowing happens to be mere knowing, such actions do not happen. they do not remain still, and as they do not remains still, they are neither here nor there, and nothing remains. That non-happening is the end of misery.” Bæhiya, while hearing the sermon, became an Arahat after going through the stages of insight, the four magga and phala. This is an instance of postponement for a few minutes. Æsayænusaya ñæ¼a means an insight into the idiosyncrasies of an individual. The predilections are called æsaya, and there are two elements in the mental makeup of the individual, namely di¥¥hi and ñæ¼a. Those who are worldly usually have di¥¥hi deep in their minds they subscribe to either sassata or uccheda faiths. Those who like the former do not like the latter, for they like immortality of the soul. Those who like the latter do not like the former, for they favour the idea of the disappearance of all entities of a being after death. Though they may change over for some reasons or other they revert to their former faith later. They are like dogs which wander during the day and come back to their sleeping places at night. The Buddha knew whether an individual was inclined to the sassata faith or the uccheda faith, and directed His teachings accordingly, so that particular being realised the true faith and quickly attained magga. As for those who wanted to get out of the rut of samsæra and attain nibbæna, there are those who have acquired vipassanæ ñæ¼a and also those who have attained Ariyæ magga ñæ¼a. Although they not yet reached the stage of Ariya magga, and were still holding the views of nicca (permanence), sukha (happiness) and atta (self), they would regain the insight of anicca, dukkah and anatta when they heard the Buddha’s sermon. Such is the case with those who have gained vipassanæ insight but have stopped making note of anicca, dukkha and anatta some time, for they can regain their insight soon after they go back into their meditational practice. That is like returning to one’s home. As sotæpanna and sakadægæmi are not fully clear of kæma, ræga and byæpæda (desire, lust and anxiety), they may relapse into these feelings to a certain extent during their off periods from meditation. Once into it again, they will regain their insight of the truth, if only for some time. It is like going out of one’s home, a stately mansion, to several places during the day for one reason or another and coming back to their homes for the night. The Buddha saw this state of mind and gave a teaching best suited to the inclinations and idiosyncrasies of such individual so that he might attain the stage of magga and phala. The anusaya kilesæ comprises seven components, namely, kæma ræga (sexual desire), bhava ræga (lust for life), patiga (aversion or ill-will) mæna (conceit), di¥¥hi (wrong belief), vicikaccæ (perplexed thinking) and avijjæ (ignorance). The Buddha discerned what was uppermost in the mind of an individual and gave him an appropriate teaching. That was why those who had had an opportunity of hearing the Buddha’s sermon quickly attained nibbæna. Now these two kinds of insight, namely indriyaparopriyatta-ñæ¼a and æsayæ-nusaya ñæ¼a are together called Buddha cakkhu, “the eye of the Buddha.” This twin insight was possessed only by the Buddha and none other Arahat: not even Venerable Særiputræ, had it. Venerable Særiputræ could not determine the grades of maturity of the mental state of an individual and give him an appropriate teaching. Once, Venerable Særiputræ taught a disciple of his the asubha kamma¥¥hæna exercises, and asked him to practice it for the whole period of the Lent. The disciple could not make any progress, so Venerable Særiputræ, took him to the Buddha, reported the matter and gave up the disciple to Him. Then the Buddha viewed the idiosyncrasies of that monk and gave him a golden lotus which He had created for the purpose and asked him to focus his attention on it and make a note of the redness of the flower. The monk did as he was directed, and looking at the golden louts, gained the four stages of jhæna. Then the Buddha caused the flower to wilt and get brownish black, and the monk, rising out of the jhæna perceived the decay and realised the decay of his own body through introspection. Then the Buddha appeared before him and gave him a sermon, and the monk attained Arahatta phala while attending to the sermon. In this episode, the monk had been for five hundred existences a goldsmith and naturally liked everything neat and tidy. He was, therefore, not interested in asubha kammæ¥hæna which involves contemplation of the decomposition of corpses. Venerable Særiputræ did not know of his predilection and taught him an unsuitable method of contemplation. The Buddha, on the contrary, knew well of the individual’s prejudices and gave him lahita kammæ¥hæna (contemplation of redness) after giving him a golden lotus. Because of the appropriate teaching the monk attained within a few hours. As the Buddha alone possessed these two kinds insight, Sætægiri replied definitely; “Our teacher, the Buddha has the eyes, to see the dhamma in all its aspects.” Of the five kinds of eyes, enumerated in an earlier paragraph, all except the first kind, the ordinary eye, which needs no special mention belongs to insights pertaining to the dhamma, and the Buddha was in full possession of all the four. Hence, Sætægiri’s reply. To reiterate, Sætægiri said to his friend, Hemavata, that the Buddha was clear of all desires and lusts and was of clean mind; that the Buddha had expurgated dosa and byæpæda through anægæmmi magga meaning that His mind was never sullied by feelings of anger of anxiety. Incidentally, Venerable Særiputræ was praised for absence of dosa in him. He was never angry. A certain Bræhmin unbeliever would not believe it. He maintained that Venerable Sariputra was not angry because there was nobody to provoke his anger. So one day while Venreable Særiputræ was on his round for alms-food, he slapped the Arahat’s back severely. Venerable Særiputræ did not even look back at him and was walking with composure. Then only the unbelieving Brahmin realised the truth and humbly begged the Venerable Arahat’s pardon. In fact, not only Venerable Særiputræ but all other Arahat’s also were clear of anger. Yet they still had some idiosyncrasies which are vestiges of anger. Only the Buddha could dispense with all traits of character. His mind was always exceedingly clean. Sætægiri said the Buddha had overcome all aspects of moha. Moha means not knowing the four Truths. Conversely, it means having wrong notions of them, that is, for instance, taking dukkha as sukha. Whenever one is in the process of incessant happening and immediate fading out, there is nothing pleasant or stable; all are unpleasant and unstable, and for that reason, there is no happiness but only misery. Yet moha causes one to mistake misery for happiness. In the same way, whatever is heard, or smelt or eaten or touched or thought of is really the næma rþpa undergoing constant changes of happening and disappearing. But moha persuades one to think of them, as good and pleasant and encourages one to be mentally attached to them. And this attachment (samudaya saccæ) makes for new existences. Cessation of existences is nirodha saccæ. Moha makes one dislike it, because cessation of existences is taken to mean the final death, and is therefore not relishing. Moha makes one dislike dæna, søla and bhævanæ which are the causes for attaining nibbæna. These are taken to be arduous tasks! so is vipassanæ thought to be. That is moha: having wrong notions. Sætægiri meant to say that the Buddha had overcome all aspects of moha and was clean of moha and avijjæ. The next series of Hemavata’s questions runs as follows: (1) “Friend, Sætægiri, has your teacher, the Buddha, full possession of special ña¼a called vijjæ? (2) And also of the basic moral conduct called cara¼a? (3) Has your teacher, the Buddha, completely rid Himself of all asava kilesæ? (4) Is He free from the cycle of existences! that is, that there is no new existence for Him? To these questions Sætægiri gave categorical answers to the effect that the Buddha was in full possession of all the qualities referred to by Hemavata. As we know, Kæli, a rich man’s daughter who overheard the dialogue between the two celestial beings in the sky over her head attained the stage of sotæpanna magga. She became a sotæpan because she learned about the attributes of the Buddha and was happily adoring Him while she went through the stages of mediation, perceiving anicca, dukkha and anatta of matter and mind. Kæli’s achievement was rally wonderful. Sætægiri’s full answers are given in the following chapter, This is the end of Part III.
|
