27b: The 9th Rains Retreat (Schism)
A Great Dispute within the Saṅgha
When the Buddha was residing in the Ghositārāma monastery, there arose a dispute
One day, the one versed in the discourses entered the privy and came out, leaving a certain amount of water in the cup which was usually kept in the privy for common use. The monastic versed in the discipline, on entering the privy after him, saw the amount of water that was left in the cup, came out and asked the one versed in the discourses: “Friend, did you leave some water remaining in this cup?” The one versed in the discourses replied: “Friend, yes, I did,” with all sincerity. The one versed in the discipline complained: “Well, friend, don’t you know that such an act is tantamount to commission of an offence (āpatti)?” The one versed in the discourses replied: “No, I didn’t know, my friend.” Then the one versed in the discipline explained: “Friend, to leave any amount of water in the cup is an offence (āpatti).”
The monastic versed in the discourses said: “If I am guilty of an offence, I am prepared to remove the offence by confessing.” Whereupon, the monastic versed in the discipline explained: “Friend, if such an act was committed through forgetfulness and without any volition there lies no fault.” On hearing this, the monastic versed in the discourses formed the idea that he had not committed the offence of leaving behind some water in the cup.
The monastic versed in the discipline had thought that such an offence as leaving the remaining amount of water in the cup does not amount to an offence (āpatti) by reason of absence of mind, which is devoid of volition. As a matter of fact, such an offence is tantamount to an offence (dukkaṭa-āpatti) no matter whether such an act was committed through forgetfulness or without volition.
The monastic versed in the discipline told his disciples that the monastic versed in the discourses did not know when he was guilty of an offence, in an attempt to decry the one versed in the discourses. And when the disciples of the monastic versed in the discipline met the disciples of the one versed in the discourses, the former told the latter that their teacher had no knowledge of the guilt he had committed. When his disciples brought this news to his knowledge, the monastic versed in the discourses said: “That monastic versed in the discipline himself told me that I was not guilty of that offence, and now, he had changed his words and accused me of being guilty of that offence. He has told a lie.”
The disciples of the monastic versed in the discourses went and told the disciples of the monastic versed in the discipline: “Your teacher is a liar.” The quarrel thus began. The monastic versed in the discipline managed to obtain the support of his own associates and charged the monastic versed in the discourses with the offense of not seeing the fault as a fault (āpattiyā adassane ukkhepanīyaṁ) and suspended him with a formal resolution.
The monastic who was thus suspended, being well-informed and of social standing, approached his friends and associates and said: “This is a case where there was no fault, not a case where there is fault. I am unfallen, I have not fallen. I am unsuspended, I am not suspended. Although they have suspended me I am not guilty, I was suspended by a formal act which was not legally valid. I would beseech you to stand by me as my partisans on account of the rule, on account of the discipline (Vinaya). He thus gained many friends, supporters, and associates. A messenger was also sent to monastics in the villages and country to explain the situation. Thus the monastics in the country who were his associates also became his partisans.
The disciples of the suspended monastics versed in the discourses went to those who suspended them and complained by way of refutation: “Friends, that is a non-guilty case, it is not a case entailing any offence (āpatti). Wherefore, the monastic versed in the discourses was not guilty of any offence. He is unsuspended though he has been suspended by a formal act, because it was not legally valid.”
The monastics involved in suspending, in turn, told the suspended monastics that, it was a case of an offence (āpatti), it was not a non-offence case, the monastic versed in the discourses was, therefore, guilty of an offence; it was not that he was not guilty; therefore he deserved to be suspended by a formal act of suspension which was legally valid: “Friends, do not pursue this course, do not attend upon him any more.” But their appeals fell on the deaf ears of the monastics versed in the discourses; they continued in attending upon the suspended monastic,
The Buddha Exhorts the Rival Factions
An unknown monastic approached the Buddha and reported with respect all that had happened. Whereupon, the Buddha uttered: “The Saṅgha is divided, the Saṅgha is divided,” twice in succession and went to the monastics who had suspended the monastic versed in the discourses and addressed them from a prepared seat.
Monastics had, by then, not actually been divided, but the Buddha had said it in anticipation of the imminent danger of a division in due course of time. For instance, one might have said: “The rice grains have ripened,” when one noticed the break of rains ushering in the season for harvesting, although they were yet ripe; hence, the Buddha’s utterance.
The Buddha said: “Monastics, you should not, through pride and vanity, think of suspending or expelling a monastic on account of a simple matter. Let us suppose that a certain monastic might be guilty of an offence (āpatti) though he did not think that it was an offence, on the one hand. On the other hand, there might be monastics who held it to be an offence (āpatti). Monastics, if those monastics know concerning that monastic: “This venerable one is well-informed and well versed in the Discourses and the Discipline (Dhamma-Vinaya) and the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha), intelligent and wise, experienced, conscientious, scrupulous and desirous of the three training practices; if we expel this monastic for not seeing the offence, if we do not carry out the Observance together with this monastic, and carry out the Observance without this monastic, by doing so, there will be dispute, strife, fighting, there will be a schism in the order, there will be an altercation in the order, dissension in the order, differences in the order.” Monastics, knowing this, monastics should not suspend or expel a monastic for not seeing an offence to ward off schism and promote unity.
Monastics, you should not, through pride and vanity, think of suspending or expelling a monastic on account of a simple matter. Let us suppose that a certain monastic might be guilty of an offence (āpatti) though he did not think that it was an offence, on the one hand. On the other hand, there might be monastics who held it to be an offence (āpatti). Monastics, if those monastics know concerning that monastic: This venerable one is well informed and well versed in the Discourses and the Discipline (Dhamma-Vinaya) and the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha), intelligent and wise, experienced, conscientious, scrupulous and desirous of the three training practices; if we expel this monastic for not seeing the offence, and do not perform the Invitation (Pavāraṇā) ceremony inviting one another for pardon together with this monastic, if we perform the Invitation without this monastic; if we do not carry out a formal act of the order (Saṅgha-kamma) together with this monastic, if we will carry out a formal act of the order without this monastic; if we do not sit on a seat together with this monastic, if we sit on a seat without this monastic; if we do not sit to drink gruel together with this monastic, if we sit to drink gruel without this monastic; if we do not sit in a refectory together with this monastic, if we sit in a refectory without this monastic; if we do not dwell under the same roof with this monastic, if we dwell under one roof without him; if we do not pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms, together with this monastic, if we will pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms without this monastic; by doing so, there will be dispute, strife, fighting, there will be schism in the order, there will be an altercation in the order, dissension in the order, differences in the order. Monastics, knowing this, monastics should not suspend or expel such a monastic for not seeing an offence to ward off schism and promote unity.”
After teaching the above discourse on the need for unity in the Saṅgha to the monastics who had suspended the monastic, the Buddha went over to the disciples of the suspended monastic who was well-versed in the discourses and delivered this discourse: “Monastics, when you have committed an offence, you should not think that amends should not be made for the offence, thinking: ‘We have not committed an
Monastics, supposing a certain monastic might be guilty of an offence (āpatti), though he did not think it was an offence, on one hand; and on the other hand, there might be monastics who held it to be an offence (āpatti). Monastics, if that monastic, who thinks he has not committed an offence, knows concerning those monastics: These venerable ones are well informed and well versed in the Discourses and the Discipline (Dhamma-Vinaya) and the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha), intelligent and wise, conscientious, scrupulous and desirous of the three training practices. Either because of me or because of anyone else, these monastics should not take a wrong action through selfish desire, ill-will, through ignorance, through fear.
If these monastics suspend me for not seeing an offence and if they do not carry out the Observance together with me, if they carry out the Observance without me; if these monastics do not perform the Invitation ceremony together with me, if they perform the Invitation ceremony without me; if they do not carry out a formal act of the order (Saṅgha-kamma) together with me, if they will carry out a formal act of the order without me; if they do not sit on a seat together with me, if they sit on a seat without me; if they do not sit to drink gruel together with me, if they sit to drink gruel without me; if they do not sit in a refectory together with me, if they sit in a refectory without me; if they do not dwell under the same roof with me, if they dwell under one roof without me; if they do not pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms, together with me, if they will pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms without me; by doing so, there will be dispute, strife, fighting, there will be schism in the order, there will be altercation in the order, dissension in the order, differences in the order. Monastics, knowing this, the monastic, should confess the guilt even out of faith in the Saṅgha to ward off schism and promote unity.”
After delivering this discourse for unity of Saṅgha, the Buddha rose from the seat and departed.
The monastic versed in the discourses had honestly expressed his desire to confess and to ask for pardon, if he had committed an offence when the monastic versed in the discipline made a complaint at first. When he was told subsequently that any offence committed through thoughtlessness and without volition does not amount to offence or a wrong act he sincerely thought he was free from guilt.
Had the Buddha decided to blame those versed in the discipline for suspending the monastics versed in the discourses on such grounds, they would have accused him of taking sides with their opponents, thus exposing themselves to the risk of committing an offence against him, a demerit that could direct them to the realms of misery.
Again, the monastic versed in the discourses had knowingly left a certain amount of water in the cup and as such, he was guilty of an infringement of a light offence (dukkaṭa-āpatti). His disciples had expressed their opinion that such a judgment was legally invalid, through attachment to their teacher.
Had the Buddha decided to approve the judgment of those versed in the discipline on such grounds, the disciples of the monastic, who was versed in the discourses, would naturally accuse him of taking sides with their opponents thus exposing themselves to the risk of committing an offence against him, a demerit that could direct them to realms of misery.
It should be borne in mind therefore, that the Buddha had thus refrained from putting blame on either of the rival groups in the interest of peace and tranquillity and after delivering discourses for the unity of the Saṅgha, made his departure from that place.
Exposition on Being in Communion
Now at that time, monastics who had been suspended carried out the Observance (Uposatha) and performed the formal legal acts (Saṅgha-kamma) in the boundary hall (sīma) of the same monastery; whereas those who had expelled the former, carried out the Observance and performed the formal legal acts by having gone outside the monastery.
One of the monastics of the latter group approached the Buddha with profound respect and addressed him: “Most exalted Buddha, those monastics who had been suspended carried out the Observance and performed the formal legal acts in the boundary hall (sīma) of the same monastery; whereas those who expelled the former carried out the Observance and performed the formal legal acts by having gone outside the monastery.”
Whereupon the Buddha gave the following answer to that monastic: “Monks, in case those suspended monastics carry out the Observance and perform other legal acts in accordance with the procedure for a motion and proclamation (ñatti-kamma-vācā) laid down by me, in the boundary hall (sīma) of the monastery, their performances must be held to be quite in order and legally valid.
In the same way, if you, the suspending monastics, who have suspended the former, carried out the observance and performed other legal acts in accordance with the procedure for a motion and proclamation (ñatti-kamma-vācā), laid down by me, in the boundary hall (sīma) of the monastery, your performances also must be held to be quite in order and legally valid.
Monks, what is the reason for this? The suspended monastics belong to a different communion from yours, they are not associated with you and you belong to a different communion from theirs through not associating with them.
Monks, there are two grounds for belonging to a different communion (ñāṇa-saṁvāsa): 1) One’s own effort; one makes oneself belong to a different communion; and 2) being suspended by the Saṅgha for not seeing an offence (apatti), for not making amends, for not abandoning a wrong view. Thus there are these two grounds for belonging to a different communion.
Monks, there are two grounds for belonging to the same communion (samāna-saṁvāsa): 1) One’s own effort, one makes oneself belong to the same communion; and 2) the whole Saṅgha lifts the suspension and restores (osaraṇīya-kamma) the monastic who was suspended (ukkhepanīya-kamma).
There are two grounds for being in a different communion (ñāṇa-saṁvāsa) and two grounds for being in the same communion (samāna-saṁvāsa), as explained by the Buddha.
There are two groups or two types of monastics: 1) Lawful monastics (Dhamma-vādi) who suspended the guilty monastics; and 2) unlawful monastics who are suspended for being guilty of one or the other offence (adhamma-vādi). Should a monastic, residing with one group or the other, decide, after scrutinizing the views of both groups of monastics, that the monastics who are suspended are unlawful monastics, and the monastics, who suspended them are lawful ones, he himself has made himself of different communion from the suspended monastics and of the same communion with the suspending monastics.
Conduct of the Monastics in the Dispute
Now, at that time, monastics fell into dispute, quarrelling and causing strife at the refectories in the villages. They behaved unsuitably towards one another in action and in speech. They came to blows. People looked down upon them, criticized them. Well conducted and modest monastics reported this unhappy state of affairs to the Buddha who
Having made enquiries and having rebuked them, the Buddha gave an appropriate talk and addressed them thus: “Monastics, when the Saṅgha is divided, and if it is not behaving according to the rules, if there is discord, you should sit down separately, thinking: ‘At the very least we must not behave unsuitably towards one another in physical action and in speech. We cannot come to blows.’ Monastics, when the Saṅgha is divided, if it is behaving according to rule and if there is friendliness, you may sit down next to one another.” These are the guidelines given to the rival monastics for observance, whenever there is dissension amongst the Saṅgha.
The two rival groups of monastics went on quarrelling, making strife, and falling into disputes in the midst of the Saṅgha, wounding one another with the weapon of the tongue. The Saṅgha was unable to quell the dispute.
Then a certain monastic approached the Buddha, having paid respects to him, he stood at a suitable distance and reported the matter and requested him to approach the quarrelling monastics.
Whereupon, the Buddha went to the monastics and exhorted them: “Monastics, it is not at all right and proper for you to be quarrelling, fighting and opposing one another. Enough! No disputes, no quarrelling, no contentions.”
Whereupon, a monastic of the suspended group, who had the welfare of the Buddha at heart, said: “Most exalted Buddha, let the lord of the Dhamma wait, let the Fortunate One remain unconcerned, intent on abiding in peace for the present. We will be responsible for these disputes, quarrels and strife.” This was his appeal to the Buddha. The Buddha exhorted them twice in the same strain, and the monastic of the suspended group repeated his appeal for two times in succession.
The suspended monastic was a well-wisher of the Buddha. He took pains to appeal to him not to trouble himself about the matter at a time when the flame of anger was at its peak.
But the Buddha perceived that the two rival groups would come back to their senses once the anger was removed, and so out of compassion for these monastics, he delivered a discourse on the life story of Dīghāvu with that objective in view.
The Story of Dīghāvu
This story has been compiled from the story about the Chapter about the Monks from Kosambī (Kosambakakkhandhaka, Vin Mv 10). For further particulars, refer to the Birth Story about King Dīghiti of Kosala (Dīghīti-kosala-jātaka, Ja 371), and the Birth Story at Kosambī (Kosambī-jātaka, Ja 428).
Once, there was a king of Benares by the name of King Kāsi, who had a great amount of wealth, a big army consisting of war chariots, elephants, horses, infantry, a vast expanse of land, a big treasury and fully stocked granaries. The King of Kosala, by the name of Dīghīti, was poor, having only a small amount of wealth, a small army, a limited number of war chariots, elephants, horses and infantry, a small treasury and granaries. Monastics, King Brahmadatta, alias King Kāsi, prepared for war against King Dīghīti, and marched towards Kosala with a great army comprised of war chariots, elephants, horses and infantry.
On hearing the alarming news, King Dīghīti of Kosala weighed in his mind: “King Brahmadatta of Kāsi is rich, he owns an enormous amount of wealth, has a great army, comprised of war chariots, elephants, horses and infantry, a big treasury, a vast expanse of land and granaries, whereas, I am comparatively poor, having a small amount of wealth, a small army and I am sure to be defeated by the first attack launched by that king. As such, it would be wiser to evacuate than to be defeated.” Therefore, taking his queen, he fled from his city long before the enemy reached it.
Monastics, King Brahmadatta took possession of King Dīghīti’s troops, chariots, territory,
The Queen Conceives a Child
Monastics, after some time, the Queen of King Dīghīti became pregnant and developed a strong desire for a certain particular thing, such as to see at sunrise a fourfold army, fully arrayed, fully equipped, standing on level ground and to drink the water used in the washings of swords. The queen made it known to her husband, King Dīghīti of Kosala, that she had conceived a child and that she had a strong desire to see a fully equipped army at sunrise, and to drink water used in the washing of swords.
Whereupon, the King of Kosala said: “Dear queen, how will it be possible for us to see a fully equipped army and to get water used for the washing of swords, when we are in a humble condition!” The queen replied: “Your majesty, I will die if my wishes are not fulfilled.”
At that time, King Dīghīti’s boyhood friend was the Brahmin priest of Brahmadatta, King of Kāsi. Monastics, Dīghīti, King of Kosala went to see his boyhood friend, the Brahmin priest and told him: “My dear friend, my queen is pregnant, and she has a strong desire to see a fully equipped army standing on a vast and level plain, and to drink the water used in the washing of swords.”
Whereupon, the Brahmin said: “Your majesty, in that case, I should like to see the queen.” Monastics, the queen went to see the Brahmin priest. When the Brahmin noticed the queen coming from a distance, he got up and arranging his upper garment over one shoulder and with his hands clasped announced joyously: “Indeed, a King of Kosala is in your womb,” for three times in succession. And he assured the queen: “Be happy, good queen, you will get a chance at sunrise to see the fully equipped fourfold army arrayed on a level ground and drink the washing of swords.”
Monastics, the Brahmin priest went to King Brahmadatta of Kāsi and addressed him, saying: “Your majesty, the signs which I can see are such that a fully equipped army must appear on a vast plain at sunrise and the royal swords are to be washed then.” The king ordered his courtiers to carry out the instructions given by the Brahmin priest.
Dīghāvu is Born
The queen of King Dīghīti had her strong desires fulfilled as arranged by the Brahmin; she had seen a fully equipped army standing on a vast plain and drunk the water used in washing the swords. Monastics, she gave birth to a baby son in due time and he was named Dīghāvu.
Monastics, when Prince Dīghāvu had grown to an age of discretion, it occurred to King Dīghīti: “The King Brahmadatta of Kāsi had hitherto done much harm to us; he had seized our army, war chariots, elephants, horses, and territories including small villages; deprived us of our treasuries and granaries. He would do away with the three of us at once if he found out our whereabouts; it would be safer for our son, Dīghāvu, to stay outside the city. He accordingly arranged for Dīghāvu to stay aloof from them at a place outside the boundaries of the city. Monastics, Prince Dīghāvu learnt various arts and sciences at that time during the period of his exile.
Monastics, a barber of King Dīghīti of Kosala had free access to the palace of the King of Kāsi. Monastics, when the barber saw the king and queen of Kosala taking refuge in an old hut of the potter under the guise of ascetics on the outskirts of the city, he went to King Brahmadatta of Kāsi and reported: “Your majesty, King Dīghīti and his queen have been taking refuge in a hut of a potter under the guise of ascetics on the outskirts of the city.” Monastics, King Brahmadatta ordered his attendants to bring the king and queen of Kosala to him. The attendants did as they were bid.
Monastics, King Brahamadatta of Kāsi gave orders to his servants: “Courtiers, fasten
King Kosala’s Doctrine of Peace
At that time, Prince Dīghāvu had a longing to see his parents. He thought to himself: “It is quite a long time since I have seen my parents, I had better go and see them now.” He therefore entered the town and came face to face with his ill-fated parents, with their hands fastened tight at their backs, their heads shaved, being beaten up and paraded from street to street, from crossroads to crossroads to the unbearable sounds of the drums. He was greatly shocked and choked with a deep sense of sorrow, but he managed to go to his parents, even with strained emotions.
Monastics, when King Dīghīti saw his son, Dīghāvu coming from a distance, he uttered these words of advice meant for his son: “My dear son, Dīghāvu, do not look far and do not look close either; my dear son, Dīghāvu, revenge does not promote peace; my dear son, Dīghāvu, only non-resentment gives peace.”
When King Dīghīti uttered such words of advice, the courtiers misunderstood him and said: “This King Dīghīti of Kosala had lost his head; where is his son, Dīghāvu? Whom is he addressing as: ‘My dear son, Dīghāvu, do not look far and do not look close either; my dear son, Dīghāvu, revenge does not promote peace; my dear son, Dīghāvu, only non-resentment gives peace?’ ”
When King Dīghīti heard their remarks, he retorted: “My dear men, I am not speaking thus through loss of mind, only wise men will understand the meaning of what I said.”
King Dīghīti uttered the same words of advice three times and the executioners made the same comments three times. King Dīghīti gave the same explanation to them, to show that he was mentally sound and that it was meant for wise men who would understand the meaning.
Monastics, the executioners went on punishing the royal couple all along the route and finally took them out of the city via the south gate, as instructed by their king. King Dīghīti and his queen were cut into four pieces and their severed limbs discarded to the four quarters. The executioners went back into the city after posting guards at the place of execution.
Monastics, Prince Dīghāvu went into the city and came out with some liquor for presentation to the guards, who soon got drunk and fell into deep slumber. Dīghāvu collected a pile of firewood and placed the remains of his royal parents on top of the pile and cremated them in the traditional way. He raised his clasped hands in a respectful manner and circumambulated about the bonfire.
At that time, King Brahmadatta was in the upper chamber of his palace. He caught sight of Dīghāvu through the window, in the act of circumambulating the funeral pyre three times with his palms joined and raised toward it. It at once occurred to him: “That man must be one of the near relatives or kinsmen of Dīghīti, and the one who would certainly do something against me.” He was greatly annoyed that no one was thoughtful enough to bring such a case to his notice.
Prince Dīghāvu Serves as Elephant Keeper
Monastics, Prince Dīghāvu went into the jungle and mourned over the loss of his royal parents, weeping for a long while and then he re-entered the city. He went to the elephant stable near the palace and requested the royal elephant master to employ him as a trainee. His request was readily granted.
Monastics, Prince Dīghāvu used to get up early and sing sweet songs and play the harp harmoniously at the elephant shed every morning. On hearing the singing and playing of the harp, King Brahamadatta asked his couriers as to who was the singer who played on the harp early in the morning every day. The courtiers gave the king a full description of the singer who played the harp. The king then ordered his men to bring the singing lad who played the harp so well.
When the couriers brought Dīghāvu before the king, he was asked: “Boy, is it you who sings sweet songs and plays the harp so well at the elephant stable early in the morning everyday?” The prince gave his answer in the affirmative. Then the king ordered him to sing and to play his harp in his presence.
Monastics, Prince Dīghāvu sang songs sweetly in harmony with the tuning of the harp, in compliance with the royal orders. The king was greatly delighted with his performance and ordered the boy to serve him as one of the attendants. The prince undertook to serve as an attendant to the king. In due course, he was upgraded to a confidential position of trust in consideration of the five qualities that he possessed: 1) Getting up earlier than the king; 2) going to bed after the king; 3) always being alert and willing to serve; 4) doing all that would please the king; and 5) being in the habit of speaking well and affectionately.
Prince Dīghāvu Honours His Father’s Words
Monastics, one day, King Brahmadatta of Kāsi ordered Prince Dīghāvu to harness the royal chariot: “Dear lad, harness the chariot, we will go into the deer forest.” The prince replied: “Very well, your majesty,” and when everything was set, he reported the matter to the king: “Your majesty, the chariot is ready, and it is up to your majesty to decide when to leave.” The king started off hunting for big game in the forest followed by a company of his army.
Prince Dīghāvu drove away the royal chariot at such a great speed that it eventually got cut off from the royal followers. When they had gone far enough, King Brahmadatta ordered Prince Dīghāvu: “Boy, we have been cut off from the party, I am tired and you might unharness the chariot, so that I might take some rest.” The prince unharnessed the royal chariot and sat cross-legged on the ground. The king lay down to relax with his head resting on the lap of the young lad. He soon fell into a slumber through tiredness.
Monastics, when the king was sound asleep, Prince Dīghāvu’s mind began to work: “This King Brahmadatta of the Kāsi country has done much harm to us. He had forcibly seized our army, elephants, horses, chariots, territories, treasuries and granaries. It was he who has killed my parents; the opportunity for revenge upon him has presented itself now.”
He drew his sword out, monastics, but his father’s advice crossed his mind: “My dear son, do not look far and do not look close either; my dear son, Dīghāvu, revenge does not promote peace; my dear son, Dīghāvu, only non-resentment gives peace.” Thinking “It would not be right for me to go against my father’s advice,” he replaced the sword in its sheath.
For a second time, for a third time, Prince Dīghāvu drew his sword out to wreak vengeance on his old enemy and for the second and third time he replaced his sword in its sheath, remembering the advice given by his royal father.
Then Brahmadatta, the King of Kāsi, frightened and agitated, alarmed, unsteadily got up all of a sudden from his sleep. Whereupon, Prince Dīghāvu asked him: “Your majesty, what has caused you to get frightened, agitated and alarmed?” The king replied: “Boy, I dreamt in my sleep that I was running away for my life through fright, running from the son of the King of Kosala who was chasing me with a sword.”
Monastics, then Prince Dīghāvu held the head of King Brahmadatta with his left hand and drew out the sword with his right hand and said: “Your majesty, the son of the late King of Kosala is no one other than myself. You have done much harm to us, you have forcibly seized our army, elephants, horse, chariots, territories, treasuries and granaries. It was you who killed my royal parents. Now, it is my turn for revenge on you!”
Whereupon, King Brahmadatta touched Prince Dīghāvu’s feet with his head and entreated him for mercy by granting him life: “Dear Dīghāvu, please grant me life.” He thus entreated for mercy three times in succession. Then the prince replied: “How will it be possible for me to grant life to a king! It is a king who should grant me life.” – “Well then, dear Dīghāvu, you grant me life and I will grant you life.”
Monastics, Brahmadatta, the King of Kāsi and Prince Dīghāvu granted life to one another, and they took hold of one another’s hands. They vowed to do no harm to one another. Then the king asked Dīghāvu: “My dear son, please get the royal chariot which is waiting and let us return.” The prince said: “Very well, your majesty.” When everything was set, he reported that everything was ready and it was up to his majesty to leave as and when he so wished.
Monastics, once the king had mounted the chariot, Prince Dīghāvu drove the chariot with accelerated speed and they caught up with the army in no time. King Brahmadatta of Kāsi, accompanied by his troops then returned to the city. On arrival at the royal palace, the king had the councillors and ministers assembled and addressed them: “Good sirs, what would you do if Dīghāvu, the son of King Dīghīti, could be found now?”
Then some said: “We would cut his hands off.” Others said: “We would cut off his feet,” again others said: “We would cut off his hands and feet, ears, nose, ears and tongue; we would cut off his head.” The king pointing his finger, said: “This is Prince Dīghāvu, son of the late King Dīghīti of Kosala. Nothing should be done against him now. Just as he has granted me life, so also have I granted him life.” Thus King Brahmadatta of Kāsi made this proclamation.
Prince Dīghāvu’s Doctrine of Peace
King Brahamadatta of Kāsi than asked Prince Dīghāvu: “My dear son, your father is believed to have spoken four phrases to you: ‘My dear son, Dīghāvu, do not look far and do not look close either; my dear son, Dīghāvu, revenge does not promote peace; my dear son, Dīghāvu, only non-resentment gives peace.’ My dear son, Dīghāvu, what did your father mean?”
Prince Dīghāvu gave the following reply in response to the king’s query: Your majesty, my father advised me: “Not to look far.” This should be understood to mean: “One should not be at enmity with other people for any length of time.” Your majesty, my father advised me: “Not to look close, either.” This should be understood to mean: “Do not shorten the term of friendship, but strengthen and prolong ties of friendship.”
Your majesty, my father advised me: “My dear son, enmity could not be brought to an end by any act of revenge.” You can only do away with enmity by
Now that your majesty had granted me life and I have done likewise, the question of enmity or revenge should no more arise and so my good father said: “My son, revenge does not pay, harbour no resentment and be happy,” with that end in view. Thus Prince Dīghāvu interpreted the meaning of his father’s advice on the end of strife. To this objective, the wise men of olden days had also left the following lines for our guidance:
1. Don’t prolong the cause of enmity.
2. Don’t shorten the term of friendship.
3. Friendliness eliminates enmity.
4. Resentment begets revenge.
Monastics, when Prince Dīghāvu had explained the underlying meaning of his father’s advice, King Brahmadatta of Kāsi said: “My dear men, it is indeed wonderful, such a marvellous thing has never occurred before. This Prince Dīghāvu is so wise that he could explain to us at length, what his father had uttered in abridged form!” Thus the King of Kāsi spoke highly of Prince Dīghāvu and formally returned the possessions of his father, the late King Dīghīti of Kosala, comprising the army, elephants, horses, chariots, territories, treasuries and granaries, and above all, he gave his daughter, who had come of age, to Prince Dīghāvu.”
Buddha’s Exhortation
“Monastics, it will be seen that, even those kings in arms could come to friendly terms through forbearance and kindly disposition! Monastics, when those of you who have become members of the Saṅgha within the domain of my instructions that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good at the end, cannot forgive and act in a friendly way, how can you expect to uphold the dignity and maintain the nobility and purity of my teaching?”
Then the Buddha repeated, for the third time, the exhortation he had given before: “Monastics, it is not at all right and proper for you to be quarrelling, fighting and opposing one another. Enough! No disputes, no quarrelling, no contentions.” At this last exhortation also, the monastic who belonged to the suspended group addressed the Buddha as before: “Most exalted Buddha, let the lord of the Dhamma wait, let the Fortunate One remain unconcerned, intent on abiding in peace for the present. We will be responsible for these disputes, quarrels and strife.” The Buddha then considered: “These useless people, without hope of achieving the paths and fruitions, are really incorrigible. It’s not easy to bring them to their senses,” and he departed from that place.
The Buddha entered Kosambī early in the morning for alms food and after his meal returned to the monastery. He then had his lodging kept in order and carrying his robe and the alms bowl he stood in the midst of the monastics and gave the following exhortations in ten verses (Kosambiya-jātaka, Ja 428):
Puthu-saddo samajano,
Saṅghasmiṁ bhijjamānasmiṁ, nāññaṁ bhiyyo amaññaruṁ.
Those monastics, with foul mouths and rude manners, have boisterous, cheerless voices; they are the same type of persons as those with impure hearts; there is no one amongst them who knows his own folly or foolishness. Above all, none of these monastics has realized that dissension amongst the members of Saṅgha has arisen because of his own conduct.
Parimuṭṭhā paṇḍitābhāsā, vācā-gocara-bhāṇino,
yāvicchanti mukhā-yāmaṁ, yena nītā na taṁ vidū.
Those monastics, with foul mouths and rude manners, are greatly infatuated by delusion, intent upon quarrelling and under the guise of wise and intelligent persons. They do not dwell in contemplative mood. They open their mouths wide and utter abusive language without any sense of shame or dread of blame. None of them keep silent as a gesture of regard and respect for the Saṅgha. They are ignorant of the fact that such quarrels and conflicts invariably lead to a state of shamefulness. They do not perceive that ill-will leads them on to such shameful acts.
Akkocchi maṁ avadhi maṁ, ajini maṁ ahāsi me,
ye ca taṁ upanayhanti, veraṁ tesaṁ na sammati.
If you harbour resentment against a person for having abused you, tormented you, overpowered you, robbed or deprived you of your property; and if you do not care to forbear against that aggressor in the interest of peace and tranquillity, the flame of enmity will not die down, but it will keep on burning up to the time of dissolution of a world-element.
Akkocchi maṁ avadhi maṁ, ajini maṁ ahāsi me,
ye ca taṁ nupanayhanti, veraṁ tesūpasammati.
If you do not harbour any resentment against a person who has abused you, who has tormented you, who has overpowered you, who has robbed or deprived you of your property, through forbearance and equanimity, the flame of enmity is bound to dwindle to a vanishing point for lack of fresh fuel!
Na hi verena verāni, sammantīdha kudācanaṁ,
averena ca sammanti, esa Dhammo sanantano.
In this world, the flame of animosity cannot be extinguished by harbouring resentment and taking revenge on one another. To wash ordure by means of ordure will not be of any avail! Ordure could only be cleaned by means of pure
Pare ca na vijānanti, mayam-ettha yamāmase,
ye ca tattha vijānanti, tato sammanti medhagā.
Amongst the masses of monastics, the unintelligent and quarrelsome monastics are ignorant of the fact that they are on their march towards the kingdom of death, with the movement of time! Whereas, those intelligent and thoughtful monastics, amongst the masses of monastics, are fully alive to the fact that all conditioned things are getting closer to the jaws of death with the progress of time. Consequently, quarrel and conflicts are extinguished and peace and tranquillity prevail.
Aṭṭhicchinnā pāṇa-harā, gavāssa-dhana-hārino,
raṭṭhaṁ vilum-pamānānaṁ, tesam-pi hoti saṅgati.
When friendships could be fostered and tranquillity established by peaceful means with the kings, who had mercilessly broken the bones and limbs of our parents through malice, assassinated them, robbed us of our cattle and the worldly possessions of our parents by brute force, I personally do not know why you monastics, my own beloved sons, cannot foster brotherly feeling among yourselves, and re-establish a state of tranquillity and stability among yourselves! It is certainly possible!
Sace labhetha nipakaṁ sahāyaṁ,
saddhiṁ-caraṁ sādhu-vihāri dhīraṁ,
abhibhuyya sabbāni parissayāni,
careyya tenattamano satīmā.
When a mindful person obtains a friend in the Dhamma, who is accomplished in the three training practices (sikkha), who is self-composed, prudent and wise, he should take delight in associating with him, and strive to overcome external enemies, such as elephants, leopards and tigers, and extirpate the internal foes, such as greed, hatred and delusion, leaving an ascetic life in search of truth.
No ce labhetha nipakaṁ sahāyaṁ,
saddhiṁ caraṁ sādhu-vihāri dhīraṁ,
rājā va raṭṭhaṁ vijitaṁ pahāya,
eko care mātaṅgarañ-ñeva nāgo.
Should a mindful person fail to obtain a friend in the Dhamma who is accomplished in the three training practices (sikkha), who is self-composed, prudent and wise, he should strive after the ultimate truth all alone, by way of the ascetic life, after the manner of those ancient monarchs who abdicated their thrones, abandoned their countries and renounced the world, such as, Mahā Janaka and Arindama, or like a bull elephant of Mataṅga breed which roams the forest all alone.
Ekassa caritaṁ seyyo, natthi bāle sahāyatā,
Eko care na ca pāpāni kayirā,
appossukko mātaṅgarañ-ñeva nāgo.
To wander all alone, leading the life of an ascetic, and striving after the ultimate truth, deserves praise and admiration. There is no prospect whatsoever for the acquisition of faith and insight or development of morality (sīla), concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (paññā), through association with lowly ignorant persons. One should strive, single handed, after the ultimate goal, like a bull elephant wandering all over the forests without any cares of the world! No evil deeds should be performed.
The Buddha delivered this discourse in ten verses, while standing in the midst of the members of the Saṅgha (Saṅgha), after which, he proceeded all alone to the village of Bālakaloṇaka.