30: The 12th Rains Retreat (Famine)
Having thus spent the 11th Rains Retreat (Vassa) at the Brahmin village of Ekanāḷa, giving discourses such as the Discourse to Kasibhāradvāja (Kasi-bhāradvāja-sutta, SN 7.11, Snp 1.4) and others to those who were worthy of conversion, the Buddha set out from the village at the end of the Rains Retreat (Vassa), distributing the cool medicinal water of the deathless among Devas and humans, and eventually reached the city of Verañjā. He then took up residence with 500 monks, who were of high, noble birth, in terms of virtue, near the margosa (nimba) tree, which was occupied by a demon, Naḷeru by name, near Verañjā city.
The following is based on the Section about Verañjā (Verañja-kaṇḍa, Vin Pār 1, PTS 3.1) and its commentary.
The Brahmin Verañja’s Visit to the Buddha
Then the Brahmin Verañja heard the good news as follows: “Friends, the monk Gotama, the Sakyan Prince who has become an ascetic, is staying together with 500 highly virtuous monks near the margosa tree which is occupied by the demon Naḷeru near our city of Veranjā.
The good reputation of Ven. Gotama goes up to the top of the universe (Bhavagga), spreading all over thus: “That Buddha is called an Arahat because he is worthy of special honour; he is called Perfectly Self-Awakened One because he understands all phenomena perfectly by himself; he is called endowed with understanding and good conduct (vijjā-caraṇa-sampaññā), because of his wisdom and practice; he is called Well-gone (Sugato) because he speaks good words; he is called the one who understands the worlds (loka-vidū) because he knows the three worlds analytically; he is called the unsurpassed guide for those people who need taming (anuttaro purisa-dammasārathi) because of his power in training people; he is called the Teacher of gods and men (Satthā-deva-manussānaṁ) because these beings are taught by him; he is called Awakened (Buddha) because he realizes the four truths by himself and let others realize them; he is called Fortunate One (Bhagavā) because he is endowed with the sixfold glory.
That Fortunate One comprehends the world of space (okāsa-loka) with its Devas, Māras and Brahmas, as well as the world of sentient beings (satta-loka) with its ascetics and Brahmins, princes and commoners, through his wisdom, and teaches them.
The Fortunate One proclaims the Dhamma that is good in all its three phases: the beginning, the middle and the end, and that is also complete with the letter and the spirit, meaning that nothing new is to be added. He taught the noble practice that is perfect and pure all round, meaning that there is no flaw to be taken out. The sight of such a sage, an Arahat, is indeed wonderful.” This is what the Brahmin heard.
Thus the Brahmin Verañja visited the Buddha and exchanged words of joy with him. Having thus exchanged words of joy and words worthy of remembrance, the Brahmin took his seat, which was free from the sixfold faults; thereafter, he began to censure the Buddha: “Venerable Gotama, I have heard that the monk Gotama neither bows down, nor gives a welcome, nor extends an invitation to seats to old, aged, mature Brahmins of previous generations who are nearing the end of their lives. Venerable Gotama, what I have heard happens to be true. Indeed you, venerable Gotama, neither bow down, nor give a welcome, nor extend an invitation to seats to old, aged, mature Brahmins of previous generations who are nearing the end of their lives. Venerable Gotama, doing no reverential act, such as bowing, etc., is indeed outright unfair.”
Being untainted with the two defects of exalting oneself (attukkaṁsana) and humiliating others (paravambhana) but with his calm heart sprinkled with the clear water of great compassion (mahā-karuṇā), and desiring to dispel the Brahmin’s ignorance and to point out the fairness on his part, the Buddha said: “Brahmin, in the world of space with its Devas, Māras and Brahmas and in the world of beings with its monks and Brahmins, princes and commoners, I see nobody to whom I should pay respect, welcome, or give an invitation to seats. Should I even casually pay respect, give a welcome or extend an invitation to seats to somebody, then his head will break into seven and fall to the ground.”
Despite such a reply by the Buddha, Verāñja, being unwise, did not grasp that the Buddha was the greatest in the world; instead he became irritated at the words rightly uttered by the Buddha, so he accused: “Venerable Gotama is a man of tasteless nature!” In order to soften the Brahmin’s heart, the Buddha did not give a directly opposite answer and, in order to show that there was reason for him to be called in a way: “A man of tasteless nature,” he said: “Brahmin, there is reason for saying of me, ‘The monk Gotama is a man of tasteless nature.’ The reason is this: Brahmin, pleasure in forms, pleasure in sounds, pleasure in odours, pleasure in tastes, and pleasure in touch – all these pleasures I have rejected. For this reason, let one speak of me, if one so desires: ‘The monk Gotama is a man of tasteless nature.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the taste meant by you.”
Herein what the Brahmin meant was: “Bowing, welcoming, raising folded palms and paying respect in the world are styled the taste that creates harmony between people (sāmaggi-rasa). That taste of harmony (sāmaggi-rasa) was totally absent in venerable Gotama. That was why he accused the Buddha saying: “Venerable Gotama is a man of tasteless nature,” meaning he is entirely devoid of the taste of harmony.
On the other hand, the Buddha meant that pleasure in forms, pleasure in sounds, pleasure in odours, pleasure in tastes, pleasure in touches, each of these five can be called the taste of harmony, for each comes into being only when such factors as object, sense, etc., combine harmoniously. As all this taste of harmony had been uprooted by him, he was free from all these five kinds of taste of harmony. With that meaning in mind, one might label him a tasteless man if one so desires, so he declared: “We Buddhas do not absolutely have the taste meant by you.”
In this connection, why did the Buddha assert: “We Buddhas do not absolutely have the taste meant by you?” Did this not amount to acknowledging the supposition that Buddhas should observe the taste of harmony, such as bowing, welcoming, etc., as meant by the Brahmin? Such a question may arise. The answer is that it did not. He who should, but did not, observe the taste of harmony by bowing, welcoming, etc., meant by the Brahmin, deserved the label: “A man without good taste,” for he showed no taste of harmony though he was required to do so. As for the Buddha, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the taste of harmony meant by the Brahmin for he was the greatest in the three worlds. Therefore, in order to point out the fact clearly that he was above such an observance, the Buddha declared: “We do not absolutely have the taste meant by you.”
Being unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus for his lack of the taste of harmony (sāmaggi-rasa) demanded by him, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation:
“Venerable Gotama is a useless person!”
Herein what the Brahmin meant was: Bowing and other acts of respect shown to one’s elders are recognized in the world as used for harmony (sāmaggi-paribhoga); as there was no making of such use on the part of the Buddha, he was accused, saying: “The monk Gotama is a useless man.”
According to the Buddha, he had done away with the use of the five sense objects: forms, sounds, odours, tastes and touches with lust and greed. As such, he was thus free from such enjoyment. With that meaning in mind he approved that one might speak of him as useless.
Being also unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a believer in non-action!” In order to show, as before, that there was a different reason for him to be called such, the Buddha said: “Brahmin! There is a reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a believer in non-action!’ The reason is this: Brahmin, I declare that the three physical wrong-doings, the four verbal wrong-doings, the three mental wrong-doings, and all the remaining unwholesome deeds should not be done. For this reason, let one speak of me, if one so desires: ‘The monk Gotama is a believer in non-action.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the non-actions meant by you.”
Herein what the Brahmin meant was: All the people in the world have the practise of clansmen (kula-cāritta), such as bowing before one’s elders and so on. As the Buddha did not practise that he was labelled: “A believer in non-action.”
The Buddha, however, meant that he taught that wrong deeds should not be committed, which might be taken as non-action (akiriya-vāda). He approved therefore that, with that meaning in mind, one might speak of him as: “A believer in non-action.”
Being also unable to blame the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a believer in annihilationism!” In order to soften the Brahmin’s heart, the Buddha desired, as in the previous explanations, to show that there was a reason for him to be called such, and said: “Brahmin, there is reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a believer in annihilationism.’ The reason is this: Brahmin, I give instructions to annihilate passion (rāga), to annihilate hatred (dosa), to annihilate delusion (moha) and also to annihilate other wrong deeds. Brahmin, for this reason, one may speak of me, if one so desires thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a believer in annihilationism.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the annihilationism meant by you.”
Herein as the Brahmin did not see the Buddha’s act of respect, such as bowing, welcoming, etc., shown to old people, he thought: “The worldly tradition of paying respect has
The Buddha, however, taught people to do away with greed, hatred and delusion and other evil deeds by means of their respective kinds of path-knowledge. He approved, therefore, that, with that meaning in mind, one might speak of him as: “An annihilationist.”
Being also unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a man having the nature of loathing!” In order to show, as before, that there was a different reason for him to be called as such, the Buddha said: “Brahmin, there is a reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a man having the nature of loathing.’ The reason is this: Brahmin, I loathe three physical wrong-doings, the four verbal wrong-doings, the three mental wrong-doings and other wrong deeds. Brahmin, for this reason, one may speak of me if one so desired thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a man having the nature of loathing.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the loathing meant by you.”
Herein the Brahmin thought that the Buddha did not follow the practice of clansmen (kula-cāritta), such as bowing before one’s elders and so on, only because he loathed them. Therefore, the Brahmin labelled him: “A man having the nature of loathing.”
The Buddha, however, meant that he loathed wrong deeds and approved therefore that, with that meaning in mind, one might speak of him as: “A man having the nature of loathing.”
Being also unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a destroyer!” In order to show, as before, that there was a different reason for him to be called such, the Buddha said: “Brahmin, there is reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a destroyer.’ The reason is this: Brahmin, I give instructions to destroy passion, to destroy hatred, to destroy delusion and also to destroy other evil deeds. Brahmin, for this reason, let one speak of me, if one so desires thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a destroyer.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the kind of reason meant by you.”
Herein as the Brahmin did not see the Buddha’s act of respect, such as bowing, welcoming, etc., shown to old people, he thought the Buddha was a destroyer of the great practice of paying respect to an elder (vuddha-pacāyana), and labelled him: “A destroyer.”
The Buddha, however, taught people to remove and eliminate passion, hatred, delusion and the remaining wrong deeds. He approved therefore that, with that meaning in mind, one might speak of him as: “A destroyer.”
Being also unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought another accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a tormentor!” In order to show, as before, that there was a different reason for him to be called as such, the Buddha said: “Brahmin, there is reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is a tormentor.’ The reason is this: Brahmin, I
Herein what the Brahmin meant was this: Those who perform an act of respect, such as bowing, welcoming, etc., delight old people. Those who did not torment the hearts of the latter. The Buddha did not perform that. Therefore the Brahmin thought the monk Gotama was a tormentor of the aged and labelled him as such.
The Buddha, however, called evil deeds tormenting factors (tapa-dhamma), because they tend to torment the world of beings. The elimination of these evil deeds had been done on his part. “He who has done away with evil deeds is a tormentor (tapassī),” so goes the definition (tape assī ti tapassī). He therefore approved the label given to him as: “An eliminator of tormentors,” or rather, “a tormentor of all evils’ known as torments (tapa).”
Being also unable to put the blame on the Buddha thus, the Brahmin willingly brought the last accusation: “Venerable Gotama is a man far from rebirth in the Deva realm!” As the Buddha had got rid of all four forms of future rebirth, he desired to show, in a different manner, that he was free of rebirth (apagabbha), and said: “Brahmin, there is a reason for speaking of me thus: ‘The monk Gotama is far from rebirth.’ The reason is: Brahmin. I proclaim that an Arahat who has rejected the four ways of birth that would take place in the future is far from rebirth (apagabbha), one beyond rebirth. Brahmin I, who am a good wayfarer like former Buddhas, have utterly destroyed all these four ways of rebirth. Brahmin, for this reason, one may speak of me, if one so desires thus: ‘The monk Gotama is far from rebirth (apagabbha), a man beyond rebirth.’ But we Buddhas absolutely do not have the rebirth meant by you.”
Herein, what the Brahmin meant was this: Paying respect to one’s elder, such as bowing, welcoming, etc., was a meritorious act that was conducive to rebirth in the divine abode. Believing thus, he labelled the Buddha: “A man far from rebirth in the Deva realm!” for he saw him doing none of those respectful gestures. Therefore, the Buddha had no chance to attain the celestial realm; instead he would abide in the womb of a mother in the human world in the future, which was disgusting.
The Buddha, however, meant that he had no future birth whatsoever. He therefore approved the label given to him: “A man far away from rebirth.”
Though the Brahmin Verañja had thus condemned the Buddha with these eight accusations, such as saying he is: “A man of tasteless nature,” and so on, but from the outset of his meeting him, the Buddha set both his eyes on him with tranquillity, out of compassion. Just as the round full moon rises in the cloudless sky, just as the sun shines high in autumn, even so the Buddha, being omniscient, became desirous of dispelling the darkness of ignorance that lay in the Brahmin’s heart. Thus, he had turned those charges made by the Brahmin into words of honour to him.
Now, the Buddha was to show the magnificence of his compassion and the earth-like mind that was unshaken by the eight conditions of the world and the calm heart, undisturbed however much others would abuse him, he reflected: “This Brahmin thoughtlessly believes that he is senior to me, the Buddha, only on account of the conventional marks of his old age, such as grey hair,
In order to make clear that he was peerless, eldest, and foremost among beings, the Buddha elaborately delivered his discourse in the following manner: “Brahmin, suppose a hen has eight eggs, or ten, or twelve. Suppose the hen does her three jobs: She sits well on the eggs, provides them with heat, and imbues them well with her odour. Of all the chicks that lie in the eggs so treated one comes out first with ease after breaking the shell with its claws and beak. Would you call it senior or junior?” asked the Buddha. “Venerable Gotama, it should be called senior. Of all the chicks, the little one that has come out first after breaking the shell is the oldest, as its making of appearance is the earliest,” answered the Brahmin.
Then the Buddha said: “Brahmin, in the same way, of all beings lying in the shell of ignorance (avijjā) and being wrapped up all round by the shell of ignorance, I am the first to have realized the unmatched, supreme path-knowledge of an Arahat with omniscience after breaking through the shell of ignorance. Brahmin, I therefore am the oldest of all those existing in the world of sentient beings.”
Herein an explanation of the simile may be made as follows. Now with reference to the part of the simile (upamāna), the second part of the comparison, which is the little chicks: the eggs do not rot because the mother-hen looks after them in three ways: by sitting on them, by providing heat to them and by imbuing them with her odour. The wet outer membranes then dry up. The egg-shells also become thinner and thinner day by day. The claws and the beak of the chicks grow bigger and harder. The little birds get stronger. Since the shells become thinner and thinner as days go by, the light outside the shells penetrates them. Then the chicks think: “For a long time we have stayed in the confinement with our legs and wings cramped. The light appears outside. We shall live outside comfortably where the light is.” Desirous of coming outside, they kick the shells with their legs. They also forcefully stretch out their necks. Therefore the eggs are broken. The chicks then emerge from the shells, flapping their small wings and chirping for the moment. Of all these chicks, the one which comes out first should be named as the senior-most.
With reference to what it is likened to (upameyya), the first member of the comparison which is the Buddha: The three forms of the hen’s treatment: Sitting, heating and imbuing with her odour, may be likened to the Buddha’s three acts of contemplation (anupassanā) on impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and non-self (anatta) under the Mahā Bodhi tree while still a Bodhisatta. The egg’s being unrotten due to the hen’s threefold treatment may be likened to the non-shrinkage of the Bodhisatta’s insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa) due to his threefold contemplation. The drying up of the wet outer membrane of the egg due to the hen’s threefold treatment may be likened to the cessation of the Bodhisatta’s craving (nikanta-taṇhā) for the three existences due to his threefold contemplation. The shell’s gradual thinning day after day due to the hen’s threefold treatment may be likened to the thinning of the shell of ignorance step by step on the part of the Bodhisatta due to his threefold contemplation. The growing bigger and harder of the claws and the beaks of the chicks due to the hen’s threefold treatment may be likened to the growing sharper, firmer, clearer and more confident of the Bodhisatta’s insight-wisdom due to his threefold contemplation. The time of the growth of the chick’s claws and beak due to the hen’s threefold treatment may be likened to the time of maturity, the time of development and the time of perfection of the Bodhisatta’s insight knowledge which was due to his threefold contemplation. The moment of the happy emergence of
Therefore, in order to continue to show that by this practical means, he had attained the stage of incomparable supremacy, the Buddha elaborately related how he endeavoured in meditation through the fourfold diligence at the Mahā Bodhi tree; how he gained, as a result, mundane (lokiya) absorptions (jhānas) how he acquired the super knowledges (abhiññā) such as remembrance of his former existences (pubbe-nivāsa-ñāṇa) as a result of meditation based on the mundane absorptions (jhāna) in the first watch of the night of the full moon of May (Vesākha), in the year 528 BCE, and was born first by noble birth (ariya-jāti), later, with the beak-like super knowledges breaking open the shell of ignorance that had concealed the series of his past bodies, how he had acquired the psychic power of the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu) in the middle watch of that night and was born for a second time, by noble birth after with the beak-like super knowledges, breaking open the shell of the ignorance that had concealed his rebirths after death (cuti-paṭisandhi); how he had acquired the path-knowledge to become an Arahat, which was the third enlightening knowledge named destruction of the pollutants (āsavakkhaya) in the last watch of the same night and was born for a third time, by noble birth after the beak-like super knowledges broke open the shell of ignorance that had concealed the four noble truths.
In this way, when the Buddha, out of great compassion for the Brahmin Verañja, had thus related his being great by noble birth through the discourse, clearly describing the threefold knowledge, the Brahmin became rapturous both physically and mentally, and came to know the greatness of the Buddha and reproached himself: “I have wrongly accused the omniscient Buddha, who is supreme among the three worlds of individuals and endowed with all virtues, by saying that: He has failed to show respect to old people! Ignorance, friends, is disgusting indeed!”
Being convinced that: “This Gotama is the foremost, for he was born first by noble birth in the world; unique in all virtues, he is also the best,” the Brahmin supplicated the Buddha as follows: “The greatest in the world indeed is venerable Gotama! The best in the world indeed is venerable Gotama! It is very delightful indeed, Venerable Gotama! It is very delightful indeed, Venerable Gotama! To use a worldly simile, just as what was turned upside down has been turned upside up; just as what was covered has been uncovered; just as one following the wrong path has been told the right path; just as a torch has been lighted in the dark so that those who have eyes will see a variety of things; even so venerable Gotama has taught me the Dhamma in many ways. I approach Venerable Gotama, and recognize venerable Gotama, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, as my shield, shelter and refuge. From today onwards, Venerable Gotama, kindly accept me as a lay devotee (upāsaka) established in the threefold refuge for life!”
Having taken refuge, the Brahmin begged him, saying: “May venerable Gotama observe the Rains Retreat (Vassa) together with the community of monks in Verañjā, as an act of kindness done to me!” Keeping silent the Buddha agreed to do as requested by the Brahmin. Clever in behavioural studies, the Brahmin reflected: “If venerable Gotama does not accept my word, he should have rejected it by deed or by word, now that he assumes no appearance of refusal, but of consent, he must have accepted it in his heart.” Having known the Buddha’s acceptance, he stood up from his seat and paid respects to him from the four quarters and encircled him three times, keeping him at his right. Though he had accused
Famine in Verañjā City
At that time Verañjā was short of food. It was hard to make a living there. There were white bones all over the city. People had to draw lots for food rations. Therefore it was not easy for the monks to get enough food by going round with an alms bowl in their hands. The horse-merchants of the northern region (Uttarā-patha) were then staying with 500 horses in Verañjā to take shelter from showers of rain during the rainy season. At the horse-yards the merchants made a regular donation of one measure (pattha) of barley to each monk. When the monks entered the city in the morning for alms food and did not get any, they went to the horse-yards and each received one measure of barley which they brought to the monastery and pounded it in small mortars and ate it.
Travelling was impossible on account of heavy rains during the four months of the rainy season in Verañjā. Hence the horse-merchants stayed there to take shelter from the rains. They had lodges and stables built, and enclosures made on unflooded grounds outside the city for such a stay. These sites of the horse-merchants were known as horse-yards.
They brought the barley which they had steamed to make it last long and free from worm-holes and which they had husked so that they might use it as horse-food where grass and such fodder were not available. These merchants of the Uttarāpatha were not faithless like the people of the Dakkhiṇāpatha. They had faith and cherished the Three Treasures. One morning, when they went into the city on business, they found the monks in groups of seven or eight going about for alms but getting nothing. And so, they discussed among themselves: “These good monks are observing the Rains Retreat (Vassa) depending on this Verañjā city. But there is famine here. Not getting a bit of food, they are immensely troubled. Since we are visitors, we are not capable of providing them with rice gruel and food daily, but our horses get food twice a day, once at night and once in daytime. It will be good to take one measure of barley out of the morning fodder of each horse and give it to each monk. If we do so the good monks will not be hard pressed; and the horses will still have enough food.” They then went to the monks and informed them of their decision, they also requested them, saying: “Venerable sirs, please accept one measure of barley and make it into food in a befitting way and eat it.” Hence they made a regular offering of one measure of barley to each monk every day.
When the monks entered Verañjā in the morning for alms food and went round the whole city, they did not get even a word of excuse, let alone food. When they reached the horse-yards outside the city, each of them was given one measure of barley and brought it to the monastery. Since there were no lay attendants to make gruel or food for them and as it was not proper to do the cooking by themselves, they formed groups of eight or ten and pounded the barley in small mortars. Each consumed his share after adding water to it, for they thought: “In this way we shall have a light livelihood (sallahuka-vutti) and be free from the wrongdoing of cooking by oneself (sāmapāka-dukkaṭa-āpatti). After having eaten, they engaged in ascetic practices without worry.
For the Buddha, however, the horse-merchants donated one measure of barley and the proportionate amount of butter, honey and molasses. Ven. Ānanda brought the offerings and ground the barley on a stone slab. Anything prepared by a man of merit and intelligence is naturally delightful. Having ground the barley, he mixed it with butter and so on
Herein it may be asked whether Ven. Ānanda was an attendant (upatthaka) to the Buddha during the Rains Retreat (Vassa) period in Verañjā. Answer: he was, but he did not hold the post permanently yet. Explanation: During the first period after Awakening, the first 20 years of his ministry, the Buddha had no permanent personal attendant. Sometimes he was served by Ven. Nāgasamāla, sometimes by Ven. Nāgita, sometimes by Ven. Meghiya, sometimes by Ven. Upavana, sometimes by Ven. Sāgata, sometimes by Ven. Sunakkhatta, who was a Licchavī Prince before his ordination. These monks waited upon the Buddha of their own accord and left him when they so desired.
When the aforesaid monks were serving, Ven. Ānanda remained unconcerned, and he personally performed all his duties big and small on their departure. The Buddha also accepted him, for he thought: “This worthy relative of mine, Ānanda, is the best to serve me in all these matters of such a nature, though he has not secured the post of my personal attendant.” Hence Ven. Ānanda’s preparation and offering of the barley mixed with butter, honey and molasses as there were no other attendants in Verañjā during this Rains Retreat, and the Buddha’s engagement in fruition-attainment (phala-samāpatti) took place after partaking of the food. In this connection, the following questions and answers should particularly be noted:
Question: Is it true that people normally tend to struggle much to do deeds of merit at a time when food is scarce? Is it true that they think they themselves should not enjoy things but give them to monks in generosity? Why then did none of these people offer even a ladleful of food while the Buddha was keeping Rains Retreat (Vassa) in Verañjā? Why was the Brahmin Verañja not mindful of the Buddha’s presence though he had very earnestly requested the Buddha to spend the rainy season there?
Answer: The negligence on the part of the Brahmin and the people was due to Māra’s magical control and deception of them. Explanation: Māra possessed the Brahmin as soon as he left the Buddha. He also did the same thing to the citizens of Verañjā and the people in the environs of the city, the environs covering a distance of one league, within which, the monks on their morning alms round could move about, going and coming. Māra confused all these people and made them forget about the Buddha and the community of monks and went away. Nobody, therefore remembered even to show respect to the Buddha.
Question: Did the Buddha keep the Rains Retreat (Vassa) without anticipating Māra’s magical control?
Answer: No, not without anticipating, he kept it even though he foresaw Māra’s act of magic.
Question: Despite his knowledge in anticipation, why did the Buddha keep the Rains Retreat (Vassa) only in Verañjā, but not in Campā, Sāvatthī, Rājagaha, or in any other city?
Answer: In that very year, in that very period, even if the Buddha stayed in the northern continent of Uttarakuru or in the Tāvatiṁsa abode of Devas, the possession by Māra would take place all the same, let alone in Campā, Sāvatthī, Rājagaha or anywhere else. In that year Māra was overwhelmed with malice, ill-will and hatred against the Buddha. In the city of Verañjā, however, it was also foreseen by the Buddha that the horse-merchants would come to the monks’ honour and relief. Hence he observed his Rains Retreat only in Verañjā.
Question: Was Māra not able to control the horse-merchants magically?
Answers: Yes, Māra was able to do so. But it was only after his attempt to control and deceive the citizens by magic that they arrived in Verañjā.
Question: Though they arrived only after Māra’s attempt, why did he not come
Answer: He did not because he was powerless to do so. Explanation: By no means can Māra do harm to three things meant for the Buddha: 1) The meal cooked and brought as an offering; 2) the offering of food decided to be a constant duty by those who think: We shall give the Buddha throughout such and such period; and 3) an object brought to the monastery and offered by word of mouth saying: “This is for the Buddha’s use as part of the four requisites.”
Further explanation: The following are the four things that nobody can do harm to: 1) The food that is brought and about to be offered and the four requisites intended to be a permanent offering which are deposited for the Buddha; 2) the life of the Buddha that usually is four-fifths of the human lifespan of the period in which he appears. That is to say that no one could disrupt the life of our Buddha Gotama before he was 80 years old which was four-fifths of 100, the normal lifespan of people in his day; 3) the Buddha’s major and minor marks and his bodily-radiance; in fact, the radiance of the moon, the sun, Devas or Brahmas disappears on coming to the place where the Buddha’s marks and radiance shine; and 4) the Buddha’s omniscience. Therefore it may be taken that the barley to which harm could not be done by Māra was consumed by the Buddha and his 500 monk disciples.
The Buddha’s past deed (kamma) which caused him to meet with such famine along with his 500 monks in Verañjā was this: Ninety-two aeons (kappa) ago, during the Dispensation of the Buddha Phussa, the Bodhisatta became a man of bad character on account of his association with wicked friends. He then wrongfully uttered to Buddha Phussa’s disciples such unwholesome words as: “You had better bite coarse barley food and eat it but do not eat any good rice (sāli)!” That evil past deed (kamma) was the reason for his encounter with famine as he was keeping the Rains Retreat (Vassa) in Verañjā (see Ap. 39.10).
The Buddha heard the pounding in small mortars.
Buddhas ask even though they know. They know and they do not ask, for there is nothing that they do not know. They know the opportune time and they ask. They know the opportune time and they do not ask. They ask what is connected with benefit; they do not ask what is not connected with benefit. What is not connected with benefit, they do away with through path-knowledge. They ask monks for two reasons, either to give a discourse or to lay down a rule for disciples.
The Buddha then asked Ven. Ānanda: “What, dear son Ānanda, does the sound from the small mortars mean?” Ven. Ānanda replied, stating what has been told above. At that moment the Buddha uttered: “Excellent, Ānanda excellent! You, Ānanda, who are of good moral character, have overcome rice cooked with meat by not yielding to scarcity of food, by not wanting and by not at all letting yourself to be led astray by desire. The meaty rice that you have thus overcome will also be looked down upon by future generations.”
Ven. Moggallāna’s Bold Words
Ven. Moggallāna was one who had reached the height of perfection of knowledge as a disciple on the seventh day after he had become a monk. He was also placed by the Buddha as the foremost among those who possessed supernormal powers.
Depending on his supernormal powers he thought: “Food is scarce in Verānjā now. Monks are having much trouble. What if I were to turn over the earth and give for food the essence of the earth from the bottom layer.” Then he continued to reflect: “As I am staying in the presence of the master, it does not befit me to do so without seeking his permission. Such an action would be tantamount to rivalry.” So he went to the Buddha and bowed low before him and took his seat at an appropriate place.
Then Ven. Moggallāna addressed the Buddha thus: “Exalted Buddha, Verānjā is short of food now. It is hard to stay there. There are white bones all over the city. Lots are drawn for making a living. It is not easy to get enough food by going round with an alms bowls in the hands. The bottom layer of the earth is pleasant for its sweetness, like honey that is free from bees and bee-eggs. Pray, exalted Buddha, let me turn up the soil of this great earth so that the monks may enjoy its essence from the bottom layer.”
Then the Buddha asked: “Dear son Moggallāna, how would you treat the beings living on the earth?” Ven. Moggallāna answered: “Exalted Buddha, I will change my one hand into something like the earth. Then I will transfer the beings, from the natural earth on the hand that is changed into the earth. With the other hand, I will turn up this natural earth.”
Then the Buddha uttered words of rejection: “No, dear son Moggallāna, it is not proper. Do not wish to turn up the earth. It may lead to misunderstanding among living beings.”
Herein what should be noted with regard to the words: “It may lead to misunderstanding among living beings,” is this, famine occurs not only now, it will occur also in the future. From where can monks get a fellow monk endowed with supernatural power like you then? Though future monks may be Stream-enterers (Sotāpanna), Once-returners (Sakadāgāmi), Non-returners (Anāgāmi), dry-vision (sukkha-vipassaka) Arahats, or only those who have attained absorptions (jhāna) but not psychic powers, and even Arahats of analytical knowledge, yet as they lack supernormal powers, they will approach the house of their lay devotees for food. Then it may occur to the devotees thus: “Monks during the Dispensation of the Buddha were accomplished in the threefold training. In the Buddha’s lifetime, they had the benefits of their super knowledges (abhiññā) and when there was famine they could turn up the earth and enjoy the earth’s essence. Nowadays there are no monks who have fully undertaken the threefold training. If there were such monks, they would do the same as those of the Buddha’s time did. They would not let us eat anything that is raw or cooked. They will give us only the earth’s essence.” This thought will make them misunderstand about the noble ones themselves that: “There are no noble ones!” Those, who condemn the noble ones on account of their misunderstanding will be reborn in suffering states. Hence the Buddha prohibited the turning up of the earth’s soil.
At that time, as Ven. Moggallāna failed to get permission, he desired to change his request and said: “Pray, exalted Buddha, let all monks go to the northern continent!” the Buddha again forbade it as before: “Dear son Moggallāna, it is not proper. Do not desire to make them go to the northern continent!” These indeed were the bold words of Ven. Moggallāna.
Herein though it was not said directly that: “It may lead to misunderstanding among living beings,” it should be understood that the Buddha rejected the idea of going on alms round to the northern continent on those very grounds, for it had been explained before. Note should be taken as in the previous manner.
What would he have done if the Buddha had given him permission? Through his supernormal powers he would have turned the great ocean into a small ditch that could be crossed over by a single stride and paved a new road straight from the Naḷeru margosa tree to the northern continent; he would also have created the continent like any village, which they have frequented for food, with streets for going and coming so that monks could go in and out conveniently.
Ven. Sāriputta’s Request
At that time Ven. Sāriputta, who was alone in seclusion, wondered: “Whose Dispensations among exalted Buddhas did not last long and whose Dispensations did?” With this query he emerged from his seclusion in the evening and approached the Buddha and bowed low before him and took his seat at an appropriate place. Then he asked the Buddha: “Exalted Buddha, while I was staying in seclusion, I wondered: ‘Whose Dispensations among exalted Buddhas did not last long and whose Dispensations did?’ ”
Herein it may be argued: “Was not Ven. Sāriputta able to answer his own questions?” Answer: “He was able to do so in some cases and unable to do so in others.” Explanation: he could decide: “The Dispensation of these Buddhas did not last long and the Dispensations of these Buddhas did.” But he could not decide: “They did not last long for these reasons and they lasted long for these.”
Ven. Mahā Paduma, however, states: “It was not difficult for the chief disciple, who had reached the height of the sixteen-fold wisdom and knowledge, to decide the reasons. But deciding by himself, though he was living with the Buddha, would be like discarding the balance and weighing something by the hand. Hence his question was put to the Buddha.”
At that time, being desirous of answering Ven. Sāriputta’s question, the Buddha said: “Dear son Sāriputta, the Dispensations of the Buddhas Vipassī, Sikhī and Vessabhū did not last long through successive generations of disciples; but those of the Buddhas Kakusandha. Koṇāgamana, and Kassapa lasted long through successive generations of disciples.”
Then Ven. Sāriputta asked: “Exalted Buddha, why did the Dispensations of the Buddhas Vipassī, Sikhī and Vessabhū not last long?”
The Buddha answered: “Dear son Sāriputta, the Buddhas Vipassī, Sikhī and Vessabhū did not bother to give discourses to their disciples elaborately. Their teachings of the nine divisions, such as Discourses (Sutta), Mixed Poems and Prose (Geyya), etc., were so few. Nor did they prescribe disciplinary rules for them. Nor did they recite the Authoritative Rules (Pātimokkha). When they passed away and when their immediate disciples passed away, the later generations of disciples, who were of diverse names, clans and births, let the Dispensations become extinct rapidly.
Dear son Sāriputta, just as flowers of different kinds placed on a wooden board without being strung are scattered, blown away and destroyed by the wind for the very reason that they are not strung; even so, when these Buddhas and their immediate disciples passed away, their teachings disappeared fast amongst later disciples of diverse names, clans and births. The other three Buddhas, knowing the intentions of their disciples with their minds, bothered to exhort them.
Dear son Sāriputta, there took place an incident in former times. In a certain terrible forest, Buddha Vessabhū knew the minds of his thousand monks with his mind and exhorted them: “Cultivate these three wholesome thoughts: The thought of renunciation (nekkhamma-vitakka), the thought of non-harming (avyāpāda), the thought of non-violence (avihiṁsā). Do not cultivate these unwholesome thoughts: the thought of sensual pleasure (kāma-vitakka), the thought of harming (vyāpāda), the thought of violence (vihiṁsā). Bear in mind that they are impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), unsubstantial (anatta) and unpleasant (asubha). Do not bear in mind that they are permanent (nicca), satisfactory (sukha), substantial (atta) and pleasant (subha). Abandon unwholesome thoughts! Develop wholesome thoughts!”
Dear son Sāriputta, the thousand monks who had thus been exhorted by Buddha Vessabhū became Arahats, free from the pollutants (āsava). The minds of these thousand monks, therefore, were entirely cut off from grasping of anything through craving and wrong view that: ‘This am I, this is mine!’ They were totally emancipated from the pollutants (āsava), had come to complete cessation, in the sense of not arising again. With regard to the terrible forest, the terror of the forest was such that those who were not free from passion generally had gooseflesh upon entering it. What has been said is the reason for the short-lived Dispensations of the Buddhas Vipassī, Sikhī and Vessabhū.”
With reference to the statement that the three Buddhas: “Did not bother to give discourses to their disciples elaborately.” They did not do so, not because they were idle. In fact, there is no such thing as indolence or lack of industry on the part of Buddhas. Explanation: When Buddhas teach, they do so with the same degree of effort whether they are to teach a single person or two persons, or the whole universe full of beings. They do not reduce their energy when seeing that the audience is small; nor do they increase their effort when seeing that the audience is big. Just as the lion, king of animals, goes out in search of food after seven days spent in the den, chases and catches his prey with the same speed, whether they are big or tiny, because he is resolved that his speed should not be inadequate, even so when Buddhas deliver their sermons to their listeners whether they form a multitude or only an inconsiderable gathering, they do so with equal industry, for they have a noble purpose not to decrease their respect for the Dhamma.
Unlike our Buddha, who taught in detail as though he were to fill the ocean, these three Buddhas, in fact, did not elaborate on their teachings. The reason was that, in those times, beings had little dust of defilements in their wisdom-eyes. Explanation: In the lifetimes of these three Buddhas, beings enjoyed longevity, and the amount of dust that covered their wisdom-eyes was also slight. Beings in those days were therefore instantly converted on listening to just one verse connected with the four truths. It was therefore not necessary to preach to them elaborately. Hence the teachings of these Buddhas in nine divisions were so meagre.
In the time of these three Buddhas, since their monastic disciples were wholly free from wrongdoings, no authoritative Monastic Rules (āṇā-pātimokkha) associated with the seven portions of offences had to be promulgated. Only the recitation of the Advisory Rules (Ovāda-Pātimokkha) was known to them. Even the Advisory Rules they did not recite fortnightly. The two kinds of Rules (Pātimokkha) have been dealt with in detail in chapter 25.
These long-lived Buddhas had two generations of disciples to follow them: The immediate disciples and the later disciples who were monks ordained by those immediate disciples. At the time when the later disciples, under the second category emerged, since there had been no disciplinary rules from the outset and since the disciples, who were of diverse names, clans and births, did not feel obliged to protect and preserve the small amount of discourses but remained careless as though they shirked their duty, thinking: “Such and such a venerable will do it, such and such a venerable will do it,” they did nothing for safeguarding the teachings by holding Councils (Saṅgāyana). Hence, there was a rapid disappearance of their Dispensations.
With regard to the statement: “The Dispensations of the long-lived Buddhas did not last long,” it originally meant to say that their Dispensations did not last long for many generations of disciples. The life of Buddha Vipassī, however, was 80,000 years 1ong; the lifespan of his immediate disciples also was 80,000
Having heard of the reasons for the short-lived Dispensations in terms of generations of the disciples of the three Buddhas: Vipassī, Sikhī and Vessabhū, the noble Sāriputta, being desirous of hearing the reasons for the long-lived Dispensations of the other three Buddhas: Kakusandha. Koṇāgamana and Kassapa, continued to ask the Buddha: “Exalted Buddha, why did the Dispensations of the Buddhas Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana and Kassapa last long?”
The Buddha answered: “Dear son Sāriputta, the Buddhas Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana and Kassapa gave elaborate discourses to their disciples. Their teachings of the nine divisions, such as Discourses (Sutta), Mixed Poems and Prose (Geyya), etc., were numerous. They prescribed disciplinary rules for them, and recited the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha). When they passed away and when their immediate disciples passed away, therefore, the generations of their later disciples, who were of diverse names, clans and births, caused the Dispensations to last long.
Dear son Sāriputta, just as flowers of different kinds strung on a string and placed on a wooden board cannot be dispersed, blown away and destroyed by the wind for the very reason that they are strung, even so, when these Buddhas and their immediate disciples passed away, their teachings lasted long through the efforts of later generations of disciples of diverse names, clans and births.
Dear son Sāriputta, the aforesaid factors – elaborate teaching, a large number of discourses, the promulgation of the disciplinary rules and the recitation of the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha) – together formed the reason for the long existence of the teachings of the three Buddhas: Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana and Kassapa.”
Herein, with regard to the long existence of the Dispensations of these three Buddhas, the lengthy duration in terms of both lifespan and generations of disciples should be noted. Explanation: The lifespan at the time of Buddha Kakusandha was 40,000 years; at the time of Buddha Koṇāgamana, 30,000 years; and at the time of Buddha Kassapa, 20,000 years. Many generations, one after another, of these immediate disciples nurtured and carried forward the Dispensation. In this way, the teachings of these three Buddhas long endured in terms of both lifespans and generations of disciples.
As for our inestimable Lord of the Three Worlds, he should have been born when the lifespan was 10,000 years, which was half that of Buddha Kassapa; if not, he should have been born in the period of 5,000 years lifespan, 1,000 years or 500 years lifespan. But his wisdom was not mature enough then. It attained maturity only when the lifespan was 100 years, which is very short indeed. Therefore, it should be stated that although the Dispensation of our Buddha lasted long in terms of generations of disciples, it did not last as long as did the Dispensations of those former Buddhas in terms of years.
Having thus learnt the reason for the long existence of the Dispensations of the Buddhas Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana and Kassapa, Ven. Sāriputta came to the conclusion that the laying down of rules is the main cause for the perpetuity of the Dispensation of a Buddha. Wishing to ensure the perpetuity of the Dispensation of the present Buddha, he rose from his seat, adjusted his robe, covered the left shoulder, and raised his hands in
Being desirous of telling him that the time is not ripe yet for laying down rules, the Buddha said: “Wait, dear Sāriputta! Wait, dear Sāriputta! Only the Buddha knows the proper time for promulgating rules and reciting the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha)!
1. Dear Sāriputta, as long as there do not take place in the Saṅgha some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants (āsava) in this Dispensation, the Buddha does not lay down rules for the disciples nor does he proclaim the Monastic Rules. Dear Sāriputta, when there take place some wrongdoings in the Saṅgha which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation, only then does he lay down the rules and proclaim the Monastic Rules, only for the benefit of eliminating those wrongdoings.
2. Dear Sāriputta, as long as the Saṅgha does not have a large number of monks of long standing, there do not take place some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation. Dear Sāriputta, when the Saṅgha has a large number of monks of long standing there take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation, then only for the benefit of eliminating those wrongdoings, which are the basis for the pollutants, does the Buddha lay down rules and proclaim the Monastic Rules.
3. Dear Sāriputta, as long as the Saṅgha does not thrive, there do not take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation. Dear Sāriputta, when the Saṅgha thrives, and there take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation, then only for the benefit of eliminating these wrongdoings, does the Buddha lay down rules and proclaim the Monastic Rules.
4. Dear Sāriputta, as long as the Saṅgha does not know many gains there do not take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation. Dear Sāriputta, when the Saṅgha knows many gains and there take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation, then only for the benefit of eliminating those wrongdoings, does the Buddha lay down rules and proclaim Monastic Rules.
5. Dear Sāriputta, as long as the Saṅgha does not have much knowledge there do not take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation. Dear Sāriputta, when the Saṅgha has much knowledge and there take place in it some wrongdoings which are the basis for the pollutants in this Dispensation, then only for the benefit of eliminating those wrongdoings, does the Buddha lay down rules and proclaim the Monastic Rules.
Dear Sāriputta, now the Saṅgha is free from immoral persons, free from blemishes, free from impurities, clean, and stands in the essence of such virtues as morality and the like. Dear Sāriputta, of these 500 monks, the lowest is a Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna), whose assured destination is the three higher stages of the path, for he will never be reborn in suffering abodes.”
Herein by the pollutants (āsava) is meant moral defilements and suffering such as accusations, killings, imprisonment, etc., by others in this life, and suffering through rebirth in the suffering states hereafter. Since such wrongdoings as sexual intercourse, stealing, killing human beings, etc., form the ground for the pollutants (āsava), they are called the bases for the pollutants (āsavaṭṭhaniyā).
At the time when Ven. Sāriputta made the request for laying down the rules, transgression had not occurred at all. Had the rules such as the four Expulsion (Pārājika) rules and others been laid down before the actual taking place of transgressions, such an action would not have escaped private abuse, blame and public censure.
How would such an action not have escaped? If rules were to be laid down in advance, all the necessary rules would have been done so, saying: “If a monk commits sexual intercourse,” and so on. Laying down the rules before seeing the transgression, others would abuse, blame privately and censure publicly as follows: “Why does the monk Gotama bind us to these rules, taking for granted that the Saṅgha of monks adheres to him and follows his words? Why did he lay down the Expulsion rules? Have not these clansmen become monks after renouncing their great luxury, vast circles of relatives and princely wealth that they had in their possession? Are they not content with what is just enough for their food and what is just enough for their clothing, and do they not abide with extreme respect in the threefold training and without regard for their bodies and lives? Among such good men, who would indulge in such worldly practices (loka-āmisa) as sexual intercourse, stealing another’s property, taking another’s life, earning his living by falsely claiming attainments.
Even if the four Expulsion rules were not laid down, has it not been made clear that sexual intercourse, stealing, etc., are not proper, not practicable, for even while as a novice one keeps the precepts, saying: ‘I take upon myself the rule of staying away from taking life,’ and so on?” Such would have incurred private abuse, blame and public censure.
Moreover, probably the Buddha’s wisdom would not have been known to beings. The rules that had been laid down would have been destroyed. They would not have lasted. To use a worldly simile, a medical doctor lacking in skill sends for a man who has no ulcer yet but who would soon suffer from an ulcer and says: “Come, man, on this part of your body there will appear an ulcer, bringing no benefit but threatening your life. Get it treated early!” – “Very well, sir. Can you yourself give treatment to it?” Saying thus the man submits himself to the doctor, who then gives surgical treatment to that part of the man’s body without an ulcer and causing the skin to become normal by taking out the blood, applying the medicine, dressing, cleaning, and so on. Thereafter, he asks the man saying: “I have cured your ulcer. Give me the cost of the medicine!”
The man who has been medically treated may then privately abuse, blame and openly censure the surgeon without skill in his presence, saying: “What is this foolish doctor talking about? Which disease of mine has been cured by this foolish doctor? As a matter of fact, has not the stupid surgeon caused trouble to me? Has he not removed part of my body?” The man may not feel grateful to the doctor.
In the same way, had the Buddha laid down the rules for his disciples before the actual wrongdoings happened, he would not have escaped private abuse, and so on. His wisdom might not have been known to beings. The rules that had been laid down would have been destroyed. They would not have lasted. Hence the Buddha said, in the negative: “Dear Sāriputta, as long as there do not take place wrongdoings in the Saṅgha, a Buddha does not lay down the rules for the disciples,” and so on.
Herein, the time when wrongdoings have not taken place means the time which was not ripe yet for laying down rules. The time when wrongdoings have taken place means the time which is ripe for doing so. The laying down of rules at an inopportune time might bring about the aforesaid blame and censure. The same action, taken as required by the occurrence of wrongdoings, may be likened to a skilful medical doctor who gives the ulcer that has appeared curative treatment by operating on it, applying medicine, dressing, cleaning and so on and causes the recovery of the ulcer and the normalcy of the skin. The Buddha may be likened to him, who is not abused but honoured for his distinguished service in his medical profession, for he was similarly not abused and blamed privately or otherwise but
By the words in the first statement is shown the opportune and inopportune time for laying down rules. By the words in the second, third, fourth and fifth statements, is shown the time when wrongdoings occurred. The elaborate meaning of these words may be taken from the Section about Verañjā (Verañja-kaṇḍa, Vin Pār 1, PTS 3.1).
Taking Leave at the End of the Rains Retreat
After the Buddha had thus explained in detail the question of laying down the disciplinary rules to Ven. Sāriputta, the general of the Dhamma, he spent the whole Rains Retreat (Vassa) at Verāñjā and performed the Invitation (Pavāraṇā) on the Great Invitation Day, the full moon of November (Assayuja), at the end of the Rains Retreat. Then he called Ven. Ānanda and said: “Dear Ānanda, when the Buddhas have observed the Rains Retreat at the request of others, it is not their custom to depart without asking them for leave, or, they depart only after informing them. Come, Ānanda, let us go and seek permission from Brahmin Verañja.” After finishing his meal, the Buddha, with Ven. Ānanda as his companion, visited Verañja’s place in the afternoon, illuminating the city gates and all the roads and streets with his body radiance.
When the Buddha stood at the door of the Brahmin’s house, the Brahmin’s men, seeing the Buddha, reminded their master; only then did Verañja regain a sense of his responsibilities and get up from his seat excitedly to prepare a seat worthy of the noble one; he then welcomed and invited him respectfully saying: “Please come this way, exalted Buddha!” the Buddha walked along as had been invited by the Brahmin and sat down on the prepared seat. It was the time when Māra had withdrawn his spell. “Brahmin, we have observed the Rains Retreat (Vassa) at your invitation. Now we inform you that we want to go elsewhere!”
Verañjā replied to the Buddha: “Right, venerable Gotama. You have observed the Rains Retreat (Vassa) at our invitation. But I have not given alms yet. The reason for that is not because we have nothing to give, not because we do not want to give. People of household life have too many things to do. Where can they have a chance to give? May venerable Gotama accept, together with the company of monks, my food tomorrow.”
The Brahmin did not know about the magical influence of Māra. He thought his absent-mindedness was due to the affairs and drawbacks of household life, hence his supplication to the Buddha.
It occurred then to the Buddha: “If l do not accept the Brahmin’s invitation, demerit will develop for him, and to all the Verañjā citizens as well for that matter, who would think: ‘The monk Gotama seems to be angry because he receives no alms for the whole period of the three Rains Retreat months. Therefore, he rejects even a single meal despite my request. The monk Gotama has no patience. He is not an omniscient one!’ Let there be no development of demerit to them!” Out of compassion, the Buddha accepted the invitation by keeping silent. Thereafter, he made the Brahmin know the futility of being occupied with domestic affairs and their drawbacks. With a Dhamma talk appropriate at that moment, the Buddha showed the two benefits; one for this life and the other for the next. He also made him dedicated to good deeds, and enthusiastic about and happy with them. Then he rose from his seat and departed.
Verañja’s Great Alms Giving
[This section has been added in here from its original placing at the beginning of chapter 31.]
After the departure of the Buddha, the Brahmin Verañja summoned all his family members and other inmates of the house to a meeting, at which he said: “Dear ones, I have not offered even a single day’s meal to the Buddha though I invited him to stay here for the three months of the Rains Retreat. Let us now offer alms meant for the three months Rains Retreat period in a single day.” Having given instructions thus, the Brahmin had excellent food cooked, and next morning he had his place decorated and seats worthy of noble ones prepared. After
Accompanied by 100 monks, the Buddha arrived at Verañja’s house and sat together with them on the seats prepared. Verañja personally served the Saṅgha of monks, headed by the Buddha, with delicious meals until they were satisfied and refused to take more.
As the Buddha removed his hand from the alms bowl after finishing the meal, Verañja offered him a set of three robes which were worth 3,000. Each robe cost 1,000. To each monk too, he offered a set of two pieces of cloth to make robes. The value of each robe cloth was 500. Hence the amount of his donation made to the monks was 500 thousand.
Only this much comes from the canoncial text, the commentarial account is as follows.
As he was not satisfied with this offering of robes worth 500,000, the Brahmin Verañja offered again a large number of rugs, bolts of cloth made in Pattunna country, each costing 7,000 or 8,000, so that they might be cut and made into garments of double layers, shoulder coverings, waistbands, water strainers, etc.
He also gave each monk jugs and bottles filled with medicinal ointment heated 100 or 1,000 times and worth 1,000. There was nothing left out from the four requisites he presented for their use. He gave away in generosity all the necessities to the monks.
Having done such a great alms giving, the Brahmin sat down together with his wife and children, respectfully paying respects to the Buddha. Owing to Māra’s magic, he had lost the opportunity of enjoying the taste of immortality in the form of a discourse throughout the Rains Retreat. In order to make up the Brahmin’s loss and to fulfil his wish, the Buddha let the rain of immortality fall heavily in a single day. He taught the double advantages for the present life and the next and established him in meritorious deeds. Finally, the Buddha made Verañja zealous and delighted in good deeds, and then he left the place.
Together with his wife, Verañja respectfully raised his hands in adoration towards the Buddha and his assembly of monks and followed them to see them off, requesting: “Exalted Buddha, kindly do us another favour by visiting us once again!” Then the Brahmin returned with tears trickling from his eyes.
After staying in Verañjā for as long as he wished, the Buddha left the city. Being desirous of reducing the great circular journey, he led the monks, who had been so tired and fatigued because of the scarcity of food during the whole Rains Retreat, along the direct route, bypassing Sorreyya, Saṅkassa, and Kaññakujja cities. On arriving at the crossing at Payāga, the Buddha crossed the Ganges and reached Bārāṇasī. At this city too he stayed for as long as he wished, and then he headed for Vesālī. Having arrived at Vesālī the Buddha sojourned at Kūṭāgāra, the monastery with the gable, in the Great Wood.
[This section previously stood at the beginning of chapter 31, it is brought back here for better homogeneity of the 31st chapter.]
Having stayed in the Great Wood in Vesālī, teaching those worthy of conversion, the Buddha left that city and eventually arrived in Sāvatthī and stayed at Jetavana monastery.
The Birth Story about the Sorry Drink
An event then happened, leading to the relation of the Birth Story about the Sorry Drink (Vālodaka-jātaka, Ja 183) by the Buddha: Five hundred lay devotees in the city of Sāvatthī left their domestic undertakings, wandered in one group with their wives from place to place, listening to the discourses of the Buddha. Among them some were Stream-enterers (Sotāpanna), some were Once-returners (Sakadāgāmi) and the rest Non-returners (Anāgāmi). There was not a single worldling (puthujjana) amongst them. Those who extended an invitation to the Buddha included 500 lay devotees.
There lived also 500 young attendants who, while waiting upon the 500 devotees, ate what was leftover. After eating the leftover food at breakfast, they slept as
When the Buddha heard the loud noises of the 500 eaters of leftover food, he asked Ven. Ānanda: “What are these noises, Ānanda?” – “These noises belong to the 500 eaters of leftover food, exalted Buddha,” replied Ven. Ānanda.
Then the Buddha said: “Ānanda, not only now do they eat leftover food and shout loudly, but in former times too they did the same thing. Not only now do these 500 devotees remain quiet, but in former times too they did so too.” Upon being requested by Ven. Ānanda, the Buddha related the past incident as follows:
“In ancient times when King Brahmadatta was reigning in Bārāṇasī, the Bodhisatta was born into the family of a noble man and when he came of age, he became a counsellor to the king.
One day, hearing of a rebellion in a border area, he harnessed 500 horses of Sindhava breed and went to the border with the fourfold army. After restoring peace there, he returned to Bārāṇasī and asked his officers to give the horses syrup made from grapes, saying: ‘These horses are fatigued. Let them have a grape drink.’ The officers did as they were told by the king.
The 500 horses then took the flavoured and tasty grape-drinks and went to their stables and stayed quietly in their respective places.
After giving the syrup to the horses, there was a lot of grapes remaining but without flavour and taste. The officers asked the king: ‘What shall we do with the remains from the grapes?’ – ‘Comrades,’ said the king, ‘knead them in water and filter them with pieces of coarse cloth made of fibres from marsh date palms and give the water to the mules that carry the food for the horses.’ The officers acted as they were ordered to by the king.
The mules, who carried the food loads, took the filtered secondary juice and became intoxicated with pride and they frolicked about braying, jumping and running in the courtyard. The king opened the palace window, and looking at the courtyard, he asked the Bodhisatta, the counsellor: “Look, wise man, after drinking the secondary grape juice, these 500 mules are intoxicated with pride and they frolic, braying, jumping and running about. But the Sindhava horses, after drinking the flavoured and delicious syrup of grapes made no sound, not showing any frolicsome behaviour, they keep quiet. What is the reason? So he put a question in the following verse (Ja 183):
Vālodakaṁ apparasaṁ nihīnaṁ,
pitvā mado jāyati gadrabhānaṁ,
imañ-ca pitvāna rasaṁ paṇītaṁ,
mado na sañjāyati sindhavānaṁ.
Wise man! The mules that have taken the secondary grape syrup of less taste and poor quality and filtered with a piece of cloth made of fibres from marsh date palms, are intoxicated with pride. Such intoxication has not happened to the Sindhava horses though they have taken the delicious grape juice. What is the reason?
In order to give his answer to the king, he uttered the following verse:
Appaṁ pivitvāna nihīna-jacco,
so majjatī tena janinda puṭṭho,
dhorayha-sīlī ca kulamhi jāto,
na majjatī agga-rasaṁ pivitvā.
Your majesty! The lowly born mule that has been effected by its insignificant birth becomes intoxicated after drinking an inconsiderable
What the verse means to say is that because the mules are inferior by birth, they become intoxicated after drinking less tasty secondary juice. On the contrary the Sindhava steeds, on account of their superiority by birth, do not show conceit or are not intoxicated with conceit though they have taken the primary juice of best quality.
On hearing the Bodhisatta’s saying, the king had the mules driven out from the courtyard. Taking the Bodhisatta’s advice the king performed meritorious deeds, beginning with alms giving and passed away to another existence according to his deeds (kamma).
Having delivered the Birth Story about the Sorry Drink (Vālodaka-jātaka, Ja 183), the Buddha concluded the story thus: “The 500 mules then have now become the 500 attendants who eat the leftover food. The 500 Sindhava horses then have now become the 500 noble lay devotees. The King of Bārāṇasī then is now Ānanda. The wise counsellor then is now I myself, the Buddha.”