2. Ven. Khemā
The story of Ven. Khemā is treated briefly in the commentary on the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya), the commentary on the Verses of the Elder Nuns (Therī-gāthā) and the commentary on the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada). In the Traditions (Apādāna), however, it is related in detail by the great elder herself. What follows is mainly based on the Traditions with selections from the other three commentaries.
Aspiration in the Past
The future Khemā was born into a worthy family in the city of Haṁsavatī, during the time of Buddha Padumuttara, 100,000 aeons ago. One day, she listened to the Buddha’s discourse and became a devotee of the Buddha, being established in the three refuges.
Then she had her parents’ approval to offer an extraordinary feast to the Buddha and his Saṅgha. At the end of seven days of the great offering, she saw the elder nun Sujātā whom the Buddha named as the foremost female monastic in knowledge. She was inspired by that. She gave an extraordinary offering again before expressing her wish to become such a foremost female monastic herself later. Buddha Padumuttara predicted that 100,000 aeons hence she would become the foremost female monastic with regards to knowledge in the time of Buddha Gotama.
Various Existences
The future elder nun Khemā, on passing away from that existence, was reborn in five Deva realms: Tāvatiṁsa, Yāma, Tusita, Nimmānarati, and Paranimmitavasavatī successively, as Queen of the Devas. When she passed away from there, she was reborn as the Queen of a Universal Monarch or as the queen of a Great King. Wherever she was reborn, she was born as queen. She enjoyed the most glorious states in the Deva realm and the human world for many aeons.
After being reborn in the fortunate existences only, during the time of Buddha Vipassī, 91 aeons previous to the present aeon, she was reborn into a worthy family. She had the opportunity of hearing the Buddha’s Dhamma which made her solely devoted to the pure life and she became a nun who was learned in the doctrine, skilful in the knowledge of conditional origination (paṭicca-samuppāda), a bold exponent of the four noble truths, and a persuasive teacher besides being diligent in the practice of the Dhamma. Thus she was a model to those who took up the threefold training in the Buddha’s teaching. She spent this life of purity during her lifespan of 10,000 years.
Passing away from there, she was reborn in the Tusita Realm. After that, wherever she was reborn, the great merit which she acquired in her existence during the time of Buddha Vipassī endowed her with the best that that particular existence could offer, such as making her talented, pure in morality, rich in resources, attended by a wise following, well provided with ease and comfort. Further, the religious practices observed in that existence led her to a superior social status such as making her a queen, whether in a Deva existence or a human existence and being loved and respected by her king.
During the time of Buddha Koṇāgamaṇa, in the present aeon, she was reborn into a rich family in Bārāṇasī. Together with two other rich ladies by the name of Dhanañjānī and Sumedha, Her own name is unknown so she may be referred to as Khemā. they built a monastic complex for the Saṅgha as a whole. At their death, they were reborn in the Tāvatiṁsa Realm, and after that existence, they were reborn in the human world and the Deva realm, enjoying superior social status every time.
The Eldest of the Seven Daughters of King Kikī
During the time of Buddha Kassapa, in the present aeon, King Kikī of Bārāṇasī, in the province of Kāsi, was an ardent supporter of the Buddha. He had seven daughters by the names of: 1) Princess Samaṇī, 2) Princess Samaṇaguttā, 3) Princess Bhikkhunī, 4) Princess Bhikkhadāyikā, 5) Princess Dhammā, 6) Princess Sudhammā and 7) Princess Saṅghadāsī. Later, during the time of Buddha Gotama, they became respectively 1) Ven. Khemā, 2) Ven. Uppalavaṇṇā, 3) Ven. Paṭācārā, 4) Ven. Kuṇḍalakesī, 5) Ven. Kisā Gotamī, 6) Ven. Dhammadinnā and 7) Visākhā, the donor of the Eastern monastery in Sāvatthī.
The future Ven. Khemā, Princess Samaṇī, on hearing a discourse by Buddha Kassapa, was very keen to become a nun but her father would not give her permission to do so. So, as the eldest, together with her six younger sisters, they made a common resolve not to marry and remained spinsters throughout their lives which lasted 20,000 years. They supported Buddha Kassapa with the four monastic requisites for life.
On one occasion, the Buddha made a marvellous discourse entitled the Long Discourse on Causation (Mahā-nidāna-sutta, DN 15), Princess Samaṇī was so absorbed in hearing it that she learnt it by heart, and recited it often. As the result of these good deeds, on her death, she became Sakka’s Chief Queen in Tāvatiṁsa.
Ascetic Life in Her Final Existence
During the time of Buddha Gotama, she was reborn in her last existence as the daughter
The Buddha was then residing at the Veḷuvana monastery in Rājagaha. Queen Khemā had heard people saying that the Buddha always made discourses pointing out the faults of physical beauty, so she never went to see him for fear that her beauty might well come under his censure.
King Bimbisāra thought: “While I am the most important lay supporter to the Buddha, it is inconceivable that my queen has never visited the Buddha.” He contrived a plan by having a song composed by an able poet, in praise of the Veḷuvana monastery, which he ordered songsters to sing within earshot of the queen.
Eulogy about the Veḷuvana Monastery
1. Anyone who is not fortunate enough to see the Veḷuvana monastery, the Bamboo grove residence of the Buddha, we consider them as one who has never seen the Nandana Park of the celestial realm.
2. He or she who has seen the Veḷuvana Grove, which is so much cherished by King Bimbisāra of Rājagaha, the people’s favourite ruler, the cynosure of the whole world, has truly seen the Nandana Park, the favourite resort of Sakka, the Lord of the Devas.
3. Many of the Tāvatiṁsa Devas, having abandoned the Nandana Park and descended to Jambudīpa and cast their eyes on the Veḷuvana Grove, are astonished and all their cares are forgotten, they are never satisfied with seeing it.
4. That Veḷuvana Grove has appeared due to the king’s past merit and is adorned by the Buddha’s majesty. What poet could adequately describe its endless merits?
When Queen Khemā heard that song, although she had been to the Veḷuvana Grove on a pleasure visit with the king, her interest in the grove was aroused afresh. She was very keen to visit it again. She asked the king’s permission to go there and went there with a big retinue. She chose the hour of the day that she presumed the Buddha was surely not there, during the morning, when the Buddha usually went to the city for collecting alms food. She roamed about the Veḷuvana which was full of all kinds of flowering trees and fruit trees, where bumble bees busied themselves collecting honey, and where the cuckoos sang and the peacocks preened their feathers in the quiet seclusion of the park. She also visited the monastic dwellings of the religiously inclined men, their meeting halls, rest houses and walks.
She came across a youthful monastic sitting in meditation at the foot of a tree and thought that young man should be enjoying the pleasures of life at present and take up the religious life only in his old age. Feeling sure that the Buddha was not in his private chamber, she went near it. Instead, the Buddha knew that she would come and he had remained in his private chamber. He had created, by his powers, a young maiden whose beauty surpassed that of Queen Khemā and who was fanning him.
When Queen Khemā saw that lovely maiden, she abandoned attachment to her own good looks but become fascinated and enamoured of the strange beauty in front of her. But even as she was gazing at the girl, due to the Buddha’s powers, the beauty of the girl diminished perceptibly and within a few moments, she turned old and decrepit with wrinkled skin, gray hair, broken teeth, black spots all over the skin, floppy breasts, bony joints protruding, veins twining about the body, bent double, and soon the old woman was trembling and breathing hard struggling for life and finally she gasped and collapsed. She was dead.
This vivid sight caused spiritual urgency (saṁvega) in Queen Khemā. She realized thus: “Oh, this body is impure. It is indeed loathsome. Foolish women relish this
Then the Buddha spoke to Queen Khemā in these verses:
1. “Khemā, look at the body that is afflicted with pain, impure, putrid, discharging impurities upwards and downwards, which foolish persons take so much delight in.
2. Cultivate the mind to get it fixed on an object of meditation, so as to be able to perceive the loathsomeness of the body. Be mindful of the 32 constituent parts of the body; let there be weariness about them.
3. Khemā, just as the body of this woman by my side breaks up, so too will your body break up. Just as your body seems attractive for a while before death, so too the body of this woman by my side looked attractive before she died; therefore give up attachment to the body, both internally and externally.
4. Cultivate a perception of unsubstantiality and note closely the rising and falling of phenomena. Give up the notion of a self, by doing so, you will quell the eleven fires burning in you and reach Nibbāna.
5. Just as the spider follows the web of its own making, so also sentient beings, who have attachment, follow the stream of defilements that are of their own making. The wise do not have any desire or regard for sense pleasures, but cut off the stream of defilements and go forth to Nibbāna.”
The Buddha knew that after listening to the discourse, the mind of Queen Khemā was delighted and receptive, so he continued with another discourse entitled the Long Discourse on Causation (Mahā-nidāna-sutta, DN 15) which was the very discourse Queen Khemā had heard and learnt by heart from Buddha Kassapa in her previous existence as Princess Samaṇī. Queen Khemā remembered this discourse and she attained Stream-entry knowledge immediately.
After becoming a noble one (ariya) as a Stream-enterer, she wanted to make amends for her mistaken conceit about her beauty. She prostrated before the Buddha and submitted her apology in these five verses:
1. “All-knowing one, I pay homage to you. The embodiment of compassion, I pay homage to you. The Buddha who has crossed the flood of Saṁsāra, I pay homage to you. Giver of the deathless, I pay homage to you!
2. I had been befuddled and led astray by attachment to sensuality, thus springing forward into the thicket of wrong view. By means of an appropriate device, you, the Fortunate One, have tamed me and made me happy in being so tamed.
3. Lacking an opportunity of meeting such a great one like yourself, who is endowed with morality, concentration, etc., sentient beings experience enormous suffering (dukkha) in the ocean of Saṁsāra.
4. Even though the pure one, who has reached the purity of Nibbāna, had been staying at the Veḷuvana monastery, I had failed to come and pay homage to the Lord of the Three Worlds. That failure, on my part, I now admit to the Fortunate One as a fault.
5. I had a mistaken idea about the great benefactor to the three worlds, the bestower of the ultimate boon of the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna as one who is unprofitably censorious because I was too fond of my beauty. My fault in having entertained such foolish thoughts and my failure to come and pay homage to you earlier, I now admit to the Fortunate One as a fault.”
The Myanmar renderings are by the late Mahā Visuddhārāma Sayādaw in his Covering of Faults (Chidda-pidhānānī).
Upon admission by Queen Khemā of her previous fault, the Buddha said: “Let it be, Khemā,” which cooled her heart as though ambrosial water were poured onto her person. Then Queen Khemā made obeisance to the Buddha and respectfully left him. Back at the royal palace, she saw King Bimbisāra and addressed him thus:
1. Great conqueror with golden complexion, you had employed a most apt strategy to persuade me to visit the Veḷuvana monastery. Marvellous indeed was your idea! I had become keenly desirous of seeing the Veḷuvana, with the consequence that I have seen with both my physical eye and the eye of wisdom the Buddha, the great sage.
2. King! If you would agree, I would become a nun in the teaching which is replete with the eight marvels of the Buddha of unrivalled wisdom, of the embodiment of the highest virtues. Thanks to the wise words of the Buddha, I have gained insight into the tiresome nature of my body.
On hearing the two verses spoken by Queen Khemā, King Bimbisāra, who had recognised even from her mien that she was a noble one (ariya), one who had attained path-knowledge, raised his joined palms to his forehead and said to his queen: “My dear queen, I allow you to become a nun. May your renouncing of the world come to its fulfilment, may you become an Arahat.” Thereupon the king put Queen Khemā on a golden palanquin and sent her to the nunnery in great state.
Ven. Khemā Gains Awakening
On the fifteenth day of her monastic life, Ven. Khemā, during the Observance Day (Uposatha), contemplated on the lamp in front of her, how the flame arose and how it went out. A keen spiritual urgency took place in her mind. Applying the insight into the nature of the rise and fall of the flame to all conditioned phenomena, such as the mind-body complex that constituted her present existence, she gained Awakening together with the four discriminations and the six supernormal powers.
This account of the elder nun Khemā attainment of Awakening is as described in the Traditions about the Elder Nun Khemā (Khemā-therī-apādāna, Thi-ap 18). The commentary on the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) and the commentary on the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada) tell this event in a somewhat different manner.
Ven. Khemā was devoted both to the learning and to the practice of the doctrine and so she was most proficient in the seven stages of purity, and was unrivalled in the exposition of the ten subjects of discussion (kathā-vatthu), most erudite in the application of the Abhidhamma method, outstanding both in learning and practice. The veracity of these statements may be gauged from the Discourse about Khemā (Khemā-sutta, SN 44.1).
Ven. Khemā Gives a Discourse to the King
At one time, when the Buddha was staying at the Jetavana monastery in Sāvatthī, Ven. Khemā was making a tour of the Kosalan country, and was sojourning at Toraṇa, which lay between Sāvatthī and Sāketa. At that time, King Pasenadi of Kosala was camping for the night at Toraṇa. Then the king said to a courtier: “Make inquires in this place which ascetic or Brahmin is fit for my spiritual guidance today.” The courtier made thorough inquires in Toraṇa but could find no ascetic or Brahmin whom the king should go to for spiritual guidance. He only saw Ven. Khemā who happened to be sojourning there.
He went back to the king and said: “There is no ascetic or Brahmin in this place. But there is a nun named Khemā, a disciple of the Buddha. She is reported to be wise, skilful, learned, an expounder of the doctrine in a fascinating way, endowed with a remarkable perspicacity. I would humbly suggest that your majesty go to her for advice and guidance.” The king accepted the advice and went to Ven. Khemā. He made obeisance to her and sitting in a suitable place, addressed Ven. Khemā thus:
“Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being exist after death?”
“Great King,” replied Ven. Khemā, “the Buddha does not say that a sentient being exists after death.”
“If so, Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being not exist after death?”
“Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being does not exist after death.”
“Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being both exist as well as does not exist after death?”
“Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being both exists as well as does not exist after death.”
“If so, Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being neither exist nor does not exist after death?”
“Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being neither exists nor does not exist after death.”
The king was at his wit’s end. He further put questions which were replied to as follows: “Ven. Khemā, when I asked: ‘Does a sentient being exist after death?’ you replied: ‘Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being exists after death!’ When I asked: ‘If so, Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being not exist after death?’ you replied: ‘Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being does not exist after death.’ When I asked: ‘Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being exist as well as not exist after death?’ you replied: ‘Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being exists as well as does not exist after death.’ When I asked: ‘If so, Ven. Khemā, does a sentient being neither exist nor not exist after death?’ you replied: ‘Great King, the Buddha does not say that a sentient being neither exists nor not exist after death.’ Now, Ven. Khemā, why does the Buddha not say anything regarding these four questions? What is the reason for the Buddha’s refusal to answer these four questions?”
Ven. Khemā then said: “Great King, in that case, let me put a question to you. You may answer it as you wish. What do you think of what I am going to say now? Do you have within your dominion any man who can practically count things or an arithmetician who can say: ‘There are such and such number of grains of sand in the river Ganges?’ Or who can say: ‘There are so many hundreds, so many thousands, so many 100,000s of grains of sand in the river Ganges?’ ”
“No, Ven. Khemā, there is none.”
“Great King, do you have any man who can practically count things or an arithmetician who can say: ‘There are so many vessels or bowls of water in the great ocean.’ Or who can say: ‘There are so many hundred, so many thousands, so many 100,000s of bowls of water in the great ocean?’ ”
“No, Ven. Khemā. This is because the great ocean is too deep, beyond measure, incomprehensible.”
“Even so, Great King, the Buddha has given up corporeality which may be referred to as a sentient being; he has eradicated it completely. He has made it like an uprooted palm tree, has rendered it incapable of coming into being again, and has made it impossible to arise in the future.
The Buddha, who is liberated from being called an aggregate of corporeality or the phenomenon of materiality, is endowed with attributes and dispositions or intentions which are as great as the great ocean, beyond measure, incomprehensible. As for the Buddha, the statement: ‘A sentient being exists after death,’ is an irrelevant statement; the statement: ‘A sentient being does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant; the statement: ‘A sentient being exists as well as does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant; the statement: ‘A sentient being neither exists nor does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant.”
It is not proper for the Buddha to say that a sentient being exists after death; or, a sentient being does not exist after death; or, that a sentient being exists as well as does not exist after death; or, that a sentient being neither exists nor
“The Buddha has given up sensation … perception … volitions … consciousness, which may be referred to as a sentient being; has eradicated it completely, has made it like a palm tree stump, has rendered it incapable of coming into being again, and has made it impossible to arise in the future.
The Buddha who is liberated from being called the aggregate of consciousness or the phenomenon of consciousness is endowed with attributes and dispositions or intentions which are as great as the great ocean, beyond measure, incomprehensible. As for the Buddha the statement: ‘A sentient being exists after death,’ is an irrelevant statement; the statement: ‘A sentient being does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant; the statement: ‘A sentient being exists as well as does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant; the statement: ‘A sentient being neither exists nor does not exist after death,’ is equally irrelevant.”
That was the discussion that took place between the Kosalan King and Ven. Khemā for the second round. Explanations regarding this will be given later.
King Pasenadi of Kosala was delighted with the words of Ven. Khemā. He made obeisance to her and respectfully departed. Later on, the king visited the Buddha and put the same questions as he did to Ven. Khemā. The Buddha answered them just as Ven. Khemā did.
When the king found that the Buddha’s answers and those of Ven. Khemā were exactly the same, down to the letter, he was greatly astonished and exclaimed: “Marvellous it is, venerable sir! Astounding it is! The Buddha’s exposition is exactly the same as that of his disciple, both in meaning and in words. They are in full agreement without any discrepancy. Venerable sir, I had once put these questions to Ven. Khemā and she had answered me in exactly the same way, both in essence and in words. Marvellous it is, venerable sir! Astounding it is! The Buddha’s exposition is exactly the same with that of his disciple, both in meaning and in words. They are in full agreement without any discrepancy.” Then he begged leave of the Buddha. He was greatly delighted with the Buddha’s answers. He rose, made obeisance to the Buddha and respectfully departed.
Explanation of the Discourse
Why did the Buddha not give any reply to the questions which are so framed: “That a sentient being exists after death;” “That a sentient being does not exist after death;” “That a sentient being exists as well as does not exist after death;” “That a sentient being neither exists nor does not exist after death”?
1. There is, in truth and reality, nothing in the sentient world other than the five aggregates. There is nothing, in the ultimate sense a sentient being. Therefore, whether a “sentient being” exists or does not is not for the Buddha to say, see the First Discourse concerning Sāriputta and Koṭṭhita (Paṭhama-sāriputta-koṭṭhika-suttaṁ, SN 44.3).
2. Only to one, who does not understand the nature of the five aggregates according to the four noble truths does there arise the problem of a sentient being and its existence or non-existence, in the said four questions, which occur to him due to wrong view. To one who understands the four noble truths there is no wrong view that gives rise to these four questions. Since the Buddha has the most complete understanding of the four noble truths there do not arise in him these four questions. That is why he does not say anything about them, see the Second Discourse concerning Sāriputta and Koṭṭhita (Dutiya-sāriputta-koṭṭhika-suttaṁ, SN 44.4).
3. Such a question, based on wrong views, arises only in one who has not got rid of attachment, or craving for the five aggregates. To one who has no craving for the five aggregates, they do not occur. The Buddha, who has rid of craving for the five aggregates together with any trace of acquired habit, does not have these wrong concepts. Therefore, he remained silent when these questions were asked, see the Third Discourse concerning Sāriputta and Koṭṭhita (Tatiya-sāriputta-koṭṭhika-suttaṁ, SN 44.5).
In the sixth discourse of the same Thematic Discourses, the Fourth Discourse concerning Sāriputta and Koṭṭhita (Catuttha-sāriputta-koṭṭhika-suttaṁ, SN 44.6), the four questions are dealt with adequately.
In the Discourse about Khemā (Khemā-sutta, SN 44.1), Ven. Khemā’s answer was somewhat different; it had the undercurrent of reference to the Buddha. This was because she knew that the questioner, the Kosalan King, had the Buddha in mind when asking the four questions. So, Ven. Khemā’s answer in essence was: The Buddha, by getting rid of the cause of the five aggregates, got rid of the five aggregates so that what was usually called a “sentient being” was not coming into being after his death. He was freed from a future set of five aggregates, therefore, there was nothing that might be referred to as a being or a person. Since the Buddha knew this, a sentient being after death was irrelevant for him to speak of. Therefore, he remained silent about the four questions.
One might argue thus: Since the Buddha would not acquire a fresh set of the five aggregates, it is understandable that he refused to answer the first question: “Does a sentient being exist after death?” But why did he refuse to answer the second question: “Does a sentient being not exist after death?” Shouldn’t he say: “No, it does not”? He refused to answer this question too because a “sentient being” is not a real thing in the ultimate sense. This is the explanation given in the sub-commentary. The Discourse about Khemā (Khemā-sutta, SN 44.1) is one of the most profound in the Dhamma. It is a matter for further inquiry for the virtuous.
Foremost Title Achieved
The discourse to the Kosalan King at Toraṇa was the immediate cause of Ven. Khemā’s being designated by the Buddha as the foremost female monastic in possession of profound knowledge. On one occasion, when the Buddha was residing at the Jetavana monastery, in a monastic congregation, while naming outstanding nuns as foremost in their own areas of proficiency, he declared:
Etad-aggaṁ bhikkhave mama sāvikānaṁ bhikkhunīnaṁ
mahā-paññānaṁ yad-idaṁ Khemā.
Monastics, among my female monastic disciples who have profound knowledge, Khemā is the foremost (etad-agga).
This declaration accorded her by the Buddha also had been happily recorded by Ven. Khemā herself in the following verses, in her own life history (Thi-ap 18, 89-91):
1. After I became a nun, I explained to King Pasenadi of Kosala in accordance with the doctrine on the profound questions he put to me at a place called Toraṇa.
2. Later the king approached and put these same questions to the Buddha, and he answered these profound questions exactly as I had answered.
3. The conqueror of the five deaths (māra), the supreme one among all men, being satisfied with my excellence in expounding the Dhamma, has designated me as the foremost female monastic among the eminently wise.