[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance, et al.,

In case the Mahayana sutra discussed by Jenkins (and Zimmerman, et al.), the 
_Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra_, sounded like 
something out of left field, incommensurate with "original" Buddhism, or the 
Pali canon, Jenkins points out that it does have some precedent in the Pali 
canon. The sutra has a dialogue between a king and someone named Satyavaca 
Nirgranthaputra, i.e., the "Truth-speaker, son of a Jain." Two suttas of the 
Majjhima Nikaya concern him (suttas 35 and 36). Sutta 35 in particular,
Cūḷasaccaka sutta, gives some glimpses of what gets further developed in the 
Mahayana version.



Saccaka the Nigantha's son (as Nanamoli and Bodhi render his name -- Saccaka 
nigaṇṭhaputta in Pali) is a proud debater, claiming he can make anyone 
tremble with his arguments, and, after inviting a large group of Licchavi's 
to witness the slaughter, seeks out Buddha under a tree and challenges him. 
Part of Buddha's response includes this question to Saccaka:



[PTS Page 231] Taṃ kiṃ maññasi aggivessana, vatteyya rañño khattiyassa 
muddhāvasittassa1 sakasmiṃ vijite vaso: ghātetāyaṃ vā ghātetuṃ, jāpetāyaṃ vā 
jāpetuṃ, pabbājetāyaṃ vā pabbājetuṃ- seyyathāpi rañño pasenadissa kosalassa, 
seyyathāpi vā pana rañño māgadhassa ajātasattussa vedehiputtassāti?



"Would a head-anointed noble king -- for example, King Pasenadi of Kosala or 
King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha -- exercise the power in his own 
realm to execute those who should be executed, to fine those that should be 
fined, and to banish those that should be banished?" [Nanamoli / Bodhi tr.]



This Buddha accepts capital punishment. The passage also gives some sense of 
what the Pali Buddha considers a king's job to include.



These are well-known kings in the Pali texts. Pasenadi was a devoted 
follower of the Buddha and Dhamma. Ajātasattu was the son and successor of 
Bimbisāra, another important king and patron of the Buddha. Ajātasattu's 
journey to the dhamma was more complicated. He became a supporter and 
follower of Devadatta, who convinced him to kill his father, Bimbisara, even 
though his father abdicated to him, making the killing unnecessary. 
Ajātasattu eventually repents and becomes a loyal follower of the Buddha.



For Bimbisara, see

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/b/bimbisara.htm



for Pasenadi, see

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/pa/pasenadi.htm



for Ajātasattu, see

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/am/ajatasattu.htm



Returning to the Cūḷasaccaka sutta, Buddha's continuing counterattack is so 
effective that Saccaka becomes speechless, unable to answer a further 
question. Buddha then presses him:



"For the second time Saccaka the son of Nigantha became silent. Then the 
Blessed One said, 'explain it, Aggivessana. It is not the time for you to be 
silent. If someone does not reply to a reasonable question asked by the 
Tathagata up to the third time, his head splits into seven pieces.' "



Now enters Vajrapāṇi (Pali: Vajirapāṇī), who will become a key deity 
associated with Buddhist violence, defending the Dharma, etc., until the 
present day:



"At that moment Vajrapāṇi the yakkha (Skt: yakṣa), a thunderbolt-wielding 
spirit holding an iron thunderbolt that burned, blazed, and glowed, appeared 
in the air above Saccaka the Nigantha's son, thinking: 'If this Saccaka the 
Nigantha's son, when asked a reasonable question up to the third time by the 
Blessed One, still does not answer, I shall split his head into seven pieces 
here and now.' The Blessed One saw the thunderbold-wielding spirit and so 
did Saccaka the Nigantha's son. Then Saccaka the Nigantha's son was 
frightened, alarmed, and terrified. Seeking his shelter, asylum, and refuge 
in the Blessed One, he said: 'Ask me, Master Gotama, I will answer.' " 
[Nanamoli / Bodhi, modified]



Tena kho pana samaye vajirapāṇī yakkho āyasaṃ vajiraṃ ādāya ādittaṃ 
sampajjalitaṃ sajotibhūtaṃ saccakassa nigaṇṭhaputtassa uparivehāsaṃ ṭhito 
hoti: " sacāyaṃ saccako nigaṇṭhaputto bhagavatā yāvatatiyaṃ sahadhammikaṃ 
pañhaṃ puṭṭho na byākarissati. Etthevassa sattadhā muddhaṃ phālessāmī"ti.

Taṃ kho pana vajirapāṇiṃ yakkhaṃ bhagavā ceva passati, saccako ca 
nigaṇṭhaputto. Atha kho saccako nigaṇṭhaputto bhīto saṃviggo lomahaṭṭhajāto 
[PTS Page 232] bhagavantaṃyeva tāṇaṃ gavesī, bhagavantaṃ etadavoca: pucchatu 
maṃ bhavaṃ gotamo, byākarissāmīti



For some reason Nanamoli and Bodhi do not treat Taṃ kho pana vajirapāṇiṃ 
yakkhaṃ bhagavā ceva passati, saccako ca nigaṇṭhaputto. Atha kho saccako 
nigaṇṭhaputto bhīto saṃviggo lomahaṭṭhajāto [PTS Page 232] [\q 232/] 
bhagavantaṃyeva tāṇaṃ gavesī, bhagavantaṃ etadavoca: pucchatu maṃ bhavaṃ 
gotamo, byākarissāmītiname as a name, and instead translate it as 
"thunderbold-wielding"; yakkha they render "spirit." In their annotation, 
they point out that the Pali commentary identifies this yakkha as Sakka --  
perhaps that being the reason they "hide" the name. In the Skt version, 
Vajrapāṇi is Buddha's bodyguard, and ultimately considered a manifestation 
of Buddha himself.



This is the Pali prototype of a guardian of the Dharma (albeit a gnomish 
sprite) threatening to make good on Buddha's own death threat (heads split 
into seven parts usually result in more permanent injuries than headaches). 
He is not bluffing -- unless Saccaka speaks up on being asked a third time, 
he will smite him. The death threat is real. Saccaka realizes that, and that 
realization results in Saccaka taking refuge, i.e., converting to 
Buddhism -- forced conversion of a sort.



I think Lance might agree that it makes little difference in terms of Pali 
canon formation and Theravada ideology whether this event actually took 
place as recorded. Certainly pacifists will like to think their Buddha 
wouldn't get involved in this sort of nonsense -- I can hear the word 
"interpolation," and the word "later" anxious to be affixed to these 
passages, and perhaps the whole sutta. But there it is, in the Majjhima. For 
the canon and its faithful followers, it makes no difference whether this 
actually happened (most moderns would be eager to explain away Vajrapāṇi 
(whether as name, or type of yakkha) in anything but a literal meaning. It 
makes no difference whether this actually happened especially in terms of 
illustrating some of the early community's views on violence and Dhamma. 
Like the Huineng-having-to-flee story, this sort of stuff has been under our 
noses, ignored or overlooked for a variety of reasons. But there it is.



Dan



P.S. Before anyone attacks me for bringing this to our attention (actually 
Jenkins does that), please remember that I am neither the author nor 
redactor of the Majjhima Nikaya, nor am I Vajrapāṇi's press agent.