[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

  On 15/07/2010 19:21, Artur Karp wrote:
> Let me use Charles Hallisey's heuristic distinction between "event" and "idea".
>
> As an event what is described in the MhV XXV can be relativized,
> belittled, represented as unimportant, even negated. Yes, it's
> "amazing how often this is cited". Or - maybe not? Considering that
> the text conveys a rather disturbing idea?
I don't believe it does. I think this is being read in from European 
ideas. Let's look at it.

The context is after the victory over the Tamils. Verses 88-100 then 
tell a story of mistaken guilt on the part of the king's companion 
Phussadeva who accidentally grazed the king's ear while firing an arrow 
in the battle.

Then (vv. 101-103) Duṭṭhagāmaṇi is depicted as resting in his palace in 
great luxury, but getting no happiness. He gets no happiness, as he 
recollects his great acquisition of glory (siri), recollecting that he 
has carried out the slaughter of a great army.

This Geiger rather imaginatively translates:
"he, looking back upon his glorious victory, great though it was, knew 
no joy, remembering that thereby was wrought the destruction of millions 
(of beings)."

What is remarkable about this is the representation of the king's 
distress. I don't recall Constantine or Charlemagne having such regrets. 
It is rather reminiscent of Asoka at this point.

Then (vv. 104-108) we learn that arahats on the mythical isle of Piyaṅgu 
become aware of the king's thoughts and send eight of their number 
through the air to the king in order to comfort him. Arriving in the 
middle of the night, they declare that they have come for that purpose.

The king responds (v.108):
"How can there be comfort for me by whom the slaughter of a mighty great 
army has been induced ?"

The response of the arahats (vv.109-11):
"You have no obstacle to heaven or the path as a result of that kamma.
In the battle, chief of persons, you have caused the death of one and a 
half persons:
One established in the <three> refuges and the other also in the five 
precepts.
The rest who have wrong view and bad behaviour are reckoned as like 
domestic animals.
Moreover, you will cause the Buddhasāsana to shine in many ways.
Therefore dispel your mental disturbance, lord of men."

So the literary context is the dilemma of the contrast between the 
positive deeds of the king and the fact that he has caused loss of life. 
The psychological context is that he is afflicted by guilt — always a 
negative quality in Theravāda Buddhism; so the arahats are quite right 
to seek to turn his mind from guilt to positive action.

The technical terms involved here do not translate to "neither 
meritorious nor, more importantly, Buddhist" as quoted previously." 
There is nothing here that corresponds to the 'more importantly'.

You wrote:
In the Mahāvamsa (XXV, 109-110), the Tamils are - ultimately -
dehumanized. According to the text Duṭṭhagāmaṇī (101-77 BC) has no
reason to feel guilty for mass-killing his enemies. They are pasusamā
- "like cattle" (Geiger has 'beasts").

This puts an entirely different slant on it. In fact, he should not feel 
guilty in the Buddhist view — not because he has done no wrong, but 
because guilt is a further wrong act. The killing of most of the Tamils 
counts as like the killing of domestic beasts i.e. still wrong, but not 
as wrong as killing a good person. Today, at least, most Sinhala 
Buddhists would not kill cattle.

The underlying issue is the question of whether the king has performed 
an act which will bar him from a heavenly rebirth or the attainment of 
the path. The arahats are reassuring him about that. Otherwise he would 
get no benefit from all the wonderful good deeds described in the 
following chapters (XXVI – XXXII). At the end he is reborn in the Tusita 
heaven, destined to be the leading disciple of the Buddha Metteyya. The 
author of the Mahāvaṃsa comments:
"In this way one intent on the skilful does puñña,
even covering over much evil whose result is unfixed.
He enters heaven like his own house. Therefore
one who is wise will take constant delight in puñña."

Returning to chapter XXV, it concludes with another issue concerning 
guilt which is clearly part of the foundation legend for the monastery 
constructed in the next chapter and finally with a summary verse:
Thinking on the many myriads that have been slain here,
one should carefully pay attention to this danger due to sense pleasures
and very carefully pay attention to impermanence which slays all.
In this way one would before long attain freedom from suffering or a 
pleasant rebirth.

I don't believe that what we have here is really accurately represented 
in most discussions. In particular, the author is not really interested 
in vilifying Tamils and clearly doesn't intend to uniformly present them 
as subhuman. That is obvious from the account of Eḷāra in chapter XXII. 
He is so virtuous that the god Sakka organizes the rains for him !

That said, it is clearly subject to misrepresentation and has been in 
modern times. As far as I know, the story occurs only once in ancient 
Pali literature, in the Thūpavaṃsa. Even there the passage about one and 
a half persons, etc. is entirely missing. I suppose this must represent 
some discomfort with it.

Lance Cousins