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.
