The Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Questions on Restraint

Sakka now thought: “The Fortunate One has made it very clear to me about pleasant sensation, unpleasant sensation and neutral sensation just as clear butter oil has been extracted out of a lump of butter. But path and fruition evidently is the result for which there must be a cause by way of appropriate practice. Certainly, the supermundane paths and fruitions cannot be had merely by asking, like a bird soaring up the sky. There must be a practice that leads to the supermundane. I shall now ask the Fortunate One the preliminary practice whereby the Arahat fruition is attained.”

So he asked the Buddha: “Venerable sir, in which way does a monastic practise the morality of restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla)?”

On being asked thus, the Buddha replied: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, there are two kinds of bodily conduct: That which should be adopted, and that which should not be adopted. There are two kinds of verbal conduct: That which should be [972] adopted, and that which should not be adopted. There are two kinds of quests: That which should be taken up, and that which should not be taken up.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said: ‘There are two kinds of bodily conduct: That which should be adopted, and that which should not be adopted.’ The reason for my saying so is this: If you understand that in adopting a certain mode of bodily conduct demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not adopt such a mode of bodily conduct.

Bodily conduct that tends to increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness should not be adopted. The same interpretation should be made in respect of the next two statements.

Of the two kinds of bodily conduct, if you understand that in adopting a certain mode of bodily conduct demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases you should adopt such a mode of bodily conduct.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, that is the reason why I said: ‘There are two kinds of bodily conduct: That which should be adopted, and that which should not be adopted.’

Bodily conduct that tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness should be adopted. The same meaning should be taken in respect of the next two statements.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said: ‘There are two kinds of verbal conduct: That which should be adopted, and that which should not be adopted.’ The reason for my saying so is this: If you understand that in adopting a certain mode of verbal conduct, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not adopt such a mode of verbal conduct.

Of those two kinds of verbal conduct, if you understand that in adopting a certain mode of verbal conduct, demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases, you should adopt such a mode of verbal conduct.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, that is the reason why I said: ‘Sakka, there are two kinds of verbal conduct: That which should be adopted, and that which should not be adopted.’

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said: ‘Sakka, there are two kinds of quests: That which should be taken up, and that which should not be taken up.’ The reason for my saying so is this: If you understand that in taking up a certain quest, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not take up such a quest.

Of those two kinds of quests, if you understand that in taking up a certain quest, demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases, you should take up such a quest.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, that is the reason why I said: ‘Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, there are two kinds of quests: That which should be taken up, and that which should not be taken up.’

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, a monastic who practises thus is one who practises the morality of restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla).”

When the Buddha answered thus, Sakka was delighted and said, expressing approval: “Venerable sir, that indeed is so. O Fortunate One, that indeed is so. Having learnt the Fortunate One’s answer, I am free of all doubts about this question, all uncertainties have left me.”

In question six, seven, and eight, Sakka asked about the practice that leads to Nibbāna through the cessation of proliferating perceptions, and the Buddha replied with a discourse on the three kinds of sensation that are the fundamentals of the practice leading to Nibbāna. He distinguished between sensation that should be resorted to and sensation that should not be resorted to. Of those two types of sensation, the sensation that should not be resorted to is not the practice leading to Nibbāna; only the sensation that should be resorted to is the practice that leads to Nibbāna.

Yet why does the Buddha discuss about the sensation that does not lead to Nibbāna? This is a likely question to be asked by one who does not see the Buddha’s purpose. However, the Buddha knows the disposition of Sakka such that if Sakka understands the need for abandoning the sensation that should not be resorted to, recognising it as a defiling factor, then he would be prepared to cultivate the sensation that should be resorted to, recognizing it as a cleansing factor. Thus, the discussing of both [973] types of sensation is conducive to Sakka’s understanding. The Buddha’s method helped Sakka to adopt the proper practice.

In the present question on the morality of restraint according to the Rules, the mode of bodily conduct that should not be adopted, the mode of verbal conduct that should not be adopted, and the kind of quest that should not be taken up, do not in themselves constitute the morality of restraint according to the Rules. Yet, only if one is able to abandon them, can one fulfil the practice of bodily conduct that should be adopted, verbal conduct that should be adopted, and the kind of quest that should be taken up because all of them are factors that cleanse the mind. That is why the three defiling factors are discussed along with the three cleansing factors in pairs. This method, the Buddha knows, suits the disposition of Sakka in taking upon himself the proper practice.

Only when factors that ought not to be resorted to are made clear, do factors that ought to be resorted to become a mode of practice. This is the reason for the Buddha’s discussion of the pairs of useless and useful factors in the present set of questions on the morality of restraint according to the Rules, just as in the previous set of questions on sensation.

In the present set of answers, only bodily conduct that should be adopted, verbal conduct that should be adopted, and the kind of quest that should be taken up, constitute the morality of restraint according to the Rules. The bodily conduct, the verbal conduct, and the quest that should not be resorted to are defiling factors, and they must first be seen as such by Sakka.

Regarding the kind of quest that should be taken up, it may be spoken of in connection with the course of action (kamma-patha) or in connection with the prescribed form of training precept.

1. The bodily conduct that should not be resorted to are the three evil bodily actions: killing, stealing and sexual misconduct. This is speaking in terms of courses of action. Physically committing the breach at the body-door of the moral precepts laid down by the Buddha constitutes bodily conduct that should not be adopted. This is speaking in terms of precept. Bodily conduct that should be adopted are: refraining from killing, refraining from stealing and refraining from sexual misconduct. This is speaking in terms of courses of action. Physically restraining at the body-door from transgressing the moral precepts laid down by the Buddha constitutes bodily conduct that should be adopted. This is speaking in terms of precept. The same distinction should be understood in respect of verbal conduct.

2. Verbally committing one of the four evil verbal actions, such as false speech, divisive, harsh and frivolous speech is verbal conduct that should not be adopted. Refraining from transgressing the four evil verbal actions in one’s speech is verbal action that should be adopted.

3. Quest (pariyesana) involves physical and verbal actions. It is covered by bodily conduct and verbal conduct, except that in defining the eight precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīva-aṭṭhamaka-sīla), ³ the specific term quest needs to be mentioned because these eight precepts involve actions at the body-door and verbal-door, and not without effort. Quest is essentially the effort needed in making the quest.

³ Refraining from killing living creatures, taking what has not been given, sexual misconduct, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, frivolous speech and wrong livelihood.

4. Quest is of two kinds, ignoble and noble. The two kinds of quest are described in the Discourse on the Heap of Snares (Pāsarāsi-sutta, MN 26), which is also known as the Discourse on the Noble Quest (Ariya-pariyesana-sutta). The gist of the teaching is this: Where someone, who himself is subject to birth, ageing, death and destruction, seeks things animate, such as a wife, children, servants, cattle, poultry, etc., and inanimate, such as gold and silver, etc., which are also subject to birth, ageing and death, or, arising, decay and dissolution, this amounts to an ignoble quest (anariya-pariyesana), the quest that should not be taken up. If someone who is himself subject to birth, ageing and death, sees the fault in seeking things animate or inanimate, and seeks the deathless Nibbāna where no rebirth occurs, this is called a noble quest (ariya-pariyesana), and this is the quest that should be [974] taken up.

5. Explained in another way: There are five ways of seeking gains that are not proper for monastics, namely: 1) By scheming, such as creating a favourable or highly admirable impression of oneself with the lay supporters; 2) by flattering or extolling the lay supporters; 3) by hinting at a suitable occasion for making offerings; 4) by belittling the lay supporters for their alleged close-fistedness; and 5) by pursuing gain with gain by making gifts to lay supporters with the expectation of receiving offerings from them in return.

There are also six places which a monastic should not resort to:

1. A spinster’s house.

2. A hermaphrodite’s house.

3. A liquor seller’s house.

4. A prostitute’s house.

5. A widow’s or divorcee’s house.

6. A monastery of female monastics.

Not resorting to the five ways of seeking gains mentioned above, the six places described above, and the 21 ways that are not allowable quests (anesanā), all these make up the kinds of quests that should not be taken up (anariya-pariyesana). Refraining from all these improper kinds of quest, and living on the food collected at the daily alms round, is a righteous way of seeking gains which constitutes a noble quest (ariya-pariyesana).

Where a certain bodily conduct is not to be resorted to, if it is an act of killing, the conduct is improper right from the beginning, such as the procuring of lethal weapons or poison, or any effort connected with it. In the case of bodily conduct that should be resorted to, all the actions connected with it are proper right from the beginning. If one is unable to perform a deed that should be resorted to, at least the intention should be made, for that intention may be carried through if circumstances permit, bringing it to a successful conclusion.

1. Bodily conduct that can cause a schism in the Saṅgha, like Devadatta’s conduct, is improper conduct that should not be resorted to. Paying devotion to the Three Treasures twice or thrice a day, like the habit of Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, is conduct that should be resorted to.

2. Verbal conduct, such as giving orders to kill someone, like that of Devadatta sending marksmen on a mission of assassination, is conduct that should not be resorted to. Extolling the virtues of the Three Treasures, like the habit of Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, is verbal conduct that should be resorted to.

3. Ignoble quest, such as that of Devadatta, is quest that should not be taken up. Noble quest, such as that of Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, is a quest that should be taken up.

Whereas Sakka puts only one question concerning morality of restraint according to the Rules, the Buddha’s answer is threefold: bodily conduct, verbal conduct and quest; the commentary speaks of it as three questions.

The Buddha’s concluding statement. “A monastic who practises thus …” purports to say that the monastic who refrains from bodily conduct, verbal conduct and quest that ought not be resorted to, and who takes up bodily conduct, verbal conduct and quest that should be taken up, is one who practises the supreme monastic practice of morality, incumbent on a monastic, which constitutes the necessary conditions that precedes the Arahat fruition.

The Twelfth Question on Restraint of the Faculties

After receiving the Buddha’s discourse with delight, Sakka put the next question: “Venerable sir, how does a monastic practise so as to keep his faculties well guarded?”

The Buddha answered as follows: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, there are two kinds of visible objects cognizable by the [975] eye, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to. There are two kinds of sound cognizable by the ear … two kinds of odour cognizable by the nose … two kinds of taste cognizable by the tongue … two kinds of tangible objects cognizable by the body … two kinds of mental object made up of mind and matter cognizable by the mind, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.”

When the Buddha had made this brief exposition, Sakka said to him: “Venerable sir, what the Fortunate One has said in brief, I understand the meaning at length as follows: Venerable sir, if a certain visible object, cognizable by the eye, tends to increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness, that visible object should not be resorted to. If, on the other hand, a certain visible object cognizable by the eye, tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness, that visible object should be resorted to.

Venerable sir, if a certain sound cognizable by the ear … a certain odour cognizable by the nose … a certain taste cognizable by the tongue … a certain tangible object cognizable by the body … a certain thought about mind or matter, cognizable by the mind, tends to increase demeritoriousness and decreases meritoriousness, that thought should not be resorted to. If, on the other hand, a certain thought about mind or matter tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness, that thought should be resorted to. Venerable sir, being able to understand the meaning in detail of what the Fortunate One has said briefly, I am now rid of all doubts; there is no uncertainty in me.”

Sakka had benefitted from the previous discourses of the Buddha on the three kinds of sensation and on the three kinds of what is to be resorted to and what should not be resorted to. When the present brief answer from the Buddha was given, he had the right understanding based on the Buddha’s previous preachings and accordingly began to address the Buddha about his understanding.

The Buddha remained silent, allowing Sakka to go ahead with what he had to say about the meaning of the brief statements. It was not the custom of the Buddha to allow such a thing, if the hearer of a discourse is not competent enough to state how he understands it, or to allow a competent hearer, if he is not willing to come forward with an explanation of what he understands of it. Here Sakka was competent as well as willing, hence the Buddha’s permission.

Now to elaborate on the various sense objects as to their worthiness or unworthiness:

1. If a certain visible object tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga), in the mind of a monastic who sees it, that visible object is an unworthy one, and he should not look at it. If a certain visible object arouses in him a sense of repulsiveness, a perception of repulsiveness (asubha-saññā), or strengthens the conviction in him of the truth of the Dhamma, in the teaching, or arouses the perception of impermanence (anicca-saññā), then that visible object is a worthy one, and he should look at it.

2. If a certain song, beautifully composed, that is heard by a monastic tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga) in him, that sound is an unworthy one, and he should not listen to it. If, on the other hand, a certain song, even coming from a potter’s girl, enables the monastic, who hears it, to reflect on the law of cause and effect and [976] strengthens his conviction in the truth of the Dhamma, tending to disenchantment with sentient existence and thoughts of renunciation, then that sound is a worthy one, and he should listen to it.

3. If a certain odour tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga) in the mind of a monastic who smells it, that odour is an unworthy one, and he should not smell it. If a certain odour causes the monastic who smells it, to gain a perception of loathsomeness of the body, that odour is a worthy one, and he should smell it.

4. If a certain taste tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga) in the mind of a monastic who tastes it, that taste is an unworthy one, and he should not taste it. If a certain taste causes the monastic, who tastes it, to gain a perception of loathsomeness (āhāre paṭikūla-saññā) of the food swallowed or if it sustains him to gain the noble truth, like in the case of the novice Sīva, the nephew of Ven. Mahā Sīva, who became an Arahat while taking his meal, then that taste is worthy one, and he should eat it.

In this connection, we have looked for the name of novice Sīva in the sub-commentary and in the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga) but do not find it. In the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga), there is, however, the story of novice Bhāgineyya Saṅgharakkhita who became an Arahat while taking his meal.

5. If a certain tangible object tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga) in the mind of a monastic who touches it, that tangible object is an unworthy one, and he should not touch it. If a certain tangible object, which is proper for a monastic, causes the monastic still training himself to attain the Arahat fruition through exhaustion of the pollutants (āsava) completely, like in the case of Ven. Sāriputta, and so on, or is conducive to zeal, or serves as a good model for future monastics, then that tangible object should be resorted to.

It is noteworthy in this connection that many monastics during the Buddha’s time denied themselves the luxury of lying down; for instance, Ven. Sāriputta never lay down on a bed for 30 whole years; Ven. Mahā Moggallāna for as many years; Ven. Mahā Kassapa for 120 years; Ven. Bākula for 80 years; Ven. Anuruddha for 50 years; Ven. Bhaddiya for 30 years; Ven. Soṇa for 18 years; Ven. Ānanda for 15 years; Ven. Raṭṭhapāla for 12 years; Ven. Rāhula for 12 years; and Ven. Nālaka, who practised moral perfection (moneyya) for as long as he lived.

6. If a certain Dhamma object about mind or matter tends to arouse defilements such as attachment (rāga) in the mind of a monastic who thinks about that object; or tends to arouse covetousness in him, that thought is an unworthy one, and he should not entertain such a thought. If a certain thought promotes kind feelings towards others, such as: “May all beings be well, be free from trouble, etc.,” as in the case of the three elders whose story is told below, that thought is a worthy one, and he should nurture such a thought, such a Dhamma object.

The Three Monastic Elders

Once, three elders made a vow among themselves on the eve of the Rains Retreat period not to indulge in demeritorious thoughts such as sensuous thoughts during the three month Rains Retreat (Vassa) period and decided to stay in a certain monastery for their Rains Retreat.

At the end of the Rains Retreat, on the Saṅgha assembly day, on the full moon of October (Assayuja), the Saṅgha elder who was the most senior of the three elders, put this question to the youngest of the three elders: “How far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the Rains Retreat?” To which, he replied: “Venerable sir, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander beyond the precincts of the monastery.” The monastic’s admission implied that his mind wandered sometimes within the monastery precincts, which may mean that he thought of visible objects that came into the monastery precincts, but since there were no female visitors, his mind had had no occasion to have unbridled thoughts. [977]

The Saṅgha elder then asked the second elder: “Friend, how far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the Rains Retreat?” To which the second elder replied: “Venerable sir, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander beyond my room.”

Then the two junior elders asked of the Saṅgha elder: “Venerable sir, how far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the Rains Retreat?” To which, the Saṅgha elder answered: “Friends, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander outside of my body.” That indeed was true, the Saṅgha elder did not do anything physically, verbally or mentally, without being mindful, without having first reflected on the action that he was about to undertake, so that there was no moment left for his thought to wander forth outside the body. The two junior elders said to the senior-most elder: “Venerable sir, you are wonderful!” The type of thought that occurred to these three elders is of the worthy type; a monastic may well entertain such thoughts.

The Thirteenth Question on the Various Elements

Thus having received the Buddha’s discourse with delight, Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, further asked his next question: “Venerable sir, do all ascetics and Brahmins have the same teaching, the same practice, the same view, and the same ultimate goal?”

To this, the Buddha replied: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, not all the ascetics and Brahmins have the same teaching, the same practice, the same view, and the same goal.”

Herein, Sakka puts this question because he has known, prior to his becoming a noble one (ariya), that the so-called ascetics and Brahmins have diverse teaching, practices, views and goals which he now understands as vain. He wants to know the reasons why there are such a diversity of teachings, practices, views and goals among them.

Sakka further asked: “Venerable sir, what is the reason for the diversity of teachings, practices, views, and goals among the ascetics and Brahmins?”

And the Buddha replied: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, beings in this sentient world are of various dispositions. Whatever attracts their fancy, these beings hold on to it, firmly believing it to be the only truth, and rejecting all other views as vain. That is why all the ascetics and Brahmins have no common teaching, no common practice, no common view, and no common goal.”

Individual dispositions differ among persons. When one wants to go, another wants to stand; when one wants to stand, another wants to lie down. It is difficult to find two individuals of the same disposition. If dispositions differ among one another, regarding even postures, how could views, practices and teachings be the same among them? The Buddha points out this diversity as the reason for the differences in teachings, practices, views and goals among ascetics and Brahmins.

The Fourteenth Question on the Final Crossing Over

Further, Sakka asked this question to the Buddha: [978] “Venerable sir, do all ascetics and Brahmins attain the indestructible Nibbāna, where they can find refuge, and where all bonds are overcome? Do all of them practise the noble (ariya) path which is the right practice for the attainment of the indestructible? Do they have the indestructible as the final goal?”

Sakka’s question is about Nibbāna as the ultimate reality, and about whether holders of diverse views take up the practice of the noble path to attain Nibbāna.

The Buddha answered: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, not all ascetics and Brahmins attain the indestructible Nibbāna, where they can find refuge and where all bonds are overcome. Not all of them practise the noble path which is the right practice for the attainment of Nibbāna; nor have the indestructible as their final goal.”

Since individual dispositions differ among the so-called ascetics and Brahmins, their teachings, practices, views and goals differ. Therefore, how could they attain Nibbāna, the ultimate reality, as their common goal? The Buddha makes this clear in his reply that only those who practise the noble path can attain Nibbāna.

Sakka then put his last question thus: “Venerable sir, what is the reason that not all ascetics and Brahmins attain the indestructible Nibbāna, where they can find refuge, and where all bonds are overcome? Why is it that they do not practise the noble path which is the right practice for the attainment of the indestructible? Why is it that not all of them have the indestructible as their final goal?”

And the Fortunate One replied: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, those monastics who are free from defilements through the noble path which causes the extinction of craving attain the indestructible Nibbāna where they find refuge and where all bonds are overcome. They are the ones who practise the noble path which is the right practice to attain Nibbāna, the indestructible. They have the indestructible Nibbāna as their final goal. Not all ascetics and Brahmins attain the indestructible Nibbāna where they find refuge and where all bonds are overcome, because not all of them practise the noble path which is the right path to attain the indestructible Nibbāna. Not all of them have the indestructible Nibbāna as their final goal.”

Thus took place a verbal exchange between the noblest of noble ones (ariya) and Sakka, a noble one (ariya), on the subject of Nibbāna, the ultimate reality. They spoke the language of the noble ones which is as magnificent as a fully blossomed Sāla tree. For us worldlings, that language and its meanings are not comprehensible because our field of knowledge does not go beyond the sense faculties. In other words, our range of perception is limited to our senses only. The point the Buddha makes here is that only Arahats, who have been liberated from defilements through the path that destroys craving, attain Nibbāna, the ultimate reality. Not all ascetics and Brahmins attain Nibbāna. The Buddha’s teaching has Nibbāna, the ultimate reality, as its culmination. Hence, when the question of Nibbāna has been dealt with fully, there is an end of all questions.

On hearing the Buddha’s reply, Sakka was delighted and said: “Venerable sir, that indeed is so. O Fortunate One, that indeed is so. Having learnt the Fortunate One’s answer, I am free of all doubts about this question. I have no uncertainties now!” [979]

After receiving the Buddha’s discourse with much delight, Sakka, the Lord of the Devas said to him: “Venerable sir, craving is a disease, an open sore, a dart or thorn. Craving attracts all beings back into endless existences, thereby sending them now to high planes of existence and then to low planes of existence.

Venerable sir, whatever question I did not have the opportunity to ask of the so-called ascetics and Brahmins outside this teaching, the Fortunate One has given me the answer. The Fortunate One has by this answer cleared all the darts of doubt that had long been troubling me.”

The Buddha then asked Sakka: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, do you remember having put these questions to other ascetics and Brahmins?”

“Yes, I do, venerable sir.”

“What were their answers? If it is not too much trouble, may I know?”

“When the Fortunate One, or someone as great as the Fortunate One, sits before me, there is no trouble for me to answer.”

“Very well, then Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, let us hear what you have to say.”

“Venerable sir, I have put these questions to those ascetics and Brahmins whom I took for forest dwellers. They were not only unable to answer my questions but even asked me who I was that I could ask such profound questions. I said I was Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, and then they were interested and asked me what merit I had acquired to become Sakka. I told them the seven meritorious deeds, as I had learned them, that lead to becoming Sakka. Then they were greatly pleased, saying: ‘We have seen Sakka in person, and we have also got Sakka’s answer to our questions!’ Indeed, venerable sir, those ascetics and Brahmins were merely my pupils. I had never been their pupil.

Venerable sir, I am now a noble (ariya) disciple of the Fortunate One, a Stream-enterer, who is forever safe against the four miserable existences of the downfall (apāya) and whose fortunate destiny is thus assured, and who is on the way to the three higher paths.”

The Satisfaction of Sakka

Then the Buddha asked Sakka whether he had previously experienced such delightful satisfaction of this nature. Sakka replied: “Yes, venerable sir, I remember having experienced such delightful satisfaction of this nature previously.”

“What kind of delightful satisfaction do you remember having experienced before?”

“Venerable sir, in the past, there took place a great battle between the Devas of Tāvatiṁsa and those of the Asuras. The Tāvatiṁsa Devas were the victors. Then, as victor, I was very glad to reflect on the fact that the Tāvatiṁsa Devas would now have the special privilege of enjoying both their own food pertaining to the Tāvatiṁsa Realm as well as the food pertaining to the Asura realm. However, venerable sir, my delightful satisfaction, then, was pleasure bolstered up with armed might. It was not helpful for disenchantment with the wheel of existence, for destroying desire, for cessation of the round of rebirth, for abandoning attachment, for special apperception, for an understanding of the four truths, for the realization of Nibbāna.

Venerable sir, the delightful satisfaction that I now have, on hearing the Fortunate One’s discourse, is of a superior kind that does not need bolstering up with armed might. It is indeed conducive to disenchantment with the wheel of existence, to destroying desire, to cessation of the round of rebirth, to abandoning attachment, to special apperception, to an understanding of the four truths, to the realization of Nibbāna.” [980]

Then the Buddha asked: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, what benefits do you see in your present status so that you speak of its great delight?”

“Venerable sir, I see six great benefits in my present noble state and that is why I extol it so much. The six are:

Idheva tiṭṭha-mānassa, Deva-bhūtassa me sato, puna-r-āyu ca me laddho, evaṁ jānāhi mārisa.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, even while I have been listening to your discourse in this Indasāla Cave, I have been reborn as Sakka, by the name of Maghava, and will live 36 million years, by human reckoning, in the Tāvatiṁsa Realm. May the venerable one, who is free from suffering, take note of it. Venerable sir, this is the first benefit that is behind my extolling my noble state.

Cutāhaṁ diviyā kāyā, āyuṁ hitvā amānusaṁ, amūḷho gabbham-essāmi, yattha me ramatī mano.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, when I die from the Deva existence and have relinquished the 36 million years’ life, by human reckoning, of Tāvatiṁsa Deva existence, I shall, without any bewilderment at death, be reborn in the human world in a high class or clan of my own preference, venerable sir, this is the second benefit that is behind my extolling my noble state.

When a noble one (ariya) passes away and takes another rebirth, he is never in a bewildered state. Mindful and with clear comprehension, he passes away from one existence to another, which is always in a fortunate destination. If reborn in the human world, he always belongs to the royal warrior caste or Brahmin caste. Sakka has a desire for such noble birth when he reappears as a human being.

Svāhaṁ amūḷha-paññassa, viharaṁ Sāsane rato, ñāyena viharissāmi, sampajāno paṭissato.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, taking delight in the teaching of the Perfectly Awakened One, enjoying physical health I will dwell in mindfulness and clear comprehension befitting a noble one. Venerable sir, this is the third benefit that is behind my extolling my noble state.

Ñāyena me carato ca, Sambodhi ce bhavissati, aññātā viharissāmi, sveva anto bhavissati.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, in me who thus dwells in the noble practice of a noble one, if Once-returning (Sakadāgāmi-magga) arises, then, to gain still higher path-knowledge of the Non-returner (Anāgāmi-magga) and the Arahat path (Arahatta-magga), I shall dwell in still further practice of the path. When Once-returning (Sakadāgāmi-magga) is attained that will be my last human existence. Venerable sir, this is the fourth benefit that lies behind my extolling my noble state.

Cutāhaṁ mānusā kāyā, āyuṁ hitvāna mānusaṁ, puna devo bhavissāmi, Deva-lokamhi uttamo.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, when I pass away from human existence and leave behind the human body, relinquishing the human life, I shall be reborn in the Tāvatiṁsa Deva [981] realm as the Lord of Devas. Venerable sir, this is the fifth benefit that lies behind my extolling my noble state.

Te paṇīta-tarā devā, Akaniṭṭhā yasassino, antime vatta-mānamhi, so nivāso bhavissati.

Venerable one, free from suffering, those Devas, the noble Brahmas of the Akaniṭṭhā realm, the topmost of the planes of existence, are superior in all respects, such as lifespan and knowledge, to all other Devas and Brahmas. They have a big following. When I have my last existence, I shall be reborn in that Akaniṭṭhā Brahma realm. Venerable sir, this is the sixth benefit that lies behind my noble state.

The six benefits that Sakka enjoys on hearing the discourse in the Indasāla Cave are:

1. Attaining Stream-entry at Indasāla cave; passing away and instant rebirth, also at Indasāla cave, as Sakka again.

2. On passing away from that Sakka existence, rebirth in a noble lineage in the human world in a non-bewildered state, his path to final Awakening as an Arahat being limited to seven existences only.

3. Continued practice of the path in his future existences without bewilderment.

4. Attaining Once-returning (Sakadāgāmi-magga) in a human existence which will be his last human existence.

5. On passing away from that last human existence, being destined to become Sakka for the third time.

6. Attaining Non-returning (Anāgāmi-magga) as Sakka, and being reborn in progressively higher existences in the five Pure Brahma realms namely: Aviha realm, Atappa realm, Sudassa realm, Sudassī realm, Akaniṭṭhā realm; and to become an Arahat in the Akaniṭṭhā realm.

The sixth benefit, which is to result in rebirth in the five Brahma realms should be noted here particularly for the immense durations of sublime existence in the pure abodes: As a Non-returner (Anāgāmi-puggala), Sakka will enjoy the ecstasy of a pure Brahma in the Aviha realm for 1,000 aeons (mahā-kappa); passing away from that realm, he will be reborn in the Atappa realm for 2,000 aeons; then in the Sudassa realm for 4,000 aeons: then in the Sudassi realm for 8,000 aeons; and finally, in the Akaniṭṭhā realm for 16,000 aeons. Thus he will enjoy a total of 31,000 aeons of ecstasy in a Brahma existence.

In the matter of the kind of extraordinarily prolonged existence full of ecstasy there are only three that are outstanding as noble (ariya) disciples under Buddha Gotama’s teaching: Sakka, Anāthapiṇḍika and Visākhā. They enjoy a similar lifespan.

Sakka concluded with these words: “Venerable sir, it is because I see these six benefits that I extol the delightful satisfaction of my attainment.”

Then Sakka repeated his former experience with the forest-dwelling ascetics and Brahmins who failed to answer his questions, but how he had to teach them the seven modes of conduct leading one to become a Sakka. Then he sang in praise of the Buddha in the following verses:

Taṇhā-sallassa hantāraṁ, Buddhaṁ appaṭipuggalaṁ, ahaṁ vande Mahā-vīraṁ, Buddham-ādicca-bandhunaṁ.

To the Buddha, the unrivalled one, knower of the four truths, kinsman of the sun, having Gotama clan as common lineage, or, in another sense, being father of the sun in the propagation of the supermundane, the one possessed of great endeavour, who has destroyed all the darts of craving, the Perfectly Awakened One, I make my obeisance with raised [982] palms.

Yaṁ karomasi brahmuno, samaṁ devehi mārisa, Tad-ajja tuyhaṁ kassāma, handa sāmaṁ karoma te.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, formerly we paid our tribute to Brahma, as with other Devas; but from today onwards, we shall give our offerings to you. Now, we pay our obeisance to you!

Tvam-eva asi Sambuddho, tuvaṁ Satthā anuttaro, Sadevakasmiṁ lokasmiṁ, natthi te paṭipuggalo.

Venerable one, who is free from suffering, you alone are the Perfectly Awakened One, teacher of Devas and humans. There is none to equal you, in personal glory or in the embodiment of the Dhamma in all the worlds of sentient beings including the world of Devas.

After singing in praise of the Buddha in those three verses, Sakka said to Pañcasikha: “Pañcasikha, through your good offices, we have the privilege of seeing the Arahat, the Perfectly Self-Awakened Buddha. I am greatly indebted to you for this. I appoint you to your father’s office as chief of the Gandhabbas. You will be the next chief of the Gandhabbas. I also betroth you to Sūriyavachasā, the maiden of exquisite features whom you deeply yearn for.”

Sakka’s Joyous Utterance

After that, Sakka was so glad that he slapped the good earth as though a person were to slap his friend’s arm in intimate affection and uttered these words of joyous expression thrice:

Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā-sambuddhassa

Homage to the Fortunate One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-Awakened

In this connection, Sakka slapped the good earth because he attained the supermundane, while he remained on the earth and also because this great earth has produced such a marvellous personage as the Buddha, so that he had a profound regard for the good earth.

After listening to the Buddha’s answers, Sakka acquired the eye of the Dhamma, being able to dispel certain defilements and thereby understand that: “Whatever is in the nature of arising, that has the nature of perishing.” He thus attained Stream-entry, as also did the 80,000 Devas who were in his company then.

This discourse, being a series of answers to questions given by Sakka, is known as Sakka’s Questions. [983]