Part 3 - The wandering ascetic Saccaka

Victory over The Wandering Ascetic Saccaka

The Buddha conquered the wandering ascetic Saccaka while taking up residence at Kutagara monastery in the forest of Mahāvana near Vesali. An account of this wandering ascetic, Saccaka, will be reproduced here from Catukka nipatta, Culalcalinga Jātaka Commentary and Mulapaṇṇāsa, Culasaccaka Sutta Commentary.

Long time ago, seven thousand, seven hundred and seven descendents of Licchavi royal family of Vesali took turns to rule the country. All those royal descendents were very much inclined to investigate into various ascetic views prevailing at that time. Once, a wandering mendicant, who professed five hundred views, arrived in Vesali. These royal descendents held him in high esteem and treated him well. A female mendicant, who also professed five hundred views, arrived in the country of Vesali at about the same time.

The descendents of the royal family arranged a debate between the two mendicants. The debate ended in a draw as one could not defeat the other since they were equally matched. A peculiar idea struck the Licchavis: “Should the two be united in marriage, they could expect of them an off-spring of great talent.” So they persuaded them to remain in their country without taking the trouble of wandering about. They treated them with respect and arranged for their maintenance.

As years rolled by, the couple produced four daughters and one son. The names of the daughters were, (1) Sacca, (2) Lola, (3) Avadharika, (4) Paticchada and that of the son was Saccaka. (According to Cula Saccaka Sutta Aṭṭhakathā, the names of daughters are (1) Sacca, (2) Lola, (3) Patacara and (4) Acaravati)

When they came of age, they were given instructions on views held by their parents: five hundred paternal and five hundred maternal views, a total of one thousand.

Special parental advice was also given to the four daughters:

“My dear daughters.... if you find anyone who could refute your views, you might offer yourself as his wife if he is a lay man;should he, however, happened to be a bhikkhu, you might lead a homeless life under him.”

After the death of their parents, the wandering Saccaka, being more intelligent than his four elder sisters, studied more and more unorthodox views in addition to the one thousand that he had inherited from his late parents. Without wandering forth he kept on residing in Vesali by giving instructions to young royal princes. Fearing that his belly, which was full of ‘wisdom’ might burst at any moment, he had it wrapped up with iron plates.

His elder sisters held the view that Jabudipa island was conspicuous by the presence of Jabu-tha-bye tree (the golden Eugenia tree). So they used to carry Thabye flowers and fresh leaves as they moved from town to town in search of rivals in the matter of doctrinal views. They used to plant a few branches of Thabye on a heap of sand or earth at the entrance to a town, announcing: “Anyone capable of refuting our views can smash it,” by way of a challenge, before they entered the town.

As they wandered from place to place, they eventually arrived at Savatthi. Here, again, they planted a branch of Thabye at the gate and made a challenging announcement: “Anyone, whether a laity or a bhikkhu, who can refute our ideology, can destroy this heap of earth and this branch of Thabye by his feet.” They left their word with the children whom they found loitering round the gate, and went into the town.

The Venerable Sāriputta’s Feat of Intellectual Power

On that day, the Chief Disciple, the Venerable Sāriputta, went for the usual round of receiving food fairly late in the morning, as he had been sweeping certain places in the monastery, filling pots with drinking water and nursing the sick within the precincts of Jetavana monastery. As he reached near the gate, he came upon those branches of Thabye. He, therefore, asked the nearby children about the strange spectacle. They gave a full account of it to the Venerable.

Whereupon, the Venerable Sāriputta asked them to smash the Thabye branches. The boys replied: “Reverend Sir... we dare not do it... we are afraid...” Venerable Sāriputta urged them again by saying a few words of encouragement: “Boys.... don't be afraid; should they ask you as to who was behind you, just let them know that I, Sāriputta, the Chief Disciple of the Buddha, had asked you to do it, and tell them also that if they want to challenge me in debate, they should come to Jetavana monastery.” The boys summoned their courage and smashed the Thabye branches as instructed. Venerable Sāriputta went on his round of receiving alms and returned to the monastery.

When the four sisters came out of the town, they asked the boys: “Who has asked you to destroy our Thabye branches?” They told them all about it.

The four women went back into the town, each moving along a different route, announcing: “We learn that the Chief Disciple of the Buddha, known as Sāriputta, is ready to engage in a debate with us. Will those wishing to hear the debate come along...” Many people came out and went along with them to the Jetavana monastery.

Venerable Sāriputta felt that presence of womenfolk in the residential area of bhikkhus was not permissible, and so he went to the central part of the precincts of the monastery to meet them. On arrival, the womenfolk asked: “Did you ask the boys to smash up our Thabye branch?” “Yes... I did it,” was the reply. Whereupon those women challenged the Venerable Sāriputta to a debate on ideology. The Venerable accepted their challenge and asked them as to who should start questioning. They replied: “The onus of questioning rests with us.” To which the Venerable Sāriputta said: “Yes, you, being womenfolk, start questioning.”

The four women took positions, one on each of the four sides, and thrust a barrage of questions, thousand in number, which they had learnt from their parents. Venerable Sāriputta gave prompt answers to every of their questions, just like cutting off the stalk of lily with a double-edged sword, leaving no problem unsolved. He then invited more questions from the four women, who being subdued, replied: “Most reverend Sir... We know this much only.”

Venerable Sāriputta said: “Well, wanderers... I have answered all the one thousand questions that you have asked, and now I will ask you only one question and will you answer it?” Knowing by now somewhat about the Venerable’s standing, they dared not reply courageously: “Please do, Venerable Sir, we will answer your questions.” but, instead, they said meekly: “Reverend Sir... please do. We will answer if we possibly can.” Before putting forward his question, Sāriputta made it plain to them that the question which he was about to ask was not of higher standard but one meant for prospective novices who have to learn them after becoming sāmaṇeras and asked this question: “What is meant by one Dhamma?” (Ekam nāma kim).

The four ascetic women could not make head or tail of the problem. Venerable Sāriputta asked them: “Heretic women... answer the question,” and they admitted their inability: “Reverend Sir... we have not the vaguest idea of the answer.” The Venerable told them: “Now that I have answered your one thousand questions while you cannot answer a single question of mine, who, then, is the victor and who are the vanquished?” Their reply was: “Reverend Sir... you are the conqueror and we are the conquered.” Venerable Sāriputta asked: “What would you do in such circumstances?” They told the Venerable of what their parents had asked them to do in the event of their defeat (as related in the preceding chapters), and expressed their desire to receive ordination under the patronage of the Venerable.

Venerable Sāriputta, then gave them this instruction: “This is not the right place for you womenfolk to receive ordination and you will be best advised to go to the monasteries of bhikkhunīs with our introduction and ask to be ordained there.” Accordingly, they went to the monasteries of the bhikkhunīs with the introduction of the Venerable and received ordination. (They received ordination under the patronage of Uppalavan Therī, according to Jātaka Commentary) They attained arahatship within a short period of time through mindful, earnest effort in the practice of the Path. (The Buddha expounded an account of this episode in Culakalinga Jātaka, vide Catukka Nipatta. For further particulars, please refer to five hundred and fifty Jātaka).

(N.B. This episode happened only when the Buddha was taking up residence at Jetavana monastery of Savatthi, some time after the establishing of bhikkhunīsāsana with the Buddha’s approval and also in compliance with Mahā Pajāpati Gotamī’s express request when He was residing in Mahāvana forest, Vesali. This interesting episode has connections with the story of wandering Saccaka, hence its exposition here.)

The Story of Wandering Ascetic Saccaka

As narrated above, the four women ascetics had a younger brother called wanderer Saccaka, who was acting as an instructor of the royal princes of Vesali.

It was during the period when the Buddha was staying at Kutagara monastery in Mahāvana forest, near Vesali, that wanderer Saccaka, son of sectarian Nigandha, was proclaiming himself as one skilled in debating, one who was very learned; and people also took him to be a holy person. He was boasting to the Vesali citizens:

“I have never come across any person claiming himself to have bhikkhu followers, to be a sectarian, a sectarian leader, a samana Brāhmana or one worthy of Homage, a Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha, who could resist without perspiring from their arm-pits when I refute and rebuke them on grounds of views. Even senseless logs or wooden blocks could not remain unshaken when I talk about things in terms of views, leave alone the living creatures!”

Wanderer Saccaka was, in fact, going about the city and boasting himself as one who was out to find faults with Samana Gotama. On one morning, as he was strolling about and taking walking exercise, he noticed the Venerable Assaji on his round of receiving alms, at a distance. He thought to himself:

“I am a person, who has been contemplating how to debate with Samana Gotama’s Teaching though I cannot do it yet, since I have no means of knowing His views. I must therefore try to get to know His views before I could challenge Him in a proper manner. Venerable Assaji is well versed in Samana Gotama’s views and I should make Him to declare their doctrine firmly before I could find fault with Gotama and rebuke Him.”

He approached the Venerable Assaji with that end in view, and entered into conversation with the him after exchanging friendly greetings: “O Assaji... how does Samana Gotama exhort His disciples? In how many ways does He give them instructions in minute detail?” Whereupon, Venerable Assaji explained him in this way:

“O descendent of Aggivessana, wanderer Saccaka,.... the Buddha exhorted His disciples in this manner. He gave detailed instructions in various ways:—

Bhikkhus,...... Corporeality (rūpa) is impermanent, sensation is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional activities are impermanent, six-fold consciousness is impermanent. Corporeality is not self, sensation is not self, perception is not self, volitional activities are not self, six-fold consciousness is not self (attā). All conditioned things are not permanent; all dhammas are without self.

O descendent of Aggivessana, wanderer Saccaka,.....the Buddha had exhorted His disciples in this way. He had given many detailed instructions in various ways.” The above is the Venerable Assaji’s reply to heretic Saccaka’s query.

[Points of special interest which are worthy to note: From the foregoing statement, it will be seen that, in his reply to Saccaka’s query, Venerable Assaji mentioned facts of ‘Impermanence’ and ‘Unsubstantiality’ or Non-self, but nothing was said about the fact of ‘Suffering’. The reason for the omission of the fact of suffering has been explained in the Commentary as follows:—

“Had Venerable Assaji mentioned the fact of suffering as corporeality is suffering, sensation is suffering, perception is suffering, volitional activities are suffering, six-fold consciousness is suffering, Saccaka might get a chance for disputation. This is because, figuratively speaking Path and Fruition are regarded as suffering (saṅkhāra-dukkha). Hence the omission of the fact of suffering. Otherwise, Saccaka would have asked: “O Assaji what is the object of your receiving ordination?” Then Venerable Assaji’s reply would be: “For the sake of Path and Fruition.” In such a case, he would be exposed to censure: “O Assaji..., your sāsana, after all, does not lead to emancipation, in reality, your so called sāsana simply is a place of oppression and destruction; your so called sāsana is a kind of Ussada plane of misery! Therefore, your minds are void of desire for joy. Indeed, you all have been wandering round striving anxiously after suffering.” It was for this reason that Venerable Assaji had purposely avoided the employment of the figurative term (pariyāya), and adopted the abstract term (nippriyāya) that could not have another meaning, hence exclusive presentation of 'Impermanence' (anicca) and Unsubstantiality (anatta)’.]

Whereupon, Saccaka said: “O Assaji what improper things do I hear? We have heard what Samana Gotama has been preaching. Perhaps we could meet with honourable Gotama sometime when there might be some discussion. Perhaps we could then rid Him of this evil view.”

At that time the five hundred Licchavi princes were assembled at the Assembly Hall to transact some business. Saccaka thought to himself: “I was unable to decry the views of Samana Gotama in the past for not knowing anything about it. Now, I have learnt about them from His great disciple Assaji. I know them fully well, I had better go to His place and reproach Him for His views.”

He went first to the Assembly Hall where his five hundred Licchavi princes were holding a meeting.

He bid them to come out from the chamber, shouting:

“Come forth, honourable Licchavis! Come forth honourable Licchavis! Today, there will be a discussion between Samana Gotama and myself about His view. It is going to be a grand show! Assaji, one of the five bhikkhus and a well-known disciple of Samana Gotama, has stood firmly on the view of Impermanence and Unsubstantiality. If Samana Gotama also stood firm on the same view of anicca and anatta,

(1) Just as a powerful man taking hold of a long fleeced ram by its fleece, might pull, push and pull it about, even so will I pull and push and pull Samana Gotama about with my arguments and refutations of His view.

(2) Just as a powerful workman of a liquor shop, taking a big mat from the liquor shop, might throw it into a deep lake and seizing it by the corner, might pull it, push it, and shake it, even so, will I pull, push and shake Samana Gotama about with my arguments and refutations of His view.

(3) Just as a powerful drunkard, taking hold of a liquor strainer by its edge, might shake it up, shake it down, and toss it about, even so, will I shake up, shake down and toss about Samaṇa Gotama with arguments and refutations of His view.

(4) Just as an elephant, which gets infirm only when it is sixty, might get down into a deep pond and play the game of washing hemp, even so, will I play with Samana Gotama as in the game of washing hemp with my arguments and refutation of His view.

(N.B. When hemp stalks are in the process of being transformed into fibres, they are made into bundles and dipped in the water for softening. After three days, when they are soft and pliant, workmen come with provisions, such as drinks and eatables, for enjoyment when the work is over. They take hold of bunches of hemp and strike them hard against the planks laid on their right, left and front in turn, while they enjoy food and drink.

The royal elephant, imitating the action of hemp workers, goes deep into the pond and drawing water with its trunk, blows it on its head, on its back, on either side of its body, and in between its thighs. Hence the term, (Sana dhovika) playing the game of washing hemps.)

“O Licchavi princes come forth come forth. Today there will be a debate between me and Samana Gotama on His view. Its going to be a grand show!” Thus Saccaka invited his disciples.

Among the Licchavi princes there were (1) those who expressed their conviction that ‘Samana Gotama is not capable of refuting the views of Saccaka, it is only Saccaka who will be able to refute the view of Samana Gotama and (2) those who said: “What kind of a man is Saccaka that he would be able to refute the Buddha? It is the Buddha only who will be able to refute Saccaka.”

Then Saccaka made his way towards Kutagara monastery in the company of five hundred Licchavi princes. It was noon then and many bhikkhus were walking to and fro to repulse sloth and torpor after having rich food. [In other words, these bhikkhus were meditators in the day time (divā padhānika) who usually took a walk to and fro to expose themselves to the sun at noon and then bathed. They found this practice most helpful in developing concentration in their meditation.]

Saccaka approached these bhikkhus and asked: “Friends where does Honourable Gotama take residence at the present moment? We would like to see Him.”

Early at dawn on that day, the Buddha, after abiding in mahā-karuṇā-samāpatti, looked into the ten thousand universes and perceived through His Omniscience, that Saccaka would be coming along with many Licchavi princes to rebuke Him concerning His view. He, therefore, took His bath early in the morning and went out for receiving alms, accompanied by bhikkhus. On return, He did not go into the Scented Chamber but went straight into the Mahāvana forest and sat under a shady tree for the convenience of the visiting crowd, led by heretic Saccaka.

Those bhikkhus whom Saccaka had contacted were the meditating bhikkhus, who had just returned from the Buddha. They, therefore readily replied indicating with their clasped palms pointing towards the Buddha, saying: “O Saccaka, the Buddha is sitting under a tree in the Mahāvana forest to spend the day.”

Thereupon, Saccaka went into Mahāvana forest in the company of a huge mass of people. He approached the Buddha, and after a cordial exchange of greetings with Him, sat at a suitable spot. (It should be noted that in addition to the five hundred Licchavi princes who were his disciples, the huge crowd following him, now consisted of numerous citizens of Vesali who were interested to witness the debate between the two distinguished personalities.)

Those who came along with Saccaka may be divided into five categories: (1) Some people paid homage to the Buddha and sat at suitable places. (2) Some exchanged greetings with Him, saying words that would remain always fresh in the their hearts throughout their lives, and sat at suitable places. (3) Some bowed with palms towards Him and sat at suitable places. (4) Some announced their names and lineage and sat at suitable place. (5) Some simply sat down in complete silence.

Having sat down at a suitable place, Saccaka addressed the Buddha: “May I, with your approval, submit a question concerning a certain subject?” The Buddha replied: “Ask, Aggivessana, whatever you like.” (This is the sort of invitation to questions, peculiar to Fully Self-Enlightened Buddhas, and beyond the range of Paccekabuddhas and Sāvakas.)

Saccaka started questioning: “O Honourable Gotama..., how do you exhort your disciples? What part of your many Teachings is most emphasised for your disciples?” To which Buddha replied:

“O descendent of Aggivessana, Wanderer Saccaka...., I exhort my disciples in this manner. This part of the many teachings is most emphasised for my disciples. Bhikkhus, corporeality is impermanent, sensation is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional activities are impermanent, six-fold consciousness is impermanent. Bhikkhus corporeality is not self, sensation is not self, perception is not self, volitional activities are not self, six-fold consciousness is not self (attā). All conditioned things are impermanent; all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are not self (attā).

O descendent of Aggivessana, Wanderer Saccaka..., this is how I exhort my disciples; this part of the many teachings is most emphasis for my disciples.”

Saccaka said: “A simile occurs to me.” The Buddha then told him: “O descendent of Aggivessana, reveal it (boldly and vividly).”

“Just as seeds and trees cannot grow without depending and resting on the earth that affords support, or just as a manual worker cannot accomplish his task without depending and resting upon the earth that affords support.... O Honourable Gotama.... even so, this individual person produces merit or demerit based on corporeality (that is attā or self); this individual person produces merit and demerit based on sensation (that is attā or self); this individual person produces merit or demerit based on perception (which is attā or self); this individual person produces merit or demerit based on volitional activities (which is attā or self); this individual person produces merit or demerit based on six-fold consciousness (which is attā or self).”

Thus Saccaka presented his view on attā (Soul) theory by way of similes: (He had likened the five-fold aggregate to the earth; sentient beings are dependent on the five-fold aggregates like the earth. They produce merit or demerit based on the five-fold aggregate.) “The Honourable Gotama has thus discarded the very evident and manifest attā and declared it to be anatta (non-self).” Thus Saccaka presented his Soul theory firmly supported by seeming similes.

The supporting similes presented by Saccaka are notable, quite valid and firm. With the exception of the Fully Self-Enlightened Buddhas, there is no one capable of refuting his criticism and condemning his Soul theory. In fact, there are two types of people: (1) those who are tractable by Fully Self-Enlightened Buddhas only and (2) those who are tractable by Sāvakas. Those in category (2) can be corrected by the Buddhas and the disciples, but those in category (1) can be guided by the Buddhas alone. Wanderer Saccaka belonged to the first category and could be instructed only by the Buddha.

The Buddha had, therefore, decided to personally rectify and refute his view:

“The descendent of Aggivessana, Saccaka.... Do you say that corporeality is myself (attā), that sensation is myself (attā) that perception is my body (attā), that volitional activities are myself (attā), that six-fold consciousness is myself (attā)?”

Saccaka came to realize then that “Samana Gotama has put me in difficulty, making me to declare, confirm and admit my soul theory (attā vāda) in the presence of an audience. Should anything untoward happens, I will alone be condemned for my soul theory,” and thinking of citing the people of Vesali as co-adherents of attā, he replied:

“O Honourable Gotama—Indeed, I do say: ‘Corporeality is my attā, sensation is my attā, perception is my attā, volitional activities are my attā, six-fold consciousness is my attā and the general mass of citizens of Vesali also say this.”

The Buddha, being a hundred thousand times superior to Saccaka in matters of beliefs, would not let him make other people to share the same fate with him. Instead, He would make His conquest over Saccaka alone, and said to him:

“Saccaka what has the great mass of people to do with this? I urge you, Saccaka, to explain your own view.”

(What the Buddha meant to say was this: “Not all of these people are out to refute My view. You are the only one who have come to refute My view. They are here because you have invited them to witness the debate. The onus of expressing the view rests with you, and don't let them share the same fate with you.”)

Saccaka was thus pressed to repeat his own view: “O Honourable Gotama..... Indeed, I do say: ‘Corporeality is my attā, sensation is my attā, perception is my attā, volitional activities are my attā, six-fold consciousness is my attā.’

After causing Saccaka to explain his own view, the Buddha proceeded to ask:

“Saccaka, since you have admitted that the five-fold aggregates are attā, I will ask you in turn about this. Answer Me as you wish. Saccaka..... what do you think of the question I am about to ask? Would an anointed king like Pasenadi Kosala, or the crowned King Ajātasattu, ruler of Magadha, son of Queen Vedehi, have the power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property deserves to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment?”

In answer to the above question, Saccaka replied:

“O Honourable Gotama, a king like Pasenadi Kosala, or the crowned king like Ajātasattu, ruler of Magadha, son of Queen Vedehi, have the power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment?

O Honourable Gotama.... even those Federated State Governments like Vajjis or Mallas would have power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property deserves to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment? What more need we say of an anointed king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu of the Kingdom of Magadha, the son of Queen Vedehi? He would have the power, O Gotama, he deserves to have the power.”

(The Buddha had purposely brought Saccaka to bay in order to completely crush his soul theory (Atta vāda). Saccaka being unwise had even gone to the extent of “sharpening the weapon meant for his execution” by mentioning the Governments of Vajjis and Mallas in support of his statement).

“O Saccaka, how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said:

‘Corporeality is my attā (self).’ If so, can you cause it to obey your words, saying:

‘Let my corporeality should be thus; let my corporeality should not be thus?’ ”

When the Buddha asked in such a point blank manner, Saccaka remained completely silent.

(N.B. Saccaka had discovered his grave mistake. He thought to himself: “Samana Gotama had brought about the destruction of my view. I was foolish enough to have created a chance for Samana Gotama to defeat me in my own game. I have been ruined beyond redemption. In case I say: ‘I can prevail my power upon my corporeality,’ the Licchavi princes would stand up and rebuke me for my ugly figure (body) compared with their own beautiful, admirable bodies which resemble those of celestial beings of Tāvatiṃsa. In case I choose to say: ‘I cannot prevail my power upon my body,’ Samana Gotama would stand up and rebuke me: ‘O Saccaka you already have said that you have control over your body, and you have retracted your own profession.’ He has placed himself on the horns of a dilemma. He therefore kept complete silence.)

For the second time the Buddha asked Saccaka to answer the same question:

“How do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Corporeality is my attā (self).’ If so, can you cause it to obey your words, saying: ‘Let my corporeality should be thus; let my corporeality should not be thus?’ ”

Saccaka remained completely silent, and did not answer the Buddha’s question for the second time in succession.

(If no answer was given to a reasonable question put by a Fully Self-Enlightened Buddha for three times in succession, it constitutes a grave act of excruciation against the Buddha, and the offender’s head is liable to be split into seven parts, according to the course of the principle Law of Nature, Dhamma-Niyāma.)

Fully Self-Enlightened Buddhas had fulfilled the pāramīs for four asaṅkhyeyyas and a hundred thousand aeons, out of great compassion for all beings, and, as such, the Buddha did not repeat the question for the third time, but changed the subject of discussion: “Saccaka.... speak up now. This is not the time for you to keep silent. The head of one, who does not answer a Buddha’s reasonable question for three times in succession, is liable to get split into seven parts spontaneously.”

Then Sakka could not help coming to the scene under the guise of an ogre holding a burning, blazing, flaming thunder bolt and stood right on top of Saccaka’s head, as though threatening to punish him should he fail to answer the Buddha’s reasonable question for three times. The strange spectacle was visible only to the Buddha and Saccaka (no one else could see it).

(N.B. Sakka had come holding a thunderbolt in his hand and stood above Saccaka. Having great compassion for him, like the Buddha, and to persuade him to give up his wrong views by threatening him in the guise of a terrible ogre wielding a thunderbolt. He made his appearance, not because he actually wanted to do harm to Saccaka but because no untoward mishap to anyone should ever occur in the presence of a Buddha.)——Majjhima Ṭikā——

(The reason why Sakka came under the guise of an ogre was that, he had a desire to cause Saccaka to turn into a new leaf and accept the Right View. Sakka was in the company of Sahampati Brahmā when the latter approached the Buddha with a formal request to preach the Dhamma. Both of them requested the Buddha to preach the Dhamma, and they, on their part, undertook to see to it that reluctant people are persuaded to act according to His instructions. “Let yours be the authority of the Dhamma, and ours will be the law of temporal authority.” Hence the appearance of Sakka under the guise of an ogre in fulfilment of his undertaking.)——Majjhima Commentary——

When Saccaka saw Sakka under the guise of an ogre, his body perspired profusely through fright, beads of sweat streaming down, and waves of sounds swirled right round in his stomach. He looked around to see if there was any one also witnessing the strange phenomenon and saw none. He thought it would be unwise to shout out ‘a great ogre’ when no one saw it, and would be like creating a chance for the people to turn against him saying: “We also have eyes but you are the only one seeing the ogre. You see it only because you dispute with Samana Gotama.” He was so shaken that his hair stood on end and goose flesh developed all over his body. He found no one but the Buddha to take refuge in, and seeking shelter, protection and refuge only in the Buddha, he thus spoke to the Buddha: “Be pleased to ask me, Honourable Gotama; I will answer.”

The Buddha asked him:

“Saccaka..... how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Corporeality is my attā.’ If so, do you have power over that corporeality and can you say: ‘Let my corporeality be thus; let my corporeality be not thus?’ ”

Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama.... I do not have the power.” Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka.... think over it again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you have said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not collaborate one another.”

And He proceeded to ask:

“Saccaka.... how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Sensation is my attā.’ If so, do you have power over that sensation and can you say: ‘Let my sensation be thus; let my sensation be not thus?’ ”

Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama.... I do not have the power.”

Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka.... think over it again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you have said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not collaborate one another.”

And He proceeded to ask:

“Saccaka.... how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Perception is my attā.’ If so, do you have power over that perception and can you say: ‘Let my perception be thus; let my perception be not thus?’ ”

Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama..... I do not have the power.”

Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka.... think over it again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not collaborate one another.”

And He proceeded to ask:

“Saccaka.... how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Volitional activities are my attā.’ If so, do you have power over those volitional activities and can you say: ‘Let my volitional activities be thus; let my volitional activities be not thus?’ ”

Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama..... I do not have the power.”

Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka.... think over it again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not collaborate one another.”

And He proceeded to ask:

“Saccaka how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Six-fold consciousness is my attā.’ If so, do you have power over that six-fold consciousness and can you say: ‘Let my six-fold consciousness be thus; let my sixfold consciousness be not thus?’ ”

Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama.... I do not have the power.”

Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka.... think over it again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not collaborate one another.”

The Buddha continued to exhort Saccaka by expounding a discourse which involves questioning and answering three times, a mode of teaching known as ‘Teparivatta dhamma desanā.’

“Saccaka what do you think of this? Is corporeality permanent or impermanent?”

Saccaka answered: “Impermanent, O Gotama.” “That which is impermanent, is it painful (dukkha) or pleasant (sukha)?” “Painful, O Gotama.”

“Would it be proper to consider that this corporeality, which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as, ‘This corporeality is mine (through clinging), this corporeality is I (through conceit), this is my attā (through wrong view)?’ ” Saccaka answered: “O

Gotama.... It is indeed not proper.”

“Wanderer Saccaka..... what do you think of this? Is sensation permanent or impermanent? Is perception permanent or impermanent? Are volitional activities permanent or impermanent? Saccaka.... how do you think of the question that I am about to ask. Are the six kinds of consciousness permanent or impermanent?” Saccaka answered: “Venerable Gotama.... impermanent.” “That which is impermanent, is it painful or pleasant?” “Painful, O Gotama.”

Would it be proper to consider the six kinds of consciousness, which are impermanent, painful and subject to change as, ‘This consciousness is mine (through clinging), this consciousness is I (through conceit), this consciousness is my attā (through wrong view).’”

Saccaka answered: “Venerable Gotama, it is indeed not proper.”

Just as an expert snake charmer caused the snake concerned to suck its venom out of the bitten part of the body of the victim, even so the Buddha had caused Saccaka to admit, by his own mouth, the fact that the five khandas are impermanent, painful and insubstantial, and not permanent, pleasant and substantial as he had primarily maintained by word of his mouth and in the presence of the same audience which comprised Licchavi princes. (The venom, that is, the false view of attā, which had appeared out of the mouth of Saccaka, had been made to be sucked out by the same mouth of Saccaka and an admission to be uttered that it is anatta, not self, in the presence of the audience.)

In this manner the Buddha had Saccaka to definitely admit that the five khandhas are impermanent, painful and insubstantial in the presence of throngs of people, and being desirous of subduing him to accept the Truth with his head hanging down, the Buddha went on to ask:

“Heretic Saccaka, how would you like the question that I am about to ask? When a person clings to dukkha, adheres to dukkha, cleaves to dukkha and considers dukkha (the five-fold aggregates) as this dukkha is mine (through clinging); this dukkha is I (through conceit) and this dukkha is my attā (self) (through wrong view), could he himself accurately understand dukkha (with three prinnas)? Could he remain abiding in complete extinction of dukkha?”

Saccaka answered: “O Honourable Gotama.... How could it be possible! It is an impossibility!” Whereupon, the Buddha went on to ask:

“Wanderer Saccaka.... how would you think of the question I am about to ask? If that is so, being clung to those dukkha (of five aggregates), attached to those dukkha (of five aggregates), cleaving to those dukkha (of five aggregates), do you not hold the wrong view, and consider that this dukkha (of the five aggregates) is mine (through clinging), this dukkha (five aggregates) is I (through conceit), this dukkha (five aggregates) is my attā or self (through wrong view). In view of all this, you are on the wrong track in respect of view?”

Saccaka answered: “O Honourable Gotama.... How could it not be so! I do consider it so.”

Then the Buddha gave further exhortation to Saccaka:

“Saccaka, it is as if a man, desiring heart-wood, seeking heart-wood, and wandering about, might enter the forest with a sharp hatchet. He might see a plantain tree with a straight stem and devoid of a budding stalk. He cut off the bottom part and then cut off its crown. Then he might peel the bark of the stem. Having peeled the bark of the stem, that man would not get even the sap wood, let alone heart-wood.

In the same way, Saccaka, as I question and cross-question you for reasons in regard to your view, you prove to be empty, futile and a great failure.

O Saccaka, you have been boasting among the citizens of Vesali, through empty pride thus: ‘I have never come across such persons as Samana Brāhmanas or Fully Self-Enlightened Buddhas, one who could resist me without perspiring from their arm-pits when I refute and rebuke them on grounds of views; and even senseless logs or wooden blocks could not remain unshaken when I talk about things in terms of views, leave alone the living beings.’ “

The Buddha then exposing His golden coloured body to the assembly and said:

“Saccaka.... there is no trace of perspiration on my body.”

(N.B As a matter of course, a compounded body perspires at one time or the other; hence, the Buddha said: “....there is no trace of perspiration on body at the moment.”

As regards ‘exposition of the golden coloured body’ it does not mean that the whole body was exposed to view. It is customary among the Buddhas to have the button-knob properly fixed to the button-ring of the robe when they take their seat before an audience. The Buddha, on this occasion, held the robe above the upper part of the throat and dropped just four inches of it to permit the emergence of red rays, whirling round like a stream of liquid gold or flashes of lightning, right round the His head, resembling a golden tabor and shooting skywards.

The Buddha had done such a thing to dispel doubt, if any, on the part of the people. If the Buddha did not disclose the true aspect by exposing (His body), certain people might gainsay “we can see beads of perspiration streaming down Saccaka’s body; Samana Gotama had said He had no sweat but we cannot know if it is true because His body is completely cloaked in a double-layered robe.”)

When the Buddha had said thus, Saccaka sat speechless with a sad look, drooping shoulders and downcast head and at his wit’s end.

Licchavi Prince Dummukha’s Statement.

Then a Licchavi prince, Dummukha, seeing Saccaka speechless with a sad look, drooping shoulders and downcast head and at his wit’s end, addressed the Buddha: “Most Exalted Buddha, a simile has come into my head.” The Buddha urged him: “Dummukha, reveal it.”

Prince Dummukha addressed the Buddha thus:

“Most Exalted Buddha.... there was a pond near a village or a marketing place. A crab was living in that pond. Many boys and girls, coming out from that village or town, might approach the pond and might go down into the pond. Taking the crab out of the water, they might put it on dry ground. And, Venerable Sir, as often as that crab would thrust out a claw, these boys and girls would cut it, break it and smash it with sticks and potsherds. Just as that crab, with its claws cut, broken and smashed, would be unable to get back into the pond again as before, even so, Venerable Sir, Saccaka will be unable now to come round to the Buddha to make refutations and assertions as You have cut, broken and smashed all the distorted, conceited, twisted views of Saccaka.”

Whereupon, Saccaka asked Dummukha: “Dummukha... stop it, Dummukha... stop it; (you are a person with rough speech;) we are not speaking to you, nor are we discussing with you. I have been discussing with the Venerable Gotama.” He thus objected to Dummukha’s participation in the conversation.

(When other Licchavi princes heard the simile quoted by Prince Dummukha, they remembered the contemptuous treatment received at the hands of Saccaka while undergoing training under his care. They thought the table had turned and it was the most opportune time for them to revenge on their common enemy by quoting different similes, in the manner of delivering blows to a fallen enemy. So they waited their turn thinking of similes they would quote.

Saccaka had a presage of what the princes were planning and what was in store for him. He knew: “These princes were impatiently waiting their turn. If each of them gets the chance to come out with his simile, I will never be able to raise my head again in such crowds.” He therefore planned to avoid such a mishap by approaching the Buddha with a request to solve a problem before they could intervene as planned. It was with this intention that he had deterred Prince Dummukha from intervention and approached the Buddha with the request:)

“Venerable Gotama... please leave aside my words, as well as those of many samaṇas and Brahmās. Such words may be taken as idle talks. To what extent does a disciple of yours practise according to the Teaching, following the instruction and abide by the Teaching of Gotama, having overcome uncertainty, having dispelled all doubts, having gained the courage of conviction and not dependent on others in matters of faith?”

The Buddha gave the following answer in compliance with his request:

“Wanderer Saccaka, in this sāsana, a disciple of mine, sees any or all corporeality with right understanding as they really are, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or outside oneself, gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near, in these eleven different manners, through vipassanā-ñāṇa, magga-ñāṇa, thus: ‘This corporeality is not I, this corporeality is not mine, this corporeality is not my attā, self,'...p... all sensation...p... all perception...p... volitional activities...p... Sees any or all six-fold consciousness with right understanding as they really are, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or outside oneself, gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near, in these eleven different manners, through vipassanā-ñāṇa, magga-ñāṇa. Thus, this consciousness is not mine; this consciousness is not I; this consciousness is not my attā, self.”

Wanderer Saccaka... it is to such an extent does a disciple of mine practise according to the Teaching, following the instruction and abide by the Teaching, having overcome uncertainty, having dispelled all doubts, having gained the courage of conviction and not dependent on others in matters of faith?”

(According to Canonical terms, the three Lower Fruition stages are termed Sikkha-bhūmi, i.e. the Sikkha personalities (trainees); Canonical term of Arahatta Fruition stage is termed the Arahatta-puggalas or the abode of ariya-puggalas exclusively.

Herein, the term ‘sees’ signifies a continuing process, not having completed the act of seeing. Although Saccaka was not acquainted with the terms employed in the sāsana, it occurred to him that ‘sees’ is somewhat short of ‘realization’, and so he addressed the Buddha again.)

“Venerable Gotama...to what extent (in what manner) does a bhikkhu, become an arahat, having eliminated āsavas, having accomplished magga practices, having done what is to be done, having laid down the burden (of aggregates, defilement and conditioned existence), having attained his own goal of arahatta-phala, having destroyed all the fetters of existence, and having become emancipated through full comprehension?”

The Buddha replied:

“Wanderer Saccaka, in this sāsana, a disciple of mine, sees any or all corporeality with right understanding as they really are, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or outside oneself, gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near, in these eleven different manners, through vipassanā-ñāṇa, magga-ñāṇa, thus: “This corporeality is not I, this corporeality is not mine, this corporeality is not my attā, self,...p... all sensation...p... all perception...p... volitional activities...p.. Sees any or all six-fold consciousness thus: this consciousness is not mine, this consciousness is not my attā, self,” and becomes emancipated having no clinging.

Wanderer Saccaka... it is to that extent does a disciple of mine become an arahat, having eliminated āsavas, having accomplished magga practices, having done what is to be done, having laid down the burden (of aggregates, defilement and conditioned existence) having attained his own goal of arahatta-phala, having destroyed all the fetters of existence, and having become emancipated through full comprehension?

Wanderer Saccaka... such a bhikkhu, with the mind thus emancipated becomes endowed with three eminent qualities, namely, eminence^[1] in insight, eminence in practice and eminence in emancipation.

Wanderer Saccaka, a bhikkhu with his mind thus emancipated, reveres, esteems, honours, and venerates the Buddha saying:

Buddho boddhāya desesi
danto yo dhammathāya ca
samathāya santo dhammaṃ
tinnova taraṇāya ca
nibbuto nibbānatthaya
taṇ lokasaranaṃ name.

Our Teacher, the Buddha, having gained Enlightenment with regard to the Four Noble Truths expounds the Dhamma to enlighten sentient beings.

Our Teacher, the Buddha, having subdued or tamed Himself, expounds the Dhamma to tame sentient beings.

Our Teacher, the Buddha, having extinguished the flame of defilements Himself, expounds the Dhamma to sentient beings to help them extinguish the flame of their defilement.

Our Teacher, the Buddha, having crossed over Four Great Oghas (floods of sensual desire, rebirth, wrong views and ignorance), expounds the Dhamma for crossing over.

Our Teacher, the Buddha, having achieved total extinction of kilesa, expounds the Dhamma to sentient beings, for their achievement of total extinction of their kilesa.

Offering of Alms-meal to The Buddha by Wanderer Saccaka

When Buddha had thus explained the Exalted State of the Fruit of Arahatta, Saccaka addressed Him:

“O Venerable Gotama... we have, indeed, offended you and were impudent to think that we could dispute your views and refute them. We have tried to disparage you with harsh and discourteous words.

O Venerable Gotama... for example, a person might find safety after attacking an elephant in must. But there could be no safety for a man attacking the Honourable Gotama.

O Venerable Gotama... a man who attacks a blazing mass of fire might find safety but there could be no safety for a man attacking the Honourable Gotama.

O Venerable Gotama... a man who attacks a dreadful and poisonous snake might find safety, but there could be no safety for a man attacking the Honourable Gotama.

O Venerable Gotama... we have, indeed, offended you and were impudent to think that we could dispute your views and refute them. We have tried to disparage you with harsh and discourteous words.”

(N.B. Saccaka said, “....there could be no safety for a man attacking the Honourable Gotama.” This meant that anyone, who chanced to pass strictures on the Venerable Gotama in a debate on views, cannot escape from being destroyed and had to depart with his views completely demolished. It should be noted that the Buddha had not caused harm to the life of anyone, like a big elephant, a great bon-fire or a venomous snake.

Saccaka had made such a statement, with three similes, not intending to praise the Buddha, but to blow his own trumpet. For example, a King, who had caused the death of an enemy might speak highly of the defeated by remarks, such as: “That man is such a brave and courageous one”, just to glorify his feat of arms.

Saccaka had, in like manner, praised the Buddha, who was difficult to be approached by an ordinary being, by the similes of a big elephant, a great bon-fire and a venomous snake, just to show that he was the only wise man with great courage to have challenged the Buddha to a debate on views.)

When Saccaka had thus indirectly praised himself, he turned to the Buddha and presented an invitation: “Venerable Gotama... May the Honourable Gotama be pleased to accept my offering of alms-meal, together with the community of bhikkhus at my place tomorrow”. The Buddha accepted his invitation by keeping silent.

Saccaka then turned to the Licchavi princes and said: “Let Licchavi princes listen to me. The Venerable Gotama has accepted my invitation to the food offering ceremony at my place tomorrow. You might bring me whatever you think is suitable for them.” When the night passed, they all brought five hundred pots of cooked food to him. Then Saccaka, having made ready sumptuous food, hard and soft at his place, sent a messenger to inform the Buddha: “O Honourable Gotama, it is time for meal; the alms-food is ready.”

Then in the morning, the Buddha, having rearranged His robes and taking His alms-bowl and (great) robe, went to the place of Saccaka and took the seat prepared for Him, together with the community of bhikkhus. Saccaka served, with his own hands, sumptuous food, both hard and soft, to the bhikkhus headed by the Buddha, till they were completely satisfied and could not take any more.

When Saccaka knew that the Buddha had finished taking the meal, he sat down in a suitable place and addressed Him:

“O Gotama... May the main beneficial result^[2] accruing from this dāna and the subsidiary consequences of this great offering be for the wellbeing of the donors (i.e. the Licchavis).”

Saccaka had made such wish under the impression that only Licchavi princes were entitled to enjoy the fruits of the act of merit, which was performed with the food donated by them. But it was Saccaka himself who should enjoy the reward because he had actually made the offering to the Buddha and the Sangha with what he had received from the Licchavi princes.

The Buddha therefore removed his wrong impression by saying:

“Wanderer Saccaka, the merit goes to the Licchavi princes for gifts offered to a recipient like you, who is not free from rāga, dosa and moha.

Saccaka, the merit goes to you for gifts offered to a recipient like Me, who is free from rāga, dosa and moha.”

Thus the Buddha impressed upon his mind the idea of consequences of deeds of merit (so as to let it become part of his nature).

Expounding of Mahā Saccaka Sutta

The above is Cula Saccaka Sutta. This is not the only Sutta that the Buddha had expounded. Mahā Saccaka Sutta was also expounded to him at a later date. Mahā Saccaka Sutta deals with two modes of meditation, namely, contemplation of the body (corporeality) and contemplation of the mind, and two types of persons, namely,

Sammūhḷa-puggala meaning ‘bewildered person’ and Asammūhḷa-puggala meaning ‘one who is without bewilderment.’ For full particulars, please refer to Mulapaṇṇāsa Pāli Text.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Eminence in insight means insight into Nibbāna; eminence in practice means perfect practice, the Ariya Path of Eight Constituents; eminence in emancipation means the attainment of arahattaphala.

[2]:

The main beneficial results mean future existence (in the form of five aggregates) in deva realm or happy circumstances in the human world; the subsidiary consequences mean wealth, properties, regalia etc. necessary for sumptuous living conditions.