§ 3. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must Promote Equality between Man and Man

1. Men are born unequal.

2. Some are robust, others are weaklings.

3. Some have more intelligence, others have less or none.

4. Some have more capacity, others have less.

5. Some are well-to-do, others are poor.

6. All have to enter into what is called the struggle for existence.

7. In the struggle for existence, if inequality be recognised as the rule of the game, the weakest will always go to the wall.

8. Should this rule of inequality be allowed to be the rule of life?

9. Some answer in the affirmative, on the ground that it results in the survival of the fittest.

10. The question, however, is: is the fittest the best from the point of view of society?

11. No one can give a positive answer.

12. It is because of this doubt that religion preaches equality. For equality may help the best to survive, even though the best may not be the fittest.

13. What society wants is the best, and not the fittest.

14. It is, therefore, the primary reason why religion upholds equality.

15. This was the viewpoint of the Buddha, and it was because of this that he argued that a religion which does not preach equality is not worth having.

16. Can you respect or believe in a religion which recommends actions that bring happiness to oneself by causing sorrow to others; or happiness to others by causing sorrow to oneself; or sorrow to both oneself and others?

17. Is not that a better religion which promotes the happiness of others simultaneously with the happiness of oneself, and tolerates no oppression?

18. These were some of the most pertinent questions which he asked the Brahmins who opposed Equality.

19. The religion of the Buddha is perfect justice, springing from a man’s own meritorious disposition.

BOOK FOUR: RELIGION AND DHAMMA

Book Four, Part I—His Place in His Dhamma

1. *What is Religion?* — 2. *How Dhamma Differs From Religion* — 3. *The Purpose of Religion and the Purpose of Dhamma* — 4. *Morality and Religion* — 5. *Dhamma and Morality* — 6. *Mere Morality is not Enough: it must be Sacred and Universal*

§ 1. What is Religion?

1. The word “religion” is an indefinite word with no fixed meaning.

2. It is one word with many meanings.

3. This is because religion has passed through many stages. The concept at each stage is called Religion, though the concept at one stage has not had the same meaning which it had at the preceding stage, or is likely to have at the succeeding stage.

4. The conception of religion was never fixed.

5. It has varied from time to time.

6. Because most of the phenomena such as lightning, rain, and floods, the occurrence of which the primitive man could not explain, [were not understood], any weird performance done to control the phenomenon was called magic. Religion therefore came to be identified with magic.

7. Then came the second stage in the evolution of religion. In this stage religion came to be identified with beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, prayers, and sacrifices.

8. But this conception of religion is derivative.

9. The pivotal point in religion starts with the belief that there exists some power which causes these phenomena, which primitive man did not know and could not understand. Magic lost its place at this stage.

10. This power was originally malevolent. But later it was felt that it could also be benevolent.

11. Beliefs, rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices were necessary both to propitiate a benevolent power, and also to conciliate an angry power.

12. Later that power was called God or the Creator.

13. Then came the third stage: that it is this God who created this world and also man.

14. This was followed by the belief that man has a soul, and the soul is eternal and is answerable to God for man’s actions in the world.

15. This is, in short, the evolution of the concept of Religion.

16. This is what Religion has come to be and this is what it connotes–belief in God, belief in [a] soul, worship of God, curing of the erring soul, propitiating God by prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc.

§2. How Dhamma Differs From Religion

1. What the Buddha calls Dhamma differs fundamentally from what is called Religion.

2. What the Buddha calls Dhamma is analogous to what the European theologians call Religion.

3. But there is no greater affinity between the two. On the other hand, the differences between the two are very great.

4. On this account, some European theologians refuse to recognise the Buddha’s Dhamma as Religion.

5. There need be no regrets over this. The loss is theirs. It does no harm to the Buddha’s Dhamma. Rather, it shows what is wanting in Religion.

6. Instead of entering into this controversy, it is better to proceed to give an idea of Dhamma, and show how it differs from Religion.

7. Religion, it is said, is personal, and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life.

8. Contrary to this, Dhamma is social. It is fundamentally and essentially so.

9. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all spheres of life.

10. From this it is evident that one man, if he is alone, does not need Dhamma.

11. But when there are two men living in relation to each other, they must find a place for Dhamma whether they like it or not. Neither can escape it.

12. In other words. Society cannot do without Dhamma.

13. Society has to choose one of the three alternatives.

14. Society may choose not to have any Dhamma as an instrument of Government. For Dhamma is nothing if it is not an instrument of Government.

15. This means Society chooses the road to anarchy.

16. Secondly, Society may choose the police–i.e., dictatorship–as an instrument of Government.

17. Thirdly, Society may choose Dhamma, plus the Magistrate wherever people fail to observe the Dhamma.

18. In anarchy and dictatorship liberty is lost.

19. Only in the third [case] liberty survives.

20. Those who want liberty must therefore have Dhamma.

21. Now what is Dhamma? and why is Dhamma necessary? According to the Buddha, Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna.

22. What is Prajna? And why Prajna? Prajna is understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two corner-stones of His Dhamma because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition.

23. What is Karuna? And why Karuna? Karuna is love. Because without it, Society can neither live nor grow; that is why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of His Dhamma.

24. Such is the definition of the Buddha’s Dhamma.

25. How different is this definition of Dhamma from that of Religion.

26. So ancient, yet so modern, is the definition of Dhamma given by the Buddha.

27. So aboriginal, yet so original.

28. Not borrowed from anyone, yet so true.

29. A unique amalgam of Pradnya and Karuna is the Dhamma of the Buddha.

30. Such is the difference between Religion and Dhamma.

§ 3. The Purpose of Religion and the Purpose of Dhamma

1. What is the purpose of Religion? What is the purpose of Dhamma? Are they one and the same? Or are they different

2. The answer to these questions are to be found in two dialogues–one between the Buddha and Sunakkhatta, and the other between the Buddha and the Brahmin Potthapada.

3. The Exalted One was once staying among the Mallas, at Anupiya, one of their towns.

4. Now the Exalted One ,having robed himself in the early morning, put on his cloak and took his bowl and entered the town for alms.

5. On the way, he thought it was too early to go for alms. Therefore he went to the pleasance where Bhaggava the wanderer dwelt, and called on him.

6. On seeing the Blessed One Bhaggava got up, saluted him, and said, “May it please you, sire, to be seated; here is a seat made ready for you.”

7. The Exalted One sat down thereon, and Bhaggava, taking a certain low stool sat down beside him. So seated, Bhaggava, the wanderer, spake thus to the Exalted One :

8 “Some days ago, Lord, a good many days ago, Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis called on me and spake thus: ‘I have now given up the Exalted One, Bhaggava. I am remaining no longer under him (as my teacher).’ Is the fact really so, just as he said?”

9. “It is just so, Bhaggava, as Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis said,” replied the Blessed One.

10. “Some days ago, Bhaggava, a good many days ago, Sunakkhatta, the Licchavi, came to call on me, and spake thus: ‘Sir, I now give up the Exalted One. I will henceforth remain no longer under him (as my teacher).’ When he told me this, I said to him: ‘But now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you, Come, Sunakkhatta, live under me (as my pupil)?’

11. “‘No sir, you have not.’

12. “Or have you ever said to me: ‘Sir, I would fain dwell under the Exalted One (as my teacher)?’

13. “‘No sir, I have not.’

14. “Then I asked him ‘If I said not the one, and you said not the other, what are you and what am I, that you talk of giving up? See, foolish one, in how far the fault here is your own.’

15. “‘Well, but, sir, the Exalted One works me no mystic wonders surpassing the power of ordinary men.’

16. “Why now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you: ‘Come, take me as your teacher, Sunakkhatta, and I will work for you mystic wonders surpassing the power of ordinary men?’

17. “‘You have not, sir.’

18. “Or have you ever said to me: ‘Sir, I would fain take the Exalted One as my teacher, for he will work for me mystic wonders beyond the powers of ordinary men?’

19. “‘I have not, sir.’

20. “‘But if I said not the one, and you said not the other, what are you and what am I, foolish man, that you talk of giving up? What think you, Sunakkhatta? Whether mystic wonders beyond the power of ordinary man are wrought, or whether they are not, is the object for which I teach the Dhamma: that it leads to the thorough, destruction of ill for the doer thereof?’

21. ‘”Whether, sir, they are so wrought or not, that is indeed the object for which the Dhamma is taught by the Exalted One.’

22. “‘If then, Sunakkhatta, it matters not to that object whether mystic wonders are wrought or not, of what use to you would be the working of them? See, foolish one, in how far the fault here is your own.’

23. “‘But, sir, the Exalted One does not reveal to me the beginning of things.’

24. “Why now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you: ‘Come, Sunakkhatta, be my. disciple and I will reveal to you the beginning of things?’

25. “‘Sir, you have not.’

26. “Or have you ever said to me: ‘I will become the Exalted One’s pupil, for he will reveal to me the beginning of things?’

27. “‘Sir, I have not.’

28. “‘But if I have not said the one and you have not said the other, what are you and what am I, foolish man, that you talk of giving up on that account? What think you, Sunakkhatta? Whether the beginning of things be revealed, or whether it be not, is the object for which I teach the Dhamma, that it leads to the thorough destruction of ill for the doer thereof?

29. “‘Whether, sir, they are revealed or not, that is indeed the object for which the Dhamma is taught by the Exalted One.’

30. “‘If then, Sunakkhatta, it matters not to that object whether the beginning of things be revealed, or whether it be not, of what use to you would it be to have the beginning of things revealed?’”

31. This illustrates that Religion is concerned with revealing the beginning of things and Dhamma is not.

§ 3 part 2 — The other differences between Religion and Dhamma are brought out in the discussion between the Blessed One and Potthapada.

1. The Blessed One was once staying at Shravasti in Anathapindika’s pleasance of the Jeta’s wood. Now at that time Potthapada, the wandering mendicant, was dwelling in the hall put up in Queen Mallika’s park for a debate on general systems of philosophical opinion.

2. There was with him a great following of mendicants; to wit, three hundred. A dialogue took place between the Blessed Lord and Potthapada. Potthapada asked:

3. “Then, sir, if that be so, tell me at least, is the world eternal? Is this alone the truth, and any other view mere folly?’”

4. “That, Potthapada, is a matter on which I have expressed no opinion,” replied the Blessed Lord.

5. Then, in the same terms, Potthapada asked each of the following questions:

(i) ‘Is the world not eternal?’

(ii) ‘Is the world finite?’

(iii) ‘Is the world infinite?’

(iv) ‘Is the soul the same as the body?’

(v) ‘Is the soul one thing, and the body another?’

(vi) ‘Does one who has gained the truth live again after death?’

(vii) ‘Does he not live again after death?’

(viii) ‘Does he both live again and not live again, after death?’

(ix) ‘Does he neither live again, nor not live again, after death?’

6. And to each questions the Exalted One made the same reply:–

7. “That too, Potthapada, is a matter on which I have expressed no opinion.”

8. “But why has the Exalted One expressed no opinion on that?”

9. “Because this question is not calculated to profit, it is not concerned with the Dhamma, it does not redound even to the elements of right conduct, nor to detachment, nor to purification from lusts, nor to quietude, nor to tranquillisation of heart, nor to real knowledge, nor to the insight (of the higher stages of the Path), nor to Nirvana. Therefore is it that I express no opinion upon it. “

10. “Then what is it that the Exalted One has determined?”

11. “I have expounded, Potthapada, what Dukkha is; I have expounded what is the origin of Dukkha; I have expounded what is the cessation of Dukkha; I have expounded what is the method by which one may reach the cessation of Dukkha.”

12. “And why has the Exalted One put forth a statement as to that?”

13. “Because that question, Potthapada, is calculated to profit, is concerned with the Dhamma, redounds to the beginnings of right conduct, to detachment, to purification from lusts, to quietude, to tranquillisation of heart, to real knowledge, to the insight of the higher stages of the Path, and to Nirvana. Therefore is it, Potthapada, that I have put forward a statement as to that.”

14. In this dialogue it is clearly put forth what is the subject matter of Religion, and what is not the subject matter of Dhamma. The two are poles apart

15. The purpose of Religion is to explain the origin of the world. The purpose of Dhamma is to reconstruct the world.

§ 4. Morality and Religion

1. What is the place of morality in Religion?

2. As a matter of truth, morality has no place in Religion.

3. The content of religion consists of God, soul, prayers, worship, rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices.

4. Morality comes in only wherein man comes in relation to man.

5. Morality comes into religion as a side wind, to maintain peace and order.

6. Religion is a triangular piece.

7. Be good to your neighbour, because you are both children of God.

8. That is the argument of religion.

9. Every religion preaches morality, but morality is not the root of religion.

10. It is a wagon attached to it. It is attached and detached as the occasion requires.

11. The action of morality in the functioning of religion is therefore casual and occasional.

12. Morality in religion is therefore not effective.

§ 5. Dhamma and Morality

1. What is the place of morality in Dhamma?

2. The simple answer is, Morality is Dhamma and Dhamma is Morality.

3. In other words, in Dhamma morality takes the place of God, although there is no God in Dhamma.

4. In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies, or sacrifices.

5. Morality is the essence of Dhamma. Without it there is no Dhamma.

6. Morality in Dhamma arises from the direct necessity for man to love man.

7. It does not require the sanction of God. It is not to please God that man has to be moral. It is for his own good that man has to love man.

§ 6. Mere Morality is not Enough: it must be Sacred and Universal

1. When is a thing sacred? Why is a thing sacred?

2. In every human society, primitive or advanced, there are some things or beliefs which it regards as sacred, and the rest [it regards] as profane.

3. When a thing or belief has reached the stage of being sacred (pavitra), it means that it cannot be violated. Indeed it cannot be touched. It is taboo.

4. Contrary to this, a thing or a belief which is profane (apavitra), i.e., outside the field of the sacred, may be violated. It means one can act contrary to it, without feeling any fear or qualms of conscience.

5. The sacred is something holy. To transgress it is a sacrilege.

6. Why is a thing made sacred? To confine the scope of the question to the matter in hand, why morality should [=should morality] have been made sacred?

7. Three factors seem to have played their part in making morality sacred.

8. The first factor is the social need for protecting the best.

9. The background of this question lies imbedded in what is called the struggle of existence and the survival of the fittest.

10. This arises out of the theory of evolution. It is common knowledge that evolution takes place through a struggle for existence, because the means of food supply in early times were so limited.

11. The struggle is bitter. Nature is said to be red in claw and tooth.

12. In this struggle, which is bitter and bloody, only the fittest survive.

13. Such is the original state of society.

14. In the course of [the] ancient past someone must have raised the question, is the fittest (the strongest) the best? Would not the weakest, if protected, be ultimately the best for advancing the ends and aims of society?

15. The then prevailing state of society seems to have given an answer in the affirmative.

16. Then comes, the question what is the way to protect the weak?

17. Nothing less than to impose some restraints upon the fittest.

18. In this lies the origin and necessity for morality.

19. This morality had to be sacred, because it was imposed originally on the fittest, i.e., the strongest.

20. This has very serious consequences.

21. First, does morality in becoming social become anti-social?

22. It is not that there is no morality among thieves. There is morality among businessmen. There is morality among fellow castemen and there is also morality among a gang of robbers.

23. But this morality is marked by isolation and exclusiveness. It is a morality to protect “group interest.” It is therefore anti-social.

24. It is the isolation and exclusiveness of this kind of morality which throws its anti-social spirit in[to] relief.

25. The same is true where a group observes morality because it has interests of its own to protect.

26. The results of this group organisation of society are far-reaching.

27. If society continues to consist of anti-social groups, society will remain a disorganised and a factional society.

28. The danger of a disorganised and factional state of society is that it sets up a number of different models and standards.

29. In the absence of common models and common standards, society cannot be a harmonious whole,

30. With such different models and standards, it is impossible for the individual to attain consistency of mind.

31. A society which rests upon the supremacy of one group over another, irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads to conflict.

32. The only way to put a stop to conflict is to have common rules of morality which are sacred to all.

33. There is the third factor which requires morality to be made sacred and universal. It is to safeguard the growth of the individual.

34. Under the struggle for existence or under group rule the interests of the individuals are not safe.

35. The group set-up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models. His thoughts are led astray, and this creates a mind whose seeing unity is forced and distorted.

36. Secondly, the group set-up leads to discrimination and denial of justice.

37. The group set-up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters, and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners, and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged, and the serfs remain serfs.

38. This means that there can be liberty for some, but not for all. This means that there can be equality for a few, but none for the majority.

39. What is the remedy? The only remedy lies in making fraternity universally effective.

40. What is fraternity? It is nothing but another name for [the] brotherhood of men–which is another name for morality.

41. This is why the Buddha preached that Dhamma is morality; and as Dhamma is sacred, so is morality.

Book Four, Part 2 — How Similarities in Terminology Conceal Fundamental Difference

SECTION ONE–REBIRTH

1. *Preliminary* — 2. *Rebirth of What?* — 3. *Rebirth of Whom?*

SECTION TWO–KARMA

1. *Is the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma the same as the Brahminic Doctrine?* — 2. *Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life?* — 3. *Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life?—concluded*

SECTION THREE–AHIMSA

1. *The different ways in which it was interpreted and followed* — 2. *True meaning of Ahimsa*

*SECTION FOUR–TRANSMIGRATION*

*SECTION FIVE–CAUSES OF THIS MISUNDERSTANDING*

SECTION ONE–REBIRTH

§ 1. Preliminary

1. What happens after death, is a question often asked.

2. The contemporaries of the Buddha held two different views. One set was called Eternalist, and the other was called Annihilationist.

3. The Eternalist said that the soul knows no death: therefore life is eternal. It is renewed by rebirth.

4. The thesis of the Annihilationists was summed up in one word, Ucchedvad, which meant that death is the end of everything. There is nothing left after death.

5. The Buddha was not an eternalist. For it involved a belief in the existence of a separate, immortal soul, to which he was opposed.

6. Was the Buddha an annihilationist? With his belief in the non-existence of the soul, the Buddha would naturally be expected to be an annihilationist.

7. But in the Alagaddupamma-Sutta the Buddha complains that he is called an annihilationist, when as a matter of fact he is not.

8. This is what he says: “Though this is what I affirm and what I preach, yet some recluses and Brahmins, wrongly, erroneously, and falsely charge me, in defiance of facts, with being an annihilationist and with preaching the disintegration, destruction, and extirpation of human beings.

9. “It is just what I am not, and what I do not affirm, that is wrongly, erroneously, and falsely, charged against me by these good people who would make me out to be an annihilationist.”

10. If this statement is a genuine one, and is not an interpolation by those who wanted to foist a Brahmanic doctrine on Buddhism, the statement raises a serious dilemma

11. How can the Buddha not believe in the existence of the soul, and yet say that he is not an annihilationist?

12. This raises the question: did the Buddha believe in rebirth?

§ 2. Rebirth of What?

1. Did the Buddha believe in rebirth?

2. The answer is in the affirmative.

3. It is better to split this question further into two parts: (1) Rebirth of What; and (2) Rebirth of Whom.

4. It is better to take each one of these two questions separately.

5. Here we may consider the first: Rebirth of What.

6. This question is almost always ignored. It is because of the mixing of the two questions that so much confusion has arisen.

7. According to the Buddha, there are four elements of Existence which go to compose the body. They are (1) Prithvi; (2) Apa; (3) Tej; and (4) Vayu.

8. Question is, when the human body dies, what happens to these four elements? Do they also die along with dead body? Some say that they do.

9. The Buddha said no: they join the mass of similar elements floating in (Akash) space.

10. When the four elements from this floating mass join together, a new birth takes place.

11. This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth.

12. The elements need not [be], and are not necessarily, from the same body which is dead. They may be drawn from different dead bodies.

13. It must be noted that the body dies. But the elements are ever-living.

14. This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddha believed.

15. Great light is thrown upon the subject by Sariputta in his dialogue with Maha-Kotthita.

16. It is said that once when the Lord was staying at Shravasti in Jeta’s Grove in Anathapindika’s Ashram, the Maha-Kotthita, rising up at even-tide from his meditations, went to Sariputta and asked him to elucidate some of the questions which troubled him.

17. The following was one of them.

18. Maha-Kotthita asked, “How many factors has the first ecstasy (Dhyana) put from it, and how many does it retain?”

19. Sariputta replied, “Five of each. Gone are lusts, malevolence, torpor, worry and doubt. Observation, reflection, zest, satisfaction and a focussed heart persist.”

20. Maha-Kotthita asked, “Take the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch,—each with its own particular province and range of function, separate and mutually distinct. What ultimate base have they? Who enjoys all their five provinces and ranges?”

21. Sariputta replied, “Mind (Mano).”

22. Maha-Kotthita asked, “On what do these five faculties of sense depend?”

23. Sariputta replied, “On vitality.”

24. Maha-Kotthita asked, “On what does vitality depend?”

25. Sariputta: On heat.”

26. Maha-Kotthita asked, “On what does heat depend?”

27. Sariputta replied, “On vitality.”

28. Maha-Kotthita asked, “You say that vitality depends on heat; you also say that heat depends on vitality! What precisely is the meaning to be attached to this?”

29. Sariputta replied, “I will give you an illustration. Just as in the case of a lamp, the light reveals the flame and the flame the light, so vitality depends upon heat and heat on vitality.”

30. Maha-Kotthita asked, “How many things must quit the body before it is flung aside and cast away like a senseless log?”

31. Sariputta answered, “Vitality, heat, and consciousness.”

32. Maha-Kotthita asked, “What is the difference between a lifeless corpse and an almsman in trance, in whom perception and feelings are stilled?”

33. Sariputta replied, “In the corpse not only are the plastic forces of the body and speech and mind stilled and quiescent, but also vitality is exhausted, heat is quenched, and the faculties of sense broken up; whereas in the almsman in trance vitality persists, heat abides, and the faculties are clear, although respiration, observation, and perception are stilled and quiescent.”

34. This probably is the best and most complete exposition of Death or Annihilation.

35. There is only one lacuna in this dialogue. Maha-Kotthita should have asked Sariputta one question: What is heat?

36. What answer Sariputta would have given, it is not easy to imagine. But there can be no doubt that heat means energy.

37. Thus amplified, the real answer to the question, What happens when the body dies? is: the body ceases to produce energy.

38. But this is only a part of the answer. Because death also means that whatever energy that had escaped from the body joins the general mass of energy playing about in the Universe.

39. Annihilation has therefore a two-fold aspect. In one of its aspects it means cession [=cessation] of production of energy. In another aspect it means a new addition to the stock of [the] general floating mass of energy.

40. It is probably because of this two-fold aspect of annihilation that the Buddha said that he was not an absolute annihilationist. He was an annihilationist so far as soul was concerned. He was not an annihilationist so far as matter was concerned.

41. So interpreted, it is easy to understand why the Buddha said that he was not an annihilationist. He believed in the regeneration of matter and not in the rebirth of the soul.

42. So interpreted, the Buddha’s view is in consonance with science.

43. It is only in this sense that the Buddha could be said to have believed in rebirth.

44. Energy is never lost. That is what science affirms. Annihilation in the sense that after death nothing is left, would be contrary to science. For it would mean that energy is not constant in volume.

45. This is the only way by which the dilemma could be solved.

§3. Rebirth of Whom?

1. The most difficult question is Rebirth of Whom.

2. Does the same dead person take a new birth?

3. Did the Buddha believe in this thesis? The answer is, “Most improbable.”

4. The answer depends upon the elements of existence of the dead man meeting together and forming a new body; then the possibility of the rebirth of the same sentient being is possible.

5. If a new body is formed after a mixture or the different elements of the different men who are dead, then there is rebirth but not the rebirth of the same sentient being.

6. This point has been well explained by sister Khema to King Pasenadi.

7. Once the Exalted One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika’s Ashram.

8. Now on that occasion the sister Khema, after going her rounds among the Kosalana, took up her quarters at Toranavatthu, between Shravasti and Saketa.

9. Now the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was journeying from Saketa to Shravasti, and midway between Saketa and Shravasti he put up for one night at Toranavatthu.

10. The Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala called a certain man and said, “Come thou, good fellow! Find out some recluse or brahmin such that I can wait upon him today.”

11. “Even so, your majesty,” said that man in reply to the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala, and after wandering through all Toranavatthu he saw not any one, either recluse or brahmin, on whom the Rajah Pasenadi might wait.

12. Then that man saw the sister Khema, who had come to reside at Toranavatthu. And on seeing her he went back to the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala, and said:

13. “Your Majesty, there is no recluse or brahmin in Toranavatthu such that your majesty can wait upon him. But, your majesty, there is a sister named Khema, a woman-disciple of that Exalted One. Now of this lady a lovely rumour has gone abroad, that she is sage, accomplished, shrewd, widely learned, a brilliant talker, of goodly ready wit. Let your majesty wait upon her.”

14. So the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala went to visit the sister Khema, and on coming to her saluted and sat down at one side. So seated, he said to her:

15. “How say you, lady? Does the Tathagata exist after death?”

16. “That also, maharajah is not revealed by the Exalted One.”

17. “How then, lady? When asked ‘Does the Tathagata exist after death?’ you reply, ‘That is not revealed by the Exalted One,’ and when I ask…the other questions, you make the same reply. Pray, lady, what is the reason, what is the cause, why this thing is not revealed by the Exalted One?”

18. “Now in this matter, maharajah, I will question you. Do you reply as you think fit. Now how say you, maharajah. Have you some accountant, some ready reckoner, or calculator, able to count the sand in [the] Ganges, thus: There are so many hundred grains, or so many thousand grains, or so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand?”

19. “No, indeed, lady.”

20. “Then have you some accountant, ready reckoner, or calculator able to reckon the water in the mighty ocean, thus: There are so many gallons of water, so many hundreds, so many thousands, so many hundreds of thousand gallons of water?”

21. “No, indeed, lady.”

22. “How is that?”

23. “Mighty is the ocean, lady–deep, boundless, unfathomable.”

24. “Even so, maharajah, if one should try to define the Tathagata by his bodily form, that bodily form of the Tathagata is abandoned, cut down at the root, made like a palm-tree stump, made some thing that is not, made of a nature not to spring up again in future time. Set free from reckoning as body, maharajah, is the Tathagata. He is deep, boundless unfathomable, just like the mighty ocean. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists after death’, does not apply. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists not after death’, does not apply. To say, ‘The Tathagata both exists and exists not, neither exists nor not exists, after death’, does not apply.

25. “If one should try to define the Tathagata by feeling–that feeling of the Tathagata is abandoned, cut down at the root…Yet free from reckoning as feeling is the Tathagata, maharajah, deep, boundless, unfathomable like the mighty ocean. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists after death…exists not after death’, does not apply.

26. “So also if one should try to define the Tathagata by perception, by the activities, by consciousness…set free from reckoning by consciousness is the Tathagata, deep, boundless, unfathomable as the mighty ocean. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists after death…exists not after death’, does not apply.”

27. Then the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was delighted with the words of the sister Khema, and took pleasure therein. And he rose from his seat, saluted her by the right, and went away.

28. Now on another occasion the Rajah went to visit the Exalted One, and on coming to him saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated, he said to the Exalted One:

29. “Pray, Lord, does the Tathagata exist after death?”

30. “Not revealed by me, maharajah, is this matter.”

31. “Then Lord, the Tathagata does not exist after death.”

32. “That also, maharajah, is not revealed by me.”

33. He then asks the other questions and gets the same reply.

34. “How then, Lord? When I ask the question, ‘Does the Tathagata exist?…does he not exist after death?’ you reply, ‘It is not revealed by me’. Pray, Lord, what is the reason, what is the cause, why this thing is not revealed by the Exalted One?”

35. “Now, maharajah, I will question you. Do you reply as you think fit. Now what say you, maharajah–have you some accountant…(the rest is exactly as before).’

36. “Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how the explanation both of Master and disciple, both in spirit and in letter, will agree, will harmonise, will not be inconsistent, that is, in any word about the highest.

37. “On a certain occasion. Lord, I went to visit the sister Khema, and asked her the meaning of this matter, and she gave me the meaning in the very words, in the very syllables used by the Exalted One. Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how the explanation both of Master and disciple will agree, will harmonise, in spirit and in letter, how they will not be inconsistent,–that is, in any word about the highest.

38. “Well, Lord, now we must be going. We are busy folk. We have many things to do.”

39. “Do now what you think it is time for, maharajah.”

40. Thereupon the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was delighted with the words of the Exalted One, and welcomed them. And he rose from his seat, saluted the Exalted One by the right, and went away.

SECTION TWO–KARMA

§ 1. Is the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma the same as the Brahminic Doctrine?

1. There is no doctrine in the Buddha’s Dhamma which has created so much confusion as this doctrine of Karma.

2. What is its place in the Buddha’s Dhamma, and what is its significance which has already been told?

3. Ignorant Hindus, out of sheer want of understanding, say by comparing merely the similarity of words, that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism or Hinduism.

4. The educated and orthodox section of the Brahmins also do the same. They do so deliberately, to mislead the ignorant masses.

5. The educated Brahmins know full well that the Buddhist Law of Karma is quite different from the Brahminic Law of Karma. Yet they keep on saying that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism and Hinduism.

6. The similarity in terminology gives them an easy handle for their false and malicious propaganda.

7. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the position closely.

8. The Buddha’s Law of Karma, however much may be similarity of words cannot be the same in its connotation as the Brahminic Law of Karma.

9. The premises of the two are so widely different, indeed so widely opposed that the result of the two cannot be the same. They must be different.

10. The principles of the Hindu Law of Karma may be stated seriatim [=systematically] for convenience.

11. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the soul. The Buddhist is not. In fact, there is no soul in Buddhism.

12. The Brahminic Law of Karma is hereditary.

13. It goes on from life to life. This is so because of the transmigration of the soul.

14. This cannot be true of the Buddhist Law of Karma. This is also because there is no soul.

15. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the existence of a soul which is distinct from the body. When the body dies, the soul does not die. The soul flies away.

16. This is not true of the Buddhist Law of Karma.

17. According to the Hindu Law of Karma, what happens when a man does a karma is this: his act produces two-fold results. It affects the doer; and secondly it produces an impress upon his soul.

18. Each act he does produces an impress upon his soul.

19. When a man dies and when his soul escapes, the soul is full of such impressions.

20. It is these impressions which determine his birth and status in his future life.

21. This Hindu theory is inconsistent with the Buddhist theory of no-soul.

22. For these reasons, the Buddhist doctrine of Karma cannot be, and is not, the same as the Hindu doctrine of Karma.

23. It is therefore simply foolish to talk about the Buddhist doctrine of Karma being the same as the Brahminic doctrine of Karma.

24. All that one can say is, beware of this jugglery.

§ 2. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life?

1. The Law of Karma was enunciated by the Buddha. He was the first to say: “Reap as you sow.”

2. He was so emphatic about the Law of Karma that he maintained that there could be no moral order unless there was a stern observance of the Law of Karma.

3. The Buddha’s Law of Karma applied only to Karma and its effect on present life.

4. There is, however, an extended doctrine of Karma. According to it, Karma includes Karma done in past life or lives.

5. If a man is born in a poor family, it is because of his past bad karma. If a man is born in a rich family, it is because of his past good karma.

6. If a man is born with a congenital defect, it is because of his past bad karma.

7. This is a very pernicious doctrine. For in this interpretation of karma there is no room left for human effort. Everything is predetermined for him by his past karma.

8. This extended doctrine is often found to be attributed to the Buddha.

9. Did the Buddha believe in such a doctrine?

10. To examine this extended doctrine properly, it is better to change the language in which it is usually expressed.

11. Instead of saying that past karma is transmitted, it should be better if it was said that past karma is inherited.

12. This change of language enables us to test it by the law of heredity. At the same time it does no harm to the doctrine, either to its de jure or de facto connotation.

13. This restatement makes it possible to pose the two questions which could not otherwise be posed, and without answering which the matter could not be made clear.

14. The first question is, how is past karma inherited? What is the process?

15. The second question is, what is the nature of past karma in terms of heredity? Is it an inherent characteristic, or [an] acquired characteristic?

16. What do we inherit from our parents?

17. Starting with science, the new individual begins when a sperm enters the egg. Fertilisation consists in fusion of the head of the sperm with the nucleus of the egg.

18. Each human being takes its origin from the union of two bits of living matter, an egg from the mother which has been fertilised by a single sperm from the father.

19. That human birth is genetic is told by the Buddha to a Yakkha who came to discuss the matter with him.

20. The Exalted One was then staying near Rajagraha, on the hill called Indra’s Peak.

21. Now that Yakkha drew near to the Exalted One and addressed him as follows:

Material form is not the living soul’.

So says the Enlightened One. Then how doth soul possess this body?

Whence to soul doth come

Our bunch of bones and bowels?

How doth soul within the mother-cave suspended bide?

22. To this the Exalted One replied:

At first the Kalala takes birth, and thence the abudde.

Therefrom the pesi grows,

Developing as ghana in its turn.

Now in the ghana doth appear the hair,

The down, the nails.

And whatsoever food and drink the mother of him takes,

thereby the man in mother’s womb doth live and grow.

23. But the Hindu doctrine differs.

24. It says that the body is genetic. But the soul is not. It is implanted into the body from outside–the doctrine is unable to specify the source.

25. Turning to the second question as to what is the nature of past karma, it must be determined whether it is an inherent characteristic or an acquired characteristic.

26. Unless an answer to this question is forthcoming, it cannot be tested by the scientific theory of heredity.

27. But assuming there is an answer one way or the other to this question, how is it possible to get any help from science [as to] whether it is a sensible theory or senseless theory?

28. According to science, a child inherits the characteristics of his parents.

29. In the Hindu doctrine of karma a child inherits nothing from its parents except the body. The past karma in the Hindu doctrine is the inheritance of the child by the child and for the child.

30. The parents contributes nothing. The child brings everything.

31. Such a doctrine is nothing short of an absurdity.

32. As shown above, the Buddha did not believe in such an absurdity.

33. “Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no.”

34. “Give me an illustration.”

35. “Suppose, O king, a man were to steal another man’s mangoes, would the thief deserve punishment?”

36. “Yes.”

37. “But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why would he deserve punishment?

38. “Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.”

39. “Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or impure, and by that karma another name-and-form is reborn. And therefore is it not set free from its evil deeds?”

40. “Very good, Nagasena!”

41. The king said, “When deeds are committed, Nagasena, by one name-and-form, what becomes of those deeds?”

42. “The deeds would follow it, O king, like a shadow that never leaves it.”

43. “Can anyone point out those deeds, saying: ‘Here are those deeds, or there?’

44. “No “

45. “Give me an illustration.”

46. “Now what do you think, O king? Can anyone point out the fruits which a tree has not yet produced, saying:

47. ‘Here they are, or there?’”

48. “Certainly not, sir.”

49. “Just so, great king; so long as the continuity of life is not cut off, it is impossible to point out the deeds that are done.”

50. “Very good, Nagasena.”

§ 3. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life? —concluded

1. The Buddha’s doctrine of Past Karma is thus in keeping with science.

2. He did not believe in the inheritance of Past Karma.

3. How can he, having held to the view that birth is genetic, and whatever inheritance comes to the child, it comes through its parents?

4. Apart from logic there is more direct evidence on the point contained in a sutta called the Cula-Dukkha-Khanda-Sutta which contains a dialogue between the Buddha and the Jains.

5. In this dialogue this is what the Buddha says: “Niganthas, you have done evil in the past; extirpate it by these severe austerities. Every present restraint on body, speech, and mind will hereafter undo the evil doings of the past. Hence, by expelling through penance all past misdeeds, and by not committing fresh misdeeds, the future becomes cleared; with the future cleared, the past is wiped out; with the past wiped out, ill is no more; with ill no more, (painful) feelings are no more; and with painful feelings now no more, all will be outworn. This teaching commends and approves itself to us, and we rejoice in it.”

6. Thereupon, I said to those Niganthas, “Do you know, reverend sirs, whether you had an existence before this or you were not non-existent?”

7. “No, Sir.”

8. “Do you know that, in a former existence, you were guilty, and not guiltless, of misdeeds?”

9. “No.”

10. “Do you know that (in that former existence) you were guilty, and not guiltless, of this or that specific misdeed?”

11. “No.”

12. Secondly the Buddha asserts that the status of a man may be governed not so much by heredity as by his environment.

13. In the Devadaha-Sutta, this is what the Buddha says: “Some recluses and Brahmins there are who affirm and hold the view that, whatsoever the individual experiences–be it [=they] pleasant or unpleasant or neither–all comes from former actions. Hence, by expiation and purge of former misdeeds, and by not committing fresh misdeeds, nothing accrues for the future; the misdeeds die away; as misdeeds die away, ill dies away; as ill dies away, feelings die away; and as feelings die away, all will wear out and pass. This is what the Niganthas affirm.

14. “If it is because of their birth’s environment that creatures experience pleasure and pain, the Niganthas are blameworthy, and they are also blameworthy, if environment is not the cause.”

15. Now these statements of the Buddha are very relevant. How could the Buddha throw doubt on past karma, if he believed in it? How could the Buddha maintain [that] pain and pleasure in [the] present life being [=is] due to environment, if he believed that it was due to past karma?

16. The doctrine of past karma is a purely Brahminic doctrine. Past karma taking effect in [the] present life is quite consistent with the Brahminic doctrine of soul, the effect of karma on soul. But it is quite inconsistent with the Buddhist doctrine of non-soul.

17. It has been bodily introduced into Buddhism by someone who wanted to make Buddhism akin to Hinduism, or who did not know what the Buddhist doctrine was.

18. This is one reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have preached such a doctrine.

19. There is another and a more general reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have preached such a doctrine.

20. The basis of the Hindu doctrine of past karma as the regulator of future life is an iniquitous doctrine. What could have been the purpose of inventing such a doctrine?

21. The only purpose one can think of is to enable the state or the society to escape responsibility for the condition of the poor and the lowly.

22. Otherwise, such an inhuman and absurd doctrine could never have been invented.

23. It is impossible to imagine that the Buddha, who was known as the Maha Karunika, could have supported such a doctrine.

SECTION THREE–AHIMSA

§ 1. The different ways in which it was interpreted and followed

1. Ahimsa, or non-killing, forms a very important part of the Buddha’s teachings.

2. It is intimately connected with Karuna and Maitri.

3. The question has, however, been raised whether His Ahimsa was absolute in its obligation, or only relative. Was it only a principle? Or was it a rule?

4. People who accept the Buddha’s teachings find it difficult to accept Ahimsa as an absolute obligation. They say that such a definition of Ahimsa involves the sacrifice of good for evil, the sacrifice of virtue for vice.

5. This question requires to be clarified. There is no subject which is a matter of greater confusion than this subject of Ahimsa.

6. How have the people of Buddhist countries understood and practised Ahimsa?

7. This is an important question which must be taken into account.

8. The monks of Ceylon fought against, and asked the people of Ceylon to fight against, the foreign invaders.

9. On the other hand the monks of Burma refused to fight against the foreign invaders, and asked the Burmese people not to fight.

10. The Burmese people eat eggs but not fish.

11. This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed.

12. Recently the German Buddhist Association passed a resolution by which they accepted all the Panch Silas except the first, which deals with Ahimsa.

13. This is the position about the Doctrine of Ahimsa.

§ 2. True Meaning of Ahimsa

1. What does Ahimsa mean?

2. The Buddha has nowhere given any definition of Ahimsa. In fact he has very seldom, if at all, referred to the subject in specific terms.

3. One has, therefore to spell out his intention from circumstantial evidence.

4. The first circumstantial evidence on the point is that the Buddha had no objection to eating meat, if it was offered to him as part of his alms.

5. The monk can eat meat offered to him, provided he was not a party to the killing of it.

6. He resisted the opposition of Devadatta, who insisted that the monks should be prohibited from eating meat given to them by way of alms.

7. The next piece of evidence on the point is that he was only opposed to the killing of animals in yajna (sacrifice). This he has himself said.

8. Ahimsa Permo Dharma is an extreme Doctrine. It is a Jain Doctrine. It is not a Buddhist Doctrine.

9. There is another piece of evidence which is more direct than circumstantial, which almost amounts to a definition of Ahimsa. He has said: “Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any.” This is a positive way of stating the principle of Ahimsa.

10. From this it appears that the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say “Kill not.” It says, “Love all.”

11. In the light of these statements, it is quite easy to have a clear understanding of what the Buddha meant by Ahimsa.

12. It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make a distinction between will to kill and need to kill.

13. He did not ban killing where there was need to kill.

14. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill.

15. So understood, there is no confusion in the Buddhist doctrine of Ahimsa.

16. It is a perfectly sound or moral doctrine which everyone must respect.

17. No doubt he leaves it to every individual to decide whether the need to kill is there. But with whom else could it be left? Man has Pradnya, and he must use it.

18. A moral man may be trusted to draw the line at the right point.

19. Brahminism has in it the will to kill.

20. Jainism has in it the will never to kill.

21. The Buddha’s Ahimsa is quite in keeping with his middle path.

22. To put it differently, the Buddha made a distinction between Principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of Principle or way of life.

23. In this he no doubt acted very wisely.

24. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you, or you break the rule.

SECTION FOUR–TRANSMIGRATION

1. The Blessed Lord preached that there was rebirth. But the Blessed Lord also preached that there was no transmigration.

2. There were not wanting people who criticised the Lord for preaching what they regarded as two such contradictory doctrines.

3. How can there be rebirth unless there is transmigration? asked the critics.

4. There is here a case of rebirth without transmigration, they said. Can this be?

5. There is no contradiction. There can be rebirth, although there is no transmigration.

6. This has been well explained by Nagasena in his replies to the questions of King Milinda.

7. Milinda, King of Bactria, asked Nagasena, “Did the Buddha believe in Rebirth (Transmigration)?”

8. His reply was “Yes.”

9. “Is this not a contradiction?”

10. Nagasena replied, “No.”

11. “Can there be rebirth without a soul?”

12. Nagasena said, “Of course, yes, there can be.”

13. “Explain how it can be.”

14. The king said, “Where there is no transmigration, Nagasena, can there be rebirth?”

15. “Yes, there can.”

16. “But how can that be? Give me an illustration.”

17. “Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp–can it be said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?”

18. “Certainly not.”

19. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.”

20. “Give me a further illustration.”

21. “Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your teacher?”

22. “Yes. I recollect that.”

23. “Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher?”

24. “Certainly not.”

25. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.”

26. “Very good, Nagasena!”

27. The king said, “Is there such a thing, Nagasena, as the soul?”

28. “In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing.”

29. “Very good, Nagasena!”

SECTION FIVE–CAUSES OF THIS MISUNDERSTANDING

1. What the Buddha preached was heard by his audience, which largely consisted of the Bhikkus.

2. It is the Bhikkus who reported to the people at large what the Buddha had said on any particular matter.

3. The art of writing had not yet developed. The Bhikkus had therefore to memorise what they had heard. Not every Bhikku cared to memorise what he heard. But there were some that had made it their profession to memorise. They were called Bhanakas.

4. The Buddhist canonical literature is as vast as [an] ocean. To memorise all this was indeed a great feat.

5. In reporting the Buddha, it has often been found that he has been misreported.

6. Many cases of misreporting had been brought to the knowledge of the Buddha while he was alive.

7. Reference may be made by way of illustration to five such cases. One is mentioned in the Alagaddupama Sutta and the other in the Maha-Kamma-Vibhanga Sutta, a third in the Kannakatthala Sutta, [a] fourth in the Maha-Tanha-Sankhya Sutta, and[a] fifth in the Jivaka Sutta.

8. There were perhaps many more such cases of misreporting. For we find that even the Bhikkus going [=went] to the Buddha, asking him to tell them what they should do in such contingencies.

9. The cases of misreporting are common with regard to karma and rebirth.

10. These doctrines have also a place in the Brahminic religion; consequently, it was easy for the Bhanakas to incorporate the Brahminic tenets into the Buddhist Religion.

11. One has therefore to be very careful in accepting what is said in the Buddhist canonical literature as being the word of the Buddha.

12. There is, however, one test which is available.

13. If there is anything which could be said with confidence it is: He was nothing if not rational, if not logical. Anything therefore which is rational and logical, other things being equal, may be taken to be the word of the Buddha.

14. The second thing is that the Buddha never cared to enter into a discussion which was not profitable for man’s welfare. Therefore anything attributed to the Buddha which did not relate to man’s welfare cannot be accepted to be the word. of the Buddha.

15. There is a third test. It is that the Buddha divided all matters into two classes: those about which he was certain, and those about which he was not certain. On matters which fell into class I, he has stated his views definitely and conclusively. On matters which fell into class II, he has expressed his views, but they are only tentative views.

16. In discussing the three questions about which there is doubt and difference, it is necessary to bear these tests in mind, before deciding what the view of the Buddha was thereon.

Book Four, Part III—The Buddhist Way of Life

1. *On Good, Evil, and Sin* — 2. *On Craving and Lust* — 3. *On Hurt and Ill-will* — 4. *On Anger and Enmity* — 5. *On Man, Mind, and Impurities* — 6. *On Self and Self-Conquest* — 7. *On Wisdom, Justice, and Good Company* — 8. *On Thoughtfulness and Mindfulness* — 9. *On Vigilance, Earnestness, and Boldness* — 10. *On Sorrow and Happiness; On Charity and Kindness* — 11. *On Hypocrisy* — 12. *On Following the Right Way* — 13. *Mix not True Dhamma with False Dhamma*

§ 1. On Good, Evil, and Sin

1. Do good. Be no party to evil. Commit no sin.

2. This is the Buddhist way of life.

3. If a man should do that which is good, let him do it again and again, let him turn the desires of his heart thereto. Happy is the heaping of good.

4. Think not casually of the good, saying, “it will not come to me.” Drop by drop is the water pot filled. By little added to little does good grow.

5. But well done is that deed which brings one no regrets, the fruit whereof is received with delight and satisfaction.

6. Well done is the deed which, done, brings no regrets, the fruit whereof is received with delight and satisfaction.

7. If a man does what is good, let him do it again; let him delight in it; the accumulation of good is delightful.

8. Even a good man sees evil days, so long as his good deed does not ripen; but when his good deed ripens, then does the good man see good things.

9. Let no man think lightly of good, saying in his heart, “it will not come right unto me.” Even by the falling of water drops a water-pot is filled; the wise man becomes full of good, even if he gathers it little by little.

10. Far surpassing the fragrance of sandal or incense or lotus or jasmine, is the fragrance of virtue.

11. Faint is this fragrance of incense and sandal, but the fragrance of virtue ascends to the highest place.

12. Treat not lightly of evil, saying, “it will not come to me.” Drop by drop is the water pot filled. By little added to little evil accumulates.

13. It is not well to do a deed which, done, brings regrets, the fruit whereof is received with tears and lamentations.

14. If a man speaks or acts evil of mind, suffering follows him, close as the wheel the hoof of the beast that draws the cart.

15. Follow not after things evil. Dwell not in negligence. Cherish not false ideas.

16. Hasten towards the excellent, suppress all evil thoughts. Whoso is backward in doing good, his mind delights in evil.

17. It is not well to do that deed which, done, brings regrets, the fruit whereof is received with tears and lamentations.

18. Even an evil-doer sees happiness, so long as his evil deed does not ripen; but when his evil deed ripens, then does the evil-doer see evil.

19. Let no man think lightly of evil, saying in his heart, “it will not come right unto me.” Even by the filling of water drops a water-pot is filled; the fool becomes full of evil, even if he gathers it little by little.

20. A man should hasten towards the good, and should keep his thought away from evil; if a man does what is good slothfully, his mind delights in evil.

21. If a man commits a sin, let him not do it again, let him not delight in sin; the accumulation of evil is painful.

22. Follow the law of virtue; do not follow that of sin. The virtuous rests in bliss in this world.

23. From lust is born sorrow, from lust is born fear. To him who is wholly free from lust, there is neither sorrow nor fear.

24. Hunger is the worst of diseases (component), existence the worst of distress. This knowing, in accordance with truth and fact, Nibbana becomes the highest happiness.

25. The evil done by oneself, self-begotten, self-bred, crushes the doer, as a diamond breaks even a precious stone.

26. He whose wickedness is very great brings himself down to that state where his enemy wishes him to be, as a creeper does with the tree which it surrounds.

27. Bad deeds, and deeds hurtful to ourselves, are easy to do; difficult to do, what is beneficial and good.