It is sufficiently evident from the comparative frequency of the discussions on the matter of Brahman pretensions that this was a burning question at the time when the Dialogues were composed. No other social problem is referred to so often; and Brahman would not be so often represented as expressing astonishment or indignation at the position taken up regarding it by the early Buddhists unless there had really been a serious difference on the subject between the two schools. But the difference, though real, has been gravely misunderstood.

Some writers on Buddhism do not hesitate to ascribe to Gotama the role of a successful political reformer, by representing him as having fought for the poor and despised against the rich and privileged classes, and as having gone far to abolish caste. Other writers gird at the Buddha because most of the leaders of this Order were drawn from the ranks of the respectable and the well-to-do, with an education in keeping with their social position; and disparage him for neglecting the humble and the wretched, for not using his influence to abolish, or to mitigate, the harshness of caste rules.

Both views are equally unhistorical. It is well-known that the population of India is now divided into a number of sections (we call them `castes'), the members of which are debarred from the right of intermarriage (from the connubium) with those outside their caste, and also, but in constantly varying degrees, from the right of eating together (of commensality) with the members of other sections. Each such `caste' has also a council or committee by which it is governed, and which settles all disputes regarding the caste.

The disastrous effects, from the ethical, social, and political points of view, of these restrictions, and of caste as a whole, have been often grossly exaggerated, and the benefits of the [\q 97/] system ignored. And we are entirely unwarranted in supposing the system, as it now exists, to have been in existence also at the time when Buddhism arose in the valley of the Ganges. Our knowledge of the actual facts of caste, even as it now exists, is still confused and inaccurate. The theories put forward to explain the facts are loose and irreconcilable. And an accurate statement of the corresponding facts, if any, at the time of Gotama, has yet to be drawn up.

We have long known that the connubium was the cause of a long and determined struggle between the patricians and the plebeians in Rome. Evidence has been yearly accumulating on the existence of restrictions as to intermarriage, and as to the right of eating together, among other Aryan tribes Þ Greeks, Germans, Russians, and so on. Even without the fact of the existence, now, of such restrictions among the modern successors of the ancient Aryans in India, it would have been almost certain that they also were addicted to similar customs. It is certain that the notion of such usages was familiar enough to some at least of the tribes that preceded the Aryans in India. It is quite a mistake to look upon all these tribes as far below the Aryans in culture. Both the Kolarians and the Dravidians were probably quite the equals of the Aryans in social organisation. And the Aryans probably adopted much from them, especially in matters relating to land tenure, village community, government, taxation, and so on. Their custom of endogamy and exogamy, their ideas as to purity and the reverse, may have differed from those of the Aryans, but were similar in kind. Rules of endogamy and exogamy; privileges, restricted to certain classes, of eating together, are not only Indian or Aryan, but worldwide phenomena. Both the spirit, and to a large degree the actual details, of modern Indian caste usages, are identical with these ancient, and no doubt universal, customs. It is in them that we have òhe key to the origin of caste.

At any moment in the history of a nation such customs seem, to a superficial observer, to be fixed and immutable. As a matter of fact they are never quite the same in successive centuries, or even generations. A man's visible frame, though no change is at any moment perceptible, is really never the same for two consecutive moments, and the result of constant minute variations becomes clear after the lapse of time. The numerous and complicated details which we sum up under the convenient (but often misleading) single name of caste are solely dependent for their sanction on public opinion. That opinion seems stable. But it is always tending to vary as to the degree of importance attached to some particular one of [\q 98/] the details, as to the size and complexity of the particular groups in which each detail ought to be observed.

This last statement may be illustrated by the case of the Chaliyas. When the Dutch started cinnamon cultivation in Ceylon on a large scale, they wanted labourers. `The peasantry, who belonged almost exclusively to one caste, the Goigamas, regarded it as unworthy of a free man to work for hire. Some of them, however, in the struggle of motives, found the pressure of poverty too strong for them, and accepted service as coolies. The others, thinking this bad form, became averse to giving their daughters in marriage to such coolies. These feelings were naturally stronger at first among the Goigamas of good social position, and it became a mark of superiority not to have a relative married to a worker in the cinnamon gardens. And such workers were called Chaliyas. By the time that the families of Chaliyas were numerous enough to afford mates for the male or female coolies, the Chaliyas found it impossible to find wives elsewhere. And thus, under the very eyes of Europeans, the size of one group had been diminished by the very considerable number of persons engaged in a new and despised trade. In other words, what we call a new caste had arisen, the caste of the Chaliyas. When the English took Ceylon they gave up the government cultivation of cinnamon. The gardens were carried on, in ever lessening numbers, by private individuals. The number of the Chaliyas consequently declined. Numbers of them, as they gradually returned to ordinary peasant work, became reabsorbed among the Goigamas. This was an instance of a change precisely contrary to that which happened when the caste gradually arose. But all did not succeed in returning; and there are, therefore, still some Chaliyas left. And the caste survives though the members of it are now no longer exclusively, or even largely, employed in cinnamon gardens; and many of them have become wealthy and honoured.

What had happened in this case was, not two separate and striking revolutions, but a long series of slight changes in public opinion, no doubt quite imperceptible at the time to the very people among whom the changes were taking place. And after all the changes were not so very slow. Three or four generations were enough to cover the whole series with the consequent results. Who can doubt but that the history of ancient India, if we had only access to the necessary evidence, would be found to cover, in its two thousand five hundred years, and through its wide territory, a constant succession of similar variations; and that similar variations are recurring still today.

[\q 99/] Owing to the fact that the particular set of people who worked their way to the top based its claims on religious grounds, not on political power or wealth, the system has, no doubt, lasted longer in India than in Europe. But public opinion still insists in considerable circles, even in Europe, on restrictions of a more or less defined kind, both as to marriage and as to eating together. And in India the problem still remains to trace in the literature the gradual growth of the system Þ the gradual formation of new sections among the people, the gradual extension of the institution to the families of people engaged. in certain trades, belonging to the same sect or tribe', tracing their ancestry (whether rightly or wrongly) to the same source. All these factors, and others besides, are real factors. But they are phases of the extension and growth, not explanations of the origin, of the system.

There is no evidence to show that at the time when the conversations recorded in the Dialogues took place (that is to say, in the sixth century B. C.) there was any substantial difference, as regards the barriers in question, between the peoples dwelling in the valley of the Ganges and their contemporaries dwelling on the shores of the Mediterranean. The point of greatest weight in the establishment of the great difference in the subsequent development Þ the supremacy, in India, of the priests Þ was still being hotly debated. And all our evidence tends to show that at least in the wide extent of territory covered by the Piñakas Þ countries close upon a hundred thousand square miles in area Þ the struggle was being decided rather against the Brahman than for them. There were distinctions as to marriage; endogamous and exogamous groups. In a few instances, all among the lower classes of the people, these amounted, probably, to what would now be called caste-divisions. But of castes, in the modern sense, among the preponderating majority there is little or no conclusive evidence.

There was a common phrase current among the people, which divided all the world into four vaõõà (colours or complexions)-the nobles, the priests, the other Aryan people, and the non-Aryan Sådras (Khattiyà, Bràhmaõà, Vessà, and Suddà). The priests put themselves first, and had a theological legend in support of their contention. But it is clear from the Piñakas that this was not admitted by the nobles. And it is also clear that no one of these divisions was a caste. There was neither connubium nor commensality between all the members of one vaõõa, nor was there a governing council for each. The fourth was distinguished from the others by race. The remaining three were distinguished from each other by [\q 100/] social position. And though in a general rough way the classification corresponded to the actual facts of life, there were insensible gradations within the four classes, and the boundary between them was both variable and undefined.

What we find then, in the Buddha's time, is caste in the making. The great mass of the people were distinguished quite roughly into four classes-social strata-of which the boundary lines were vague and uncertain. At the one end of the scale certain outlying tribes, and certain hereditary crafts of a dirty or despised kind, were already, probably, castes. At the other end of the scale Brahman by birth were putting forward caste claims that were not yet universally admitted. There were social customs about the details of which we know very little (and dependent probably, more exactly upon the gotta rather than upon the jàti), which raised barriers, not seldom broken through, as to intermarriage of people admittedly belonging to the same vaõõa, and a fortiori of others. And there was a social code, based on the idea of impurity, which prevented familiar intercourse (such as commensality) between people of different rank; and rendered disgraceful the use of certain foods. We find, however, no usages which cannot be amply paralleled in the history of other peoples throughout the world in similar stages of social evolution. The key-stone of the arch of the peculiarly Indian caste organisation-the absolute supremacy of the Brahmans Þ had not yet been put in position, had not, in fact, been yet made ready. The caste-system, in any proper or exact use of the term, did not exist.

In the face of this set of circumstances Gotama took up [\q 102/] a distinct position. It meets us, it is true, in two phases; but it forms one consistent and logical whole.

In the first place, as regards his own Order, over which alone he had complete control, he ignores completely and absolutely all advantages or disadvantages arising from birth, occupation, and social status, and sweeps away all barriers and disabilities arising from the arbitrary rules of mere Ceremonial or social impurity.

One of the most distinguished members of his Order the very one of them who was referred to as the chief authority, after Gotama himself, on the rules of the Order, was Upàli, who had formerly been a barber, one of the despised occupations. So Sunãta, one of the brethren whose verses are chosen for insertion in the Thera Jàthà, was a Pukkusa, one of the low tribes. Sàti, the propounder of a deadly heresy, was of the sons of the fisherfolk, afterwards a low caste, and even then an occupation, on account of its cruelty, particularly abhorred. Nanda was a cowherd. The two Paõñhakas were born out of wedlock, to a girl of good family through intercourse with a slave (so that by the rule laid down in Manu 31, they were actually outcasts). Kàpà was the daughter of a deer-stalker, Puõõà and Puõõikà had been slave girls. Sumangalamàtà was daughter and wife to workers in rushes, and Subhà was the daughter of a smith. More instances could doubtless be quoted already, and others will become known when more texts are published.

It does not show much historical insight to sneer at the numbers as small, and to suggest that the supposed enlightenment or liberality was mere pretence. The facts speak for themselves; and the percentage of low-born members of the Order was probably in fair proportion to the percentage of persons belonging to the despised jàtis and sippas as compared with the rest of the population. Thus of the Therãs mentioned in the Therã Gàthà we know the social position of sixty, of whom five are mentioned above-that is 8 1/2 per cent. of the whole number were base-born. It is most likely that this is just about the proportion which persons in similar social rank bore to the rest of the population.

On the other hand, it is just possible that in these passages the custom afterwards followed in the Buddhist Order is simply put back to earlier times, and is an anachronism. The low-born, however earnest in their search after truth, were no doubt excluded from any community of hermits or religious recluses in which Brahmans had the upper hand. But all the twice-born (the Dvijas, that is the Khattiyas, Bràhmaõas, and Vessas) were certainly justified, by public opinion, in becoming Samaõas. To what extent the Sådras, and the tribes below the Sådras, were accorded, in communities other than the Buddhist, a similar privilege, is at present doubtful. But the Buddha certainly adopted, and probably extended, the most rational view current at the time.

This is a particularly interesting passage, being one of the few in which sayings of previous Buddhas are recorded. In other words the Buddhists put forward this view as having been enunciated long ago-with the intended implication that it was a self-evident proposition which was common ground to the wise. No originality, no special insight, is claimed on account of a view that would have put an end to so many foolish prejudices based on superstition. The Buddha's position is again to adopt, in this matter, the sensible position already put forward by others.

As to other details also, which it would take too long to set out here, Gotama followed the same plan. On the general question, however, he had opinions, presumably his own. For they are not found elsewhere. And in the early Buddhist texts (always ready to give credit to others, and even anxious wherever possible to support their views by showing that others, especially in ancient times, had held them) these views are not referred to as part of the doctrine of either earlier or contemporary teachers.

We may class the utterances on this point under three heads-biological, ethical, and historical.

Then successively fine moss, and sweet creepers, and delicate rice appeared, and each time the beings ate thereof with a similar result. Then differences of sex appeared; and households were formed; and the lazy stored up the rice, instead of gathering it each evening and morning; and the rights of property arose, and were infringed. And when lusts were felt, and thefts committed, the beings, now become men, met together, and chose certain men, differing from the others in no wise except in virtue (dhamma), to restrain the evil doers by blame or fines or banishment. These were the first Kshatriyas. And others they chose to restrain the evil dispositions which led to the evil doing. And these were the first Brahman, differing from the others in no wise, except only in virtue (dhamma).

Then certain others, to keep their households going, and maintain their wives, started occupations of various kinds. And these were the first vessas. And some abandoned their homes and became the first recluses (samaõas). But all were alike in origin, and the only distinction between them was in virtue. And the highest of them all was acknowledged [\q 107/] to be the Arahat, who had made himself so by the destruction of the Four Mental Intoxications (the àsavas) and by breaking the bonds that tied him to rebirths; the man who had laid aside every burden, who had lived the life, had accomplished a11 that had to be done, had gained his end, and by the highest knowledge was set free!

We may not accept the historical accuracy of this legend. Indeed a continual note of good-humoured irony runs through the whole story, with its fanciful etymologies of the names of the four vaõõà; and the aroma of it would be lost on the hearer who took it au grand szeezrieux. But it reveals a sound and healthy insight, and is much nearer to the actual facts than the Brahman legend it was intended to replace.

Chapter I.

1. Thus have I heard. The Blessed One, when once on a tour through the Kosala country with a great company of the brethren, with about five hundred brethren, arrived at a Brahman village in Kosala named Icchànankala; and while there he stayed in the Icchànankala Wood.

[\q 109/] `They say that the Samaõa Gotama, of the Sàkya clan, who went out from a Sàkya family to adopt the religious life, has now arrived, with a great company of the brethren of his Order, at Icchànankala, and is staying there in the Icchànankala Wood. Now regarding that venerable Gotama, such is the high reputation that has been noised abroad:¤That Blessed One is an Arahat, a fully awakened one, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, a Blessed One, a Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly knows and sees, as it were, face to face this universe,¤including the worlds above of the gods, the Brahmas, and the Màras, and the world below with its recluses and Brahman, its princes and peoples,¤and having known it, he makes his knowledge known to others. The truth, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation, doth he proclaim, both in the spirit and in the letter, the higher life doth he make known, in all its fullness and in all its purity.

[88] `And good is it to pay visits to Arahats like that.'

4. And Pokkharasàdi told Ambaññha the news, and said: `Come now, dear Ambaññha, go to the Samaõa Gotama, and find out whether the reputations so noised abroad regarding him is in accord with the facts or not, whether the Samaõa Gotama is such as they say or not.'

5. `But how, Sir, shall I know whether that is so or not?'

6. `Very good, Sir,' said Ambaññha in reply; and rising from his seat and paying reverence to Pokkharasàdi, he mounted a chariot drawn by mares, and proceeded, with a retinue of young Brahman, to the Icchànankala Wood. And when he had gone on in the chariot as far as the road was practicable for vehicles, he got down, and went on, into the park, on foot.

7. Now at that time a number of the brethren were walking up and down in the open air. And Ambaññha went up to them, and said: `Where may the venerable Gotama be lodging now? We have come hither to call upon him.'

9. Then Ambaññha did so. And the Blessed One opened the door, and Ambaññha entered in. And the other young Brahman also went in; and they exchanged with the Blessed One the greetings and [\q 112/] compliments of politeness and courtesy, and took their seats. But Ambaññha, walking about, said something or other of a civil kind in an off-hand way, fidgeting about the while, or standing up, to the Blessed One sitting there.

[90] 10. And the Blessed One said to him: `Is that the way, Ambaññha, that you would hold converse with aged teachers, and teachers of your teachers well stricken in years, as you now do, moving about the while or standing, with me thus seated?'

12. Then Ambaññha was displeased and angry with the Blessed One at being called rude; and at the thought that the Blessed One was vexed with him, he said, scoffing, jeering, and sneering at the Blessed One: `Rough is this Sàkya breed of yours, Gotama, and rude; touchy is this Sàkya breed of yours and [\q 113/] violent.

Thus did the young Brahman Ambaññha for the first time charge the Sàkyas with being menials.

13. `But in what then, Ambaññha, have the Sàkyas given you offence?'

Thus did the young Brahman Ambaññha for the second time charge the Sàkyas with being menials.

[\q 114/] 14. `Why a quail, Ambaññha, little hen bird though she be, can say what she likes in her own nest. And there the Sàkyas are at their own home, in Kapilavatthu. It is not fitting for you to take offence at so trifling a thing.'

Thus did the young Brahman Ambaññha for the third time charge the Sàkyas with being menials.

16. Then the Blessed One thought thus: `This Ambaññha is very set on humbling the Sàkyas with his charge of servile origin in. What if I were to ask him as to his own lineage?' And he said to him:

`And what family do you then, Ambaññha, belong to?'

`I am a Kaõhàyana.'

[\q 115/] And through fear of injuring the purity of their line they intermarried with their sisters.

`There is a spot, Sire, on the slopes of the Himàlaya, on the, borders of a lake, where there grows a mighty oak (sako). There do they dwell. And lest they should injure the purity of their line they have married their own (sakàhi) sisters.'

`That is the reason, Ambaññha, why they are known as Sàkyas. Now Okkàka had a slave girl called Disà. She gave birth to a black baby. And no sooner was it born than the little black thing said, ßWash me, mother. Bathe me, mother. Set me free, mother, of this dirt. So shall I be of use to you.û

17. When he had thus spoken the young Brahman said to the Blessed One: `Let not the venerable [\q 116/] Gotama humble Ambaññha too sternly with this reproach of being descended from a slave girl. He is well born, Gotama, and of good family; he is versed in the sacred hymns, an able reciter, a learned man. And he is able to give answer to the venerable Gotama in these matters.'

19. ` We do think so; and we will hold our peace. Ambaññha is able to give answer to the venerable Gotama in these matters.'

And when he had thus spoken Ambaññha remained silent. And the Blessed One asked the same question again. [95] And still Ambaññha remained silent. Then the Blessed One said to him: `You [\q 117/] had better answer, now, Ambaññha. This is no time for you to hold your peace. For whosoever, Ambaññha, does not, even up to the third time of asking, answer a reasonable question put by a Tathàgata (by one who has won the truth), his head splits into pieces `on the spot.'

`What do you think, Ambaññha? What have you heard, when Brahman old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together, as to whence the Kaõhàyanas draw their origin, and who the ancestor was to whom they trace themselves back?'

`Just so, Gotama, did I hear, even as the venerable Gotama hath said. That is the origin of the Kaõhàyanas, and that the ancestor to whom they trace themselves back.'

22. And when he had thus spoken the. young Brahman fell into tumult, and uproar, and turmoil; and said: `Low born, they say, is Ambaññha the Brahman; his family, they say, is not of good standing; they say he is descended from a slave girl; and the Sàkyas were his masters. We did not suppose that the Samaõa Gotama, whose words are righteousness itself, was not a man to be trusted!'

ßLet the king, Sir, go safe, and the country too.û

ßThe king shall suffer no harm, nor his land. But should he shoot the arrow upwards, the god would not rain for seven years as far as his realm extends.û

ßLet the king, Sir, go safe, and the country too; and let the god rain.û

ßThe king shall suffer no harm, nor the land either, and the god shall rain. But let the king aim the arrow at his eldest son. The prince shall suffer no harm, not a hair of him shall be touched."

24. Then the Blessed One said to Ambaññha: `What think you, Ambaññha? Suppose a young Kshatriya should have connection with a Brahman maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Brahman maiden through the Kshatriya youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?"

`Yes, he would, Gotama.'

`Yes, they would, Gotama.'

`But would the Brahman teach him their verses or not?'

`They would, Gotama.'

`But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'

`He would not be shut off.'

`But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

`Why not that?'

`Because he is not of pure descent on the mother's side.'

25. `Then what think you, Ambaññha? Suppose a Brahman youth should have connection with a Kshatriya maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Kshatriya maiden through the Brahman youth receive [\q 120/] a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?'

`Yes, he would, Gotama.'

`But would the Brahman allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of food boiled in milk, or of an offering to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'

`Yes, they would, Gotama.'

`But would the Brahman teach him their verses or not?'

`They would, Gotama.'

[98] `But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'

`He would not, Gotama.'

`But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

`Why not that?'

`Because he is not of pure descent on the father's side.'

26. `Then, Ambaññha, whether one compares women with women, or men with men, the Kshatriyas are higher and the Brahmans inferior.

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

`Or would the Brahman allow him to partake of the food. offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

[\q 121/] `Or would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not? `

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

`And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'

`He would be `shut off.'

27. But what think you, Ambaññha? If the Kshatriyas had in the same way outlawed a Kshatriya, and banished him from the land or the township, would he, among the Brahmans, be offered water and a seat?'

`Yes, he would, Gotama.'

`And would he be allowed to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'

He would, Gotama.'

`And would the Brahman teach him their verses?'

They would, Gotama?'

`And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'

`He would not, Gotama.'

[99] `But thereby, Ambaññha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation, still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahman inferior.

`Now this stanza, Ambaññha, was well sung and not ill sung by the Brahmà Sanaü-kumàra, well said and not ill said, full of meaning and not void thereof And I too approve it; I also, Ambaññha, say:

But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness, he is the best among gods and men."'

Chapter II [\q 123/]

1. `But what, Gotama, is the righteousness, and what the wisdom spoken of in that verse?'

`In the supreme perfection in wisdom and righteousness, Ambaññha, there is no reference to the question either of birth, or of lineage, or of the pride which says: ßYou are held as worthy as I,û or ßYou are not. held as worthy as I.û It is where the talk is of marrying, or of giving in marriage, that reference is made to such things as that. For whosoever, Ambaññha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, or of connection by marriage, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness. It is only by having got rid of all such bondage that one can realise for himself [100] that supreme perfection in wisdom and in conduct.'

2.' But what, Gotama, is that conduct, and what that wisdom?'

The introductory paragraphs (Section 40-42 of the Sàma¤¤a-phala, pp. 62, 63 of the text) on the appearance of a Buddha, his preaching, the conversion of a hearer, and his renunciation of the world: then come

1. The Sãlas, above, pp. 4-12 (Section 8-27) of the text. Only the refrain differs. It runs here, art the end of each clause, through the whole of this repeated passage: `This is reckoned in him as morality.'

[\q 124/] Then under Conduct (Caraõa)

2. The paragraph on Confidence, above, p. 69 of he text, Section 63. The refrain from here onwards is: `This is reckoned to him as conduct.

3. The paragraph on `Guarded is the door of his senses,' above, p.70 of the text, Section 64.

4. The paragraph on `Mindful and self-possessed,' above p. 70 of the text, Section 65.

5. The paragraph on Content, above, p.71 of the text, Section 66.

6. The paragraph on Solitude, above, p.71 of the text Section 67.

7. The paragraphs on the Five Hindrances, above, pp. 71-72 of the text, Section 68-74.

Under Wisdom (Vijjà)

9. The paragraphs on Insight arising from Knowledge (¥àõa-dassanaü),above, p.76 of the text, Section 83,84. The refrain from here onwards is: `This is reckoned in him as wisdom, and it is higher and sweeter than the last.'

10. The paragraphs on the Mental Image, above, p.77 of the text, Section 85, 86.

11. The paragraphs on Mystic Gifts (Iddhi), above, p. 77 of the text, Section87, 88.

12. The paragraphs on the Heavenly Ear (Dibbasota) above , p.79 of the text, Section 89, 90.

13. The paragraphs on the Knowledge of the hearts of others (Ceto-pariya-¤àõaü), above, p.79 of the text, Section 91, 92.

14. The paragraphs on Memory of one's own previous [\q 125/] births (Pubbe-nivàsa-anussati-¤àõa), above, p. 81 of the text, Section 93, 94.

15. The paragraph on the Divine Eye (Dibbacakkhu), above, p. 82 of the text, Section 95, 96.

`In case, Ambaññha, any recluse or Brahman, without having thoroughly attained unto this supreme perfection in wisdom and conduct, with his yoke on his shoulder (to carry fire-sticks, a water-pot, needles, and the rest of a mendicant friar's outfit), should plunge into the depths of the forest, vowing to himself: ßI will henceforth be one of those who live only on fruits that have fallen of themselvesû Þthen, verily, he turns out worthy only to be a servant unto him that hath attained to wisdom and righteousness.

`And again, Ambaññha, in case any recluse or Brahman, without having thoroughly attained unto this supreme perfection in wisdom and conduct, and without having attained to living only on fruits fallen of themselves, taking a hoe and a basket with him, should plunge into the depths of the forest, vowing to himself: ßI will henceforth be one of those who live only on bulbs and roots and fruitsû Þthen, verily, he turns out worthy only to be a servant unto him who hath attained to wisdom and righteousness.

`And again, Ambaññha, in case any recluse or Brahman, without having thoroughly attained unto this supreme perfection in wisdom and conduct, and without having attained to living only on fruits fallen of themselves, and without having attained to living only on bulbs and roots and fruits, and without having attained to serving the fire-god, [102] should build himself a four-doored almshouse at a crossing where four high roads meet, and dwell there, saying to himself: ßWhosoever, whether recluse or Brahman, shall pass here, from either of these four directions, him will I entertain according to my ability and according to my powerû Þ then, verily, he turns out worthy only to be a servant unto him who hath attained to wisdom and righteousness.

`Not that, Gotama. How little is it that I can profess [\q 127/] to have learnt! How supreme this Perfection of wisdom and conduct! Far is it from me to have been trained therein?'

`Then what think you, Ambaññha? Although you have not thoroughly attained unto this supreme perfection of wisdom and goodness, have you been trained to take the yoke upon your shoulders, and plunge into the depths of the forest as one who would fain observe the vow of living only on fruits fallen of themselves?

`Not even that, Gotama.'

`Then what think you, Ambaññha? Although you have not attained unto this supreme perfection of wisdom and goodness, nor have attained to living on fruits fallen of themselves, have you been trained to take hoe and basket, and plunge into the depths of the forest as one who would fain observe the vow of living only on bulbs and roots and fruits?'

`Not even that, Gotama.'

`Then what think you, Ambaññha? Although you have not attained unto this supreme perfection of wisdom and goodness, and have not attained to living on fruits fallen of themselves, and have not attained to living on bulbs and roots and fruits, have you been taught to build yourself a fire-shrine on the borders of some village or some town, and dwell there as one who would fain serve the fire-god?'

[103] `Not even that, Gotama.'

`Then what think you, Ambaññha? Although you have not attained unto this supreme perfection of wisdom and goodness, and have not attained to living on fruits fallen of themselves, and have not attained to living on bulbs and roots and fruits, and have not attained to serving the fire-god, have you been taught to build yourself a four-doored almshouse at a spot where four high roads cross, and dwell there as one who would fain observe the vow to entertain whosoever might pass that way, from any of the four directions, according to your ability and according to your power?'

`Not even that, Gotama.'

6. `And the Brahman Pokkharasàdi, Ambaññha, is in the enjoyment of a grant from Pasenadi, the king of Kosala. But the king, does not allow him to come into his presence. When he consults with him he speaks to him only from behind a curtain. How is it, Ambaññha, that the very king, from whom he accepts this pure and lawful maintenance, King Pasenadi of Kosala, does not admit him to his presence? See, Ambaññha, how deeply your teacher, the Brahman Pokkharasàdi, has herein done you wrong.'

7. `Now what think you, Ambaññha? Suppose a king, either seated on the neck of his elephant or on the back of his horse, or standing on the footrug of his chariot, [104] should discuss some resolution of state with his chiefs or princes. And suppose as he left the spot and stepped on one side, a workman (Sådra) or the slave of a workman should come up and, standing there, should discuss [\q 129/] the matter, saying: ßThus and thus said Pasenadi the king.û Although he should speak as the king might have spoken, or discuss as the king might have done, would he thereby be the king, or even as one of his officers?'

`Certainly not, Gotama.'

9. `Now what think you, Ambaññha? What have you heard when Brahmans, old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together -did those ancient Rishis, whose verses you so chant over and repeat, parade about well groomed, perfumed, trimmed as to their hair and beard, adorned with garlands and gems, clad in white garments, in the full possession and enjoyment of the five pleasures of sense, as you, and your teacher too, do now?'

[105] `Not that, Gotama.'

`Or did they live, as their food, on boiled rice of the best sorts, from which all the black specks had been sought out and removed, and flavoured with sauces and curries of various kinds, as you, and your teacher too, do now.

`Not that, Gotama.'

`Not that, Gotama.'

`Not that, Gotama.'

10. `So then, Ambaññha, neither are you a Rishi, nor your teacher, nor do you live under the conditions under which the Rishis lived. But whatever it may be, Ambaññha, concerning which you are in doubt or perplexity about me, ask me as to that. I will make it clear by explanation.'

[\q 132/] And Ambaññha, the young Brahman, thought: `The Samaõa Gotama is endowed with the thirty two signs of a great man, with them all, not only with some of them.' And he said to the Blessed One: `And now, Gotama, we would `fain depart. We are busy, and have much to do.'

`Do, Ambaññha, what seemeth to you fit.'

And Ambaññha mounted his chariot drawn by mares, and departed thence.

13. Now at that time the Brahman Pokkharasàdi had gone forth from Ukkaññha with a great retinue of Brahmans, and was seated in his own pleasaunce waiting there for Ambaññha. And Ambaññha came on to the pleasaunce. And when he had come in his chariot as far as the path was practicable for chariots, he descended from it, and came on foot to where Pokkharasàdi was, and saluted him, and took his seat respectfully on one side. And when he was so seated, Pokkharasàdi said to him:

14. `Well, Ambaññha! Did you see the Blessed One?'

`Yes, Sir, we saw him.'

`Well! is the venerable Gotama so as the reputation [107] about him I told you of declares; and not otherwise. Is he such a one, or is he not?'

`He is so, Sir, as his reputation declares, and not otherwise. Such is he, not different. And he is endowed with the thirty-two signs of a great man, with all of them, not only with some.'

`And did you have any talk, Ambaññha, with the Samaõa Gotama?'

`Yes, Sir, I had.'

`And how did the talk go?'

Then Ambaññha told the Brahman Pokkharasàdi all the talk that he had had with the Blessed One.

[l08] 16. But the Brahman there spake thus to Pokkharasàdi: `It is much too late, Sir, today to go to call on the Samaõa Gotama. The venerable Pokkharasàdi can do so tomorrow.'

So Pokkharasàdi had sweet food, both hard and soft, made ready at his own house, and taken on wagons, by the light of blazing torches, out to Ukkaññha. And he himself went on to the Icchànankala Wood, driving in his chariot as far as the road was practicable for vehicles, and then going on, on foot, to where the Blessed One was. And when he had exchanged with the Blessed One the greetings and compliments of politeness and courtesy, he took his seat on one side, and said to the Blessed One:

17. `Has our pupil, Gotama, the young Brahman Ambaññha, been here?'

`Yes, Brahman, he has.'

`And did you, Gotama, have any talk with him?'

`Yes, Brahman, I had.'

`And on what wise was the talk that you had with him.'

18. Then the Blessed One told the Brahman Pokkharasàdi all the talk that had taken place. And when [\q 134/] he had thus spoken Pokkharasàdi said to the Blessed One:

`He is young and foolish, Gotama, that young Brahman Ambaññha. Forgive him, Gotama.'

`Let him be quite happy, Brahman, `that young Brahman Ambaññha.'

21. Then to him thus seated [110] the Blessed One [\q 135/] discoursed in due order; that is to say, he spake to him of generosity, of right conduct, of heaven, of the danger. the vanity, and the defilement of lusts, of the advantages of renunciation. And when the Blessed, One saw that Pokkharasàdi, the Brahman, had become prepared, softened, unprejudiced, upraised, and believing in heart, then he proclaimed the doctrine the Buddhas alone have won; that is to say, the doctrine of sorrow, of its origin, of its cessation, and of the Path. And just as a clean cloth from which all stain has been washed away will readily take the dye, just even so did Pokkharasàdi, the Brahman, obtain, even while sitting there, the pure and spotless Eye for the Truth, and he knew: `Whatsoever has a beginning in that is inherent also the necessity of dissolution.'

22. And then the Brahman Pokkharasàdi, as one who had seen the Truth, had mastered it, understood it, dived deep down into it, who had passed beyond doubt and put away perplexity and gained full confidence, who had become dependent on no other man for his knowledge of the teaching of the Master, addressed the Blessed One, and said:

`Most excellent, oh Gotama (are the words of thy mouth), most excellent! just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone. astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms, Þ just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the venerable Gotama. And I, oh Gotama, with my sons, and my wife, and my people, and my companions, betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the truth, and to the Order. May the venerable Gotama accept me as a disciple, as one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And just as the venerable Gotama visits the families of others, his disciples, at Ukkaññha, so let him visit [\q 136/] mine. Whosoever there may be there, of Brahman or their wives, who shall pay reverence to the venerable Gotama, or stand up in his presence, or offer him a seat or water, or take delight in him, to him that will be, for long, a cause of weal and bliss.'

`It is well, Brahman, what you say.'

Here ends the Ambaññha Sutta.

The land revenue payable, of course in kind, would be a tithe. If the king had full proprietary (zemindary) rights as well, which is the probable meaning of ràja-bhoggaü, his share would be, either with or without the land tax, on half. The grant would be of his own rights only. The rights of the peasants to the other half, and the use of the common and waste and woods, would remain to them. If Buddhaghosa's interpretation of brahmadeyyaü is correct, then the grantee would also be the king's representative for all purposes judicial and executive. Elsewhere the word has only been found as applied to marriage; and the first part of the compound (brahma) has always been interpreted by Brahmans as referring to themselves. But brahma as the first part of a compound never has that meaning in Pàli; and the word in our passage means literally `a full gift.'

Hofrath B�hler has pointed out that in the Mahàbhàrata III, 185 (Bombay edition) there is an interesting passage where Sanat-kumàra (the Sanskrit form of the name Sanaü Þ kumàra) is actually represented by the Brahmans themselves as having uttered, as referee in a dispute on a point similar to the one here discussed, not indeed the actual words here imputed to him, but others of a very similar import. See the whole article in the J. R. A. S., 1897, pp. 585-588. We either have in our text a quotation from an older recession of the same legend, or one of the two Þ either the Brahman editors of the Mahàbhàrata, or the composers of our Sutta Þ have twisted the legend a little in their own favour.

The next line might also be rendered `when perfect,' &c., referring to the Kshatriya.

As to the means by which the Buddha made the first visible to Ambaññha, Buddhaghosa simply quotes Nàgasena (at Mil. 169) to show that he made a visible image of himself fully dressed in his robes. And the difficulty is to see how that would have helped matters. Only an historical explanation of the meaning of the marks can here guide us to what is inferred.

One of the Dialogues in the Dãgha. the Lakhaõa Sutta, is devoted to these thirty-two marks. They are also enumerated, with slight differences, in the Mahàpadhàna Sutta; and later books give other lists differing from each other, and from the old lists, in many small points.

The story told here in Section 11, 12 recurs in identical words in the Sela Sutta (S. N. NO. 33 = M. No. 92) and forms the subject of one of the dilemmas put by King Milinda to Nàgasena (Mil. 167).