so that the king may stay in heaven a little longer

A NOTE ON THE SADHINA JATAKA

By Minoru Hara, Tokyo

I

The Jätaka in question' gives an account of Sädhina, the king of Mithilä,

who was celebrated for his acts of generous giving {däna). His fame reached

as far as the assembly of gods in heaven, with the consequence that these

gods became anxious to see him. Thus the king was brought to heaven^ and

given by Sakka, the lord of heaven, half of his possession. The king thus

took delight in celestial pleasures. However, toward the end of seven hun¬

dred years, the king was fated to fall from heaven because of his merit

{punna) being exhausted. At this stage Sakka proposed to give him half of

his own merit, ^ so that the king may stay in heaven a little longer. Despite

this divine proposal, the king resolutely, declined, saying,

"Like a chariot (yäna) that is begged for {yäcitakd),\ike wealth (dhana) that is begged for, just so is that bliss (sampadä) which is caused by a gift from another (parato däna-paccayä) (11)

I do not wish for what is caused by a gift from another. Meritorious deeds (punna) which are performed by myself (sayarfi-katd) , that is the wealth (dhand) which is pecuhar (äveniya) to me. (12)

I shall go among men now and will practise various sorts of good deeds

(kusala) by charity, quiescence, restraint and self-control. By doing that, one becomes blessed and fears no remorse at hand. (IS)""

With these words the king left heaven and descended to Mithilä, where he

was received with much respect by king Närada, the seventh descendant

from him in his line. Regardless of the kingdom which was offered by Nä¬

rada, this time again he devoted himself to charity for seven days. On the

seventh day he died there, but due to his acts of charity he was bom again

in the heaven.

' Sädhina Jätaka (494). The Jätaka, ed., by V. FausboU, reprinted for the Pali Text Society (PTS). London 1963, vol. 4, pp. 355-360.

^ King Sädhina is enumerated among the four human beings who went to the

Tidasa-bhavana while in their human bodies. Cf G. P. Malalasekera: Dictionary of Päli Proper Names, London 1960 (second ed.). vol. 2, p. 1094. Malalasekera's reference to Milindapanha 271 is to be corrected to 291.

' Cf the Jätaka (PTS. text) (vol.) 4. (p.) 357. (lines) 29-30 ("vasa devänubhävenä ti" aham te attano punnäni majjhe bhinditvä dassämi). For the same expression majjhe bhinditvä, cf Jätaka 2.312,17, 4.396.11 (rajjarn majjhe bhinditvä), 4.194.8 (attano yasarfi majjhe bhinditvä), and 4.357.7 (-päsädan ca majjhe bhinditvä).

" The Sädhina Jätaka (494) verses 11-13 (4.358.2-8) are parallel to the Nimi Jä¬

taka (541) verses 163-165 (6.127.32-128.5). For the last verse, cf also the last verse ofthe Guttila Jätaka (243) (2.257.1-3). These Nimi verses are further known

to the Mülasarvästivädavinaya-vastu (Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 16, ed., by S.

Baochl Darbhanga 1967, p. 70), and their Chinese equivalents are found in the

Taisho Tripitaka 24, p. 58c. Cf also Taisho Tripitaka 1. p. 515a and 3. p. 49b.

In this story, we notice two contradictory attitudes assumed by Sakka

and Sädhina with regard to merit (punna) : whereas Sakka is willing to offer

half his own merit to Sädhina, the latter declines to accept this gift, consid¬

ering the merit thus given as if it were an article which is begged for (yäci-

taka). This contradiction is apt to be interpreted as follows: here Sakka is a

giver of merit, holding an elastic view of karman and representing the

altruistic (possibly Mahäyänistic) doctrine that one's merit can be trans¬

ferred to and shared with somebody else,' while Sädhina is a person who

refuses unearned privileges, with a firm belief in merit as private religious acquisition which is never exchangeable.'

' There have been recorded a series of important studies on this subject:

H. S. Gehman: ädisati, anvädisati, anudisati and uddisati in the Peta Vatthu. In:

JAOS 43 (1923), pp. 410-421.

G. P. Malalasekera: Transference of Merit in Ceylonese Buddhism. In: Philoso¬

phy East and West 17 (1967), pp. 85-90.

R. Gombrich: Merit Transference in Sinhalese Buddhism. In: History of Religion 11 (1972), pp. 203-219.

A. Bareau: Les idees sous-jacentes aux pratiques cultuelles bouddhiques dans le

Cambodge actuel. In: WZKSO 12-13 (Festschrift, E. Frauwallner) (1968-69)

pp. 23-32.

H. Bechert: Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Ma¬

häyäna. In: German Scholars on India, vol. 1, Varanasi 1973, pp. 15-18, Buddha-

Feld und Verdienstübertragung: Mahäyäna-Ideen im Theraväda Buddhismm Ceylons.

In: Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques LXII. Aca¬

demic royale de Belgique, Bruxelles, 1976, pp. 37 ff.

J. M. Agasse: Le transfert de merite dans le bouddhisme päli classique. In:

JACCLXVI (1978), pp. 311-332.

G. Schoben: Mahäyäna in Indian Inscription. In: IIJ 21 (1979), pp. 1-21.

0. von Hinüber: Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften. In: Studien zur Indolo¬

gie und Iranistik 5-6 (Festschrift, P. Thieme) (1980), pp. 49-82. Cf. also ZDMG Suppl. V (1982), P. 58, note 35.

B. Oguibenine: La dak^iriä dam le figveda et le transfert de merite dans le Boud¬

dhisme. In: Indological and Buddhist Studies (Festschrift J. W. de Jong) Canberra 1982, pp. 393-414.

As regards the Päsupata concept ofthe transfer of merit, cf M. Hara: Transfer of

Merit. In: Adyar Library Bulletin 31-32 (Festschrift V. Raghavan) 1967-68,

pp. 382-411. Cf also J. Filliozat: Sur le domaine semantique depunya. In: India¬

nisme et Bouddhisme (Melanges E. Lamotte) Louvain 1980, pp. llOff.

' This rigorous doctrine of karman is fundamental to Hindu und Buddhist ethics.

Cf , forecample, I. B. Horner: The Collection of the Middle Length Say Itu/S. London 1959, p. 249 (Majjhima-nikäya III, p. 203, cum lit.), L. Scherman: Materialien zur Geschichte der indischen Visions-Litteratur. Leipzig 1892, pp. 51-52, 0. Strauss:

Ethische Probleme aus dem Mahäbhärata. Firenze 1912, p. 10 (Mahäbhärata

3.200.27, 12. 279.16, 13.7.5, 14.18.1, etc.). As for the stereotyped expressions in philosophical treatises such as karma-vaiphalya-prasanga and akrtäbhyägamapra- sanga, cf D. H. H. Ingalls: Human Effort versus God's Effort in the Early Nyäya. In:

S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume. Benares 1957, p. 228.

This conflict between altruistic practice and ethical rigorism' as depict¬

ed in the Jataka was recently noted by J. P. McDermott, and interpreted

by him as evidence for a case against the transfer of merit, not on dogmatic

grounds, but on ethical grounds. According to him, this Jataka documents

an important stage in the development ofthe Theraväda Buddhist doctrine

of the transfer of merit.*

McDermott's interpretation is ingeneous and his proposal to allot the Jä¬

taka a due position in the history of Theraväda Buddhism seems to be justi¬

fied. Though the present writer has no intention of criticizing his proposi¬

tion, an alternative interpretation of this Jätaka story, especially Sädhi-

na's refusual, will be suggested below.

In view of Sädhina's status as a Ksatriya-king ever intent upon generous

acts of giving (däna), one may be persuaded to place this Jätaka story in

the light of a number of Epic passages, where the dauntless K§atriya-kings

not only decline to accept what is given to them from others, but also dis¬

dain begging as the most disgraceful act, which is never compatible with

their heroic pride. In order to establish the point, let us quote here several

examples and discuss some problems in their wake.

II

When king Yayäti had to fall from svarga, being condemned by the lord

of heaven, he wanted to fall into the midst of good men (satäffi madhye).

Thus, by means ofthe smoke ofthe Väjapeya sacrifice which had been per¬

formed by his four grandsons, he descended to earth. Upon this unexpected

encounter, these grandsons proposed to give him their portion of merit, so

that the old king might return to heaven.

satyam etad bhavatu te känk^itarti puru^ar^abha

sarvesäm nah kratu-phalam dharmas ca pratigrhyatäm

(MBh. 5.119.18)'

„0 foremost of men, may that wish of your be realized. Accept the fruits

of sacrifice and the religious merit (dharma) of all of us."

Upon this proposal, Yayäti said in refusal,

näharß pratigraha-dhano brähmanah k^atriyo hy aham

na ca me pravanä huddhih para-punya-vinäsane (MBh. 5.119.19)

"I am not a Brahmin who is entitled to accept a gift; rather, I am a Ksa¬

triya. Nor is my mind inclined toward lessening the merit of others (by

accepting it)."

' As regards devices intended to alleviate the doctrine of kannan such as pra- näda, jnäna, tapas, etc., cf E. W. Hopkins: Modification of the karma Doctrine. In:

JRAS 1906, pp. 583-4 and Epic Mythology. Strassburg 1915, pp. 67-68.

' J. P. McDermott: Sädhina Jätaka; A Case against the Transfer of Merit. In:

JAOS 94 (1974), pp. 385-387. Cf H. Bechert: op. cit. (1976) p. 42.

' References to MBh (Mahäbhärata) are based on the Poona Critical Edition.

The story of Yayäti and his four grandsons recurs also in MBh. 1.83 fT. For this story, cf also G. Dumezil, Mythe et epopee 2 Paris 1971, pp. 274 ff.

Yayäti's pride in being a Ksatriya prevents him from accepting, in the form

of a gift, something that he had not earned.

The same air of high-mindedness can be seen in the well-known dialogue

between a Brahmin reciter and king Ik^väku as is told in the Jäpakopäk-

hyäna. ''

ksatriyo 'ham na jänämi dehiti vacanani kvacit

prayaccha yuddham ity evarfi vädinah smo dvijottama

(MBh. 12.192.41)

"I am a Ksatriya. I do not know how to say the word 'give.' The only

thing, 0 best ofthe twice-born, that we can say (by way of asking) is 'give

(us) battle!'""

A Ksatriya is always supposed to be a giver (^Zä^r)," not a person to be

given something. The privilege of accepting gifts {pratigraha) is restricted to Brahmin priests.'"

The same contrast between pratigraha (passive acceptance) and däna

(active giving) is also seen in the Rämäyapa. When Guha brought various

sorts of food and drink for Räma's use, the heroic Ksatriya did not accept

them.

na hi tat praty agrhnät sa k^atra-dharmam anusmaran (15 cd)

nahy asmäbhih pratigrahy arnsakhe deyam tu sarvadä (R. 2.81.16 ab)"

"Ever-mindful ofthe duty of Ksatriyas, he did not accept them. He said,

'We are not supposed to receive anything, my friend, but always to

give.'"

In the name of k^atra-dharma, the guiding principle to be followed by the

warrior caste, Räma refused gifts from Guha and others.

The same k^atra-dharma would not allow Yudhisthira to accept the

earth, which was offered to him by his enemy Duryodhana. Toward the

very end ofthe great battle of the Mahäbhärata we read Yudhi^thira's reso¬

lute statement to his enemy,

adharmena na grhniyärn tvayä dattärfi mahim imäm

na hi dharmah smrto räjan k^atriyasya pratigrahah (MBh. 9.30.53)

"I would not accept unrighteously {adharmena) this earth given by you,

for it is not right {dharma) for a Ksatriya to accept (what is given).""

Instead of accepting gifts, Ksatriyas always resort to the exercise of their

heroic power in cases when they wish to take possession of something. The

'' For a similar story, cf. Kathäsaritsägara 45. 83 ff.

'^ For this expression proclaiming war {prayaccha yuddham), the following Jä¬

taka passages are to be compared, rajjarfi vä detu yuddharp. vä (1.178.27-28,

1.263.24-25, 1.358.17-18, 2.90.7-8, 2.94.20-21), yuddharfi vä me detu rajjam vä

(2.104.7-9), rajjarn vä me detu yuddhaiji vä (4.169.20-21), chattarji vä no detu yud¬

dharfi vä (4.133.3-4), yuddharn vä no detu vase vä vattatu (5.315.25-26), bhariyarri vä me detu yuddham vä (5.443.23-24).

Cf MBh. 12.192.73 {dätärah hjatriyäh proktä gxhniyäiji bhavatah katham).

" Cf MBh. 12.192.81 {dvijäh pratigrahe yuktä dätäro räja-varnsajäh).

" Reference to R (Rämäyana) is based on the Baroda Critieal Edition.

C. M. Hara: A Note on the Räksasa Form of Marriage. In: JAOS 94 (1974),

p. 303.

concept oi pratigraha (accepting from others) is, after all, foreign to Ksa¬

triya kings, and these Epic pasasages are in accord with the Smrti pro¬

scriptions.

adhyäpanam adhyayanarn yajanam yäjanmn tathä

dänam pratigrahas caiva sat karmäny agra-janmanah (75)

trayo dharmä nivartante brähmanät ksatriyarn prati

adhyäpanarn yäjanarn ca trtiyas ca pratigrahah (Manusmrti 10.77)

"Teaching, studying, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, mak¬

ing gifts and receiving them are the six acts" (prescribed) for a Brahmin.

. . . (Passing) from the Brahmins to Ksatriyas, three acts (incumbent on

the former) are forbidden, (viz.) teaching, sacrificing for others, and

thirdly the accepting of gifts."'*

Ill

But, if Ksatriya-kings should decline to accept gifts, begging for them

would be even more disgraceful. This despicable act of begging seems best

illustrated in the way that warriors plead with their enemies to spare their

lives on the battle field. In such a situation, the honourable warrior prefers

death to begging for life. In reference to the word ya'citaka, which we met

in our Jätaka, let us see how the concept of begging {yäcriä, bhaik^a) was

regarded among the circles of Ksatriya-kings.

In the heroic statement of Sätyaki, we read as follows,

nädharmo vidyate kas cic chatrün hatvätatäyinah

adharmyam ayasasyarn ca sätravänäni prayäcanam (21)

adya pändu-suto räjyarn labhatäm vä yudhi^thirah

nihatä vä rane sarve svapsyanti vasudhätale (MBh. 5.3.23)

"There is nothing unjust in killing off enemies, desperadoes, but pleading

{prayäcana) with foes is unrighteous and disgraceful. . . . Today, let

Pändu's son, Yudhisthira, have his kingdom, or let all (of us) sleep,

on the ground, being killed on the battle field."

At the behest of Draupadi, when Bhima approached a pond full of lotuses

and was about to pluck them, he was held back by a host of Räksasas, who

were on guard there. They told him that this pond was owned by their mas¬

ter Kubera, whose permission would be necessary if he wished to pluck

lotuses out of it. Upon this warning of the Räksasas, Bhima answered

undaunted,

räkßasäs tarn na pasyämi dhanesvaram ihäntike

dr^tväpi ca mahäräjarn näharn yäcitum utsahe (8)

na hi yäcanti räjäna e^a dharmah sanätanah

na cäharri hätum icchämi kßätra-dharmarn katharfi cana (MBh. 3. 152.9)

" For other classification of the Six Acts, especially in the Tantric texts, cf

T. Goudriaan: Mäyä divine and human. Delhi, Varanasi, Patna 1978, pp. 252 ff.

" Cf also Yäjnavalkyasmrti 1.118 and other Dharmasütras passages as quoted by G. Bühler's note ad loc. (Sacred Books of the East 25, p. 419), and Kautilya

Artha-sästra 1.3.5-6 (ed., by R. P. Kangle, Bombay 1960).

"0 Raksasas, I do not see the Lord of Riches (Kubera) anywhere in the

vicinity, and even if I saw him, I would never ask {yäc-) him a favour.

Warrior-kings never beg. This is the eternal law. And I would never

abandon the law prescribed for Ksatriyas {ksatra-dharma)."^^

Not only is it clearly stated here that begging {yäc-) is against the k^atra-

dharma, but in a different context this act of begging {bhaiksa) is also said to be dirt {mala) , a debasing activity for the Ksatriya caste. In a fierce dispute

with Salya, Karna quotes a following verse attributed to the Räksasa Kal-

mäsapäda,

k^atriyasya malam bhaiksam brähmanasyänrtam malam

malam prthivyä hählikah sirinärn madra-striyo malam (MBh. 8.30.68)

"Begging is dirt for Ksatriyas, untruthfulness that of Brahmins. The

scum of the earth are the Bählikas and, among women, the women of

Madra."

IV

These Epic and Smrti passages quoted above amply testify to the fact

that Ksatriya-kings are not allowed to accept gifts {pratigraha), and that

the ksatra-dharma is never compatible with the cowardly practice of beg¬

ging (yäc-, yäcnä, bhaiksa). The pride in being honourable Ksatriyas would

never permit them to accept what they are offered by others, not to speak of

pleading with them. Ksatriya-kings are expected to be on the giving side

{däna), rather than on the accepting side {pratigraha).

Keeping this heroic pride ofthe honourable Ksatriya in mind, let us now

compare the deeds of king Sädhina as depicted in our Jätaka. This king was

celebrated for his meritorious act of giving (däna). When invited to accept

the merit to be transferred from Sakka, he considered the merit thus

offered as comparable to a vehicle {yäna) or wealth (dhana) which was

begged for (yäcitaka) He resolutely refused to accept it and descended to

earth in order to accumulate merit on his own. Here Sädhina's refusal to

accept what is offered (pratigraha) reminds us of king Yayäti, and his dis¬

dain for begging (yäcitakä) is comparable to that of heroic Bhima and Sä¬

tyaki as we have seen above.

" For this story, cf R. Klein-Terrada: Der Diebstahl der Lotusfasem, Wiesba¬

den 1980, pp. 144 If

The word yäcitakä, however, is used in Buddhist texts in the sense of borrowed goods, particularly in the stereotyped phrase yäcitaküpamä kämä (Vinaya-pitaka II.

p. 25 = Majjhima-nikäya 1. 130 = Ahguttara-nikäya III. 97, and Therigäthä 490

and Majjhima-nikäya 1.365-366.) Its Sanskrit rendering (yäcitakopame^u kämesu) is also in Buddhacarita 11.22. Cf also Y. Haketa: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Words in Asvaghosa's Kävya. In: JAOS 82 (1962) p. 159. One may also refer to Manusmrti 4. 5 (amrtarji syäd ayäcitarri mrtarn tu yäcitarn bhaiksam). Further, for the text-criti¬

cal and exegetical study on the Atthisena Jätaka, which illustrates the right manner of asking (yäc-) and giving (dä-) among the nobles (ärya), cf. U. Schneider: Uber das Atthisena-Jätaka. In: MIOF 1 (1953) pp. 277-297.

It is possible that king Sädhina's refusal of Sakka's proposal is a case

against transfer of merit in the history of Theraväda Buddhism, an inter¬

pretation favoured by J. P. McDermott, but, at the same time, it should not

be overlooked that such a refusal had long been a common practice among

honourable Ksatriyas, of whom king Sädhina himself was not an exception.

In connection with the ksatra-dharma, to which reference was made

above, mention might be also made of a criticism raised by Kumärila

against the deeds ofthe Buddha.^' This great master ofthe orthodox Brah¬

manical tradition once condemned Buddhism as heretical on the following

basis: its founder, Buddha, acted against the rules prescribed for the Ksa¬

triya caste. In a passage of the Tantravärttika, Kumärila says,"

svadharmätikramena ca yena ksatriyena sata pravaktrtva-pratigrahau

pratipannau sa dharmam aviplutam upadek^yatiti kah samäsväsah

"And what confidence can we have that He (the Buddha) , being a Ksa¬

triya, who assumed the function of a preceptor (pravaktrtva) and the

right to accept gifts (pratigraha) by transgressing his own order (svad-

harma), would ever give insti-uction on the undeviating dharmaV

The trustworthiness of Buddha's teaching is here nullified by his opponent

on account of the single fact that Buddha preached his doctrine and, along

with his followers, earned a living by begging alms-despite his birth in the

Ksatriya family. We also note here that the two items mentioned by Kumä¬

rila, pravaktrtva^'^ and pratigraha, correspond to adhyäpana and pratigraha

as prohibited for the Ksatriyas in the Manusmrti verses to which we have

referred above. Not only was this the case with Sädhina, since pratigraha or

yäcnä are practices generally proscribed for high-minded Ksatriyas in

orthodox Hindu society.

" Cf J. Muir: Original Sanskrit Texts 1. London 1872, p. 509.

The text of the Tantravärttika is that of the Anandäsrama Sanskrit Series 97 (p. 114, lines 1-2). Cf also Jaiminiya-nyäyamälävistara 1.3.5 (ed., by Th. Gold¬

stücker and E. B. Cowell, reprinted in Osnabrück 1970, p. 26, lines 3-4).

One may compare this with a criticism raised by a Yakka (Sakka) against

Buddha as is found in Samyutta-nikäya X. 2. 3. (PTS, vol. 1, p. 206) sabba-gantha-ppahinassa vippaniuttassa te sato

samanassa na tarfi sädhu yad annam anusäsati

BU STON, POLITICS AND RELIGION

By M. Nihom, Leiden

As is well known, there is a lack of available Sanskrit texts of the litera¬

ture of the Buddhist tantra. Because of this it has become the custom to

negociate the subject by reliance on the indigenous Tibetan exegetical lit¬

erature which spans the contents of originally Sanskrit tantras and their

Indian commentaries. In practice, this has resulted in the abstraction of

the native Tibetan literature from the conditions of its times in order to

establish 'facts' about texts which are themselves of Indian origin. I intend

to indicate that in at least one instance this procedure ofthe use of Tibetan

sources for Indological purposes is dubious.

What follows is a brief investigation ofthe kinship ofthe Samputatantra to two text cycles: that ofthe Hevajratantra and that ofthe Sanivaratantra.

After this, attention will be given to the profane history of central Tibet in

the middle of the fourteenth century. Our purpose is to show that the opin¬

ion of the renowned scholar Bu ston with reference to the classification of

the Sarfipufatantra was interwoven with the politics of central Tibet.

First, we can assert that Tson k'a pa, 1347-1419, holds the Samputa¬

tantra to be an explanatory tantra of the Sanivaratantra. For this, he

invokes the authority of the Indian author Dutjayacandra. On the other

hand, while accounting the Samputa to the Sarnvara cycle, Bu ston consid¬

ers the Samputatantra be an explanatory tantra on more towiraz than just

the Sarßvara. In fact, the modern Japanese scholar Tsuda deduces that in

its treatment of various topics the Samputatantra is certainly to be distin¬

guished from other acknowledged explanatory tantras of the Sarnvara

cycle. He suggests that a reversal of the order of the fifth and sixth bodhi-

sattvabhümis and the occurence of the place of pilgramage {pitfia) pullira-

malaya in initial position are diagnostic of the cycle of the Sanivaratantra.

From this perspective, since the Samputa answers to both criteria its arro¬

gation to the Sarnvara cycle does seem assurred. There are, however, some

facts which lead us not to nonchalantly assign the Samputa to this cycle.

First, a casual look at the Sanskrit quotations available from the unpublish¬

ed manuscripts shows that most of these conform to passages in the Hevaj¬

ratantra. Moreover, even a superficial glance in the Tibetan Sarriputatantra

provides additional verses: in total almost 10% ofthe verses ofthe Hevajra¬

tantra can easily be traced to the Sarnputa. By itself this need not prove that

the Sarnputa is dependant on the Hevajra: these verses might also be found

in one or other tantra of ihe Sanivara cycle. They are absent, however, from

the fundamental tantra ofthe cycle, the Laghusarßvaratardra. Further, it is

possible to show that in its hsts of places of pilgramage the Hevajratantra

too is capable of an interpretation by which pulliramalaya is in initial posi¬

tion. From all these data one may conclude that the Sarriputatantra could

just as easily be registered in the cycle ofthe Hevajratantra as in that ofthe Sarfivara.