PRESENTED TO THE BUDDHA CENTER ON SUNDAY, NOV. 1, 2015, AND AGAIN TO THE BUDDHA CENTRE ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 205 (REVISED)

The Discourse to Upali

Majjhima Nikaya 56

Location: Nalanda, Magadha, near Rajagaha, in Pavarika’s Mango Grove

Date of Composition: 5th cent. BCE

The location of this discourse is Nalanda, Magadha, near Rajagaha, in Pavarika’s Mango Grove. The Pali name for Mahavira, the Guide of the Jains who lived about the same time as the Buddha, is Nataputta, the Jains themselves being referred to as ‘naked ascetics.’ The discourse tells us that Mahavira—I will use the more familiar terms henceforth—is staying at Nalanda with a large gathering of Jains. One of these, Digha Tapassi by name, visits the Buddha after alms round. After exchanging courtesies, the Buddha invites him to sit. The Buddha proceeds to quiz Digha Tapassi about the teachings of Mahavira.

The Buddha asks him, “How many kinds of action does the Nigantha Nataputta describe for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action?”   A vexed question for sure! Nataputta’s reply is even more obscure: “Friend Gotama, the Nigantha Nataputta is not accustomed to use the description ‘action, action’; the Nigantha Nataputta is accustomed to use the description ‘rod, rod.’”  Bodhi opines that “the Jains regarded bodily, verbal, and mental activity as instruments by which the individual torments himself by prolonging his bondage in samsara and torments others by causing them harm,”  the rod being an instrument of punishment (as in the English idiom, “spare the rod, spoil the child”). The Buddha reformulates a semantic distinction to how many kinds of rod Mahavira “describes.” Tapassi’s answer is that Mahavira teaches three kinds of “rod”: body, speech, and mind (in Vajrayana these are the Three Vajras—“mysteries” in Tendai and Shingon—but, perhaps not surprisingly by now, the Pali Canon explicitly formulates as the three primary causal factors). The point is that Mahavira recognizes body and speech as independent causal factors in addition to mind. Of course, this contradicts the Buddhist view that intention alone causes karma and leads to a completely different view of the path that involves inaction and self-mortification. This discourse is another demonstration of the Buddha’s dialectical method.

The Buddha asks Tapassi which of the three Mahavira considers the “most reprehensible for the performance of evil action,”  to which Tapassi replies that Mahavira considers the bodily rod to be most reprehensible. Tapassi then asks the Buddha which “rod” he considers most reprehensible. The Buddha replies that he does not use the description “rod” but rather uses the description of “action,” thus inverting the original statement. He replies that he also considers each of the three kinds of action to be independent of each other, but mental action is the most reprehensible. Thus, the Buddha distinguishes his teaching from that of Mahavira in two ways:

1. The use of the term “action” instead of “rod.”
2. That mental instead of physical action is the most reprehensible.

Bodhi suggests that “mental action” may refer to volition or intention as the root of moral causality, but (he says) the commentary identifies “mental action” with wrong view.

Tapassi then goes to visit Mahavira, possibly in or near Balaka, thus dating this discourse prior to the death of Mahavira, somewhat before the passing on of the Buddha himself. Just as the Buddha was interested in what Mahavira taught, so Mahavira is interested in the teachings of the Buddha.

Mahavira praises Tapassi’s explanation of Mahavira’s teachings and declares that the mental “rod” is insignificant compared with the bodily rod—the precise opposite view to that of the Buddha.

Upali, Mahavira’s foremost disciple, declares that he will go to the Buddha and defeat him in argument on this point, but Tapassi warns him that “the recluse Gotama is a magician and knows a converting magic by which he converts disciples of other sectarians.”   This reminds me of the Buddha’s reason for rejecting the cultivation or demonstration of psychic powers. However, Mahavira dismisses this objection and encourages Upali to go and refute the Buddha’s doctrine. He even suggests the Buddha might convert to Jainism!

Upali goes to see the Buddha. The Buddha declares, “If you will debate on the basis of truth, we might have some conversation about this,”  thus establishing the proper basis for any discussion of Buddhist doctrines. Upali agrees. Elsewhere the Buddha emphasizes “common ground” in mutually constructive but critical dialogue.

The Buddha presents Upali with a scenario. Suppose (the Buddha says) a Jain were sick and needed cold water to live. However, Jainism prohibits the use of cold water because it might contain living organisms (a distinction that we now know to be false; both hot and cold water contains living organisms). Nevertheless, he longs for the cold water that would save his life. Thus, he keeps his vows physically and verbally but he violates them mentally. In what state (the Buddha asks) would he be reborn?

Upali replies that “there are gods called ‘mind-bound’; he would be reborn there … [b]ecause when he died he was still bound [by attachment] in the mind.”  The Buddha replies that Upali contradicts himself, presumably because the Jain’s rebirth is determined exclusively by his mental attachment. Thus, his mental attachment is more important than his (lack of) physical attachment. Nevertheless, Upali, somewhat irrationally,  reasserts his original statement that physical action is the most reprehensible.

Next, the Buddha forces Upali to admit that Mahavira teaches that non-volitional infractions of moral law are not demeritorious (as in Buddhism). The Buddha then asks Upali which rod “willing” pertains to. Upali admits  that it pertains to the mental rod, once again proving the Buddha’s point. Once again Upali reasserts his original statement that physical action is the most reprehensible.

The next argument of the Buddha refers to the notion of psychic powers. He asks Upali whether someone with a sword could kill off the inhabitants of Nalanda (the town where they were at the time) singlehandedly. Upali agrees that such a notion is absurd. However, says the Buddha, can a recluse or Brahman with “supernormal power and attained to mastery of mind” do so by an “act of hate”?  This was of course the situation of the great Tibetan saint Milarepa, who started his quest as a sorcerer. Upali agrees that he could. Therefore, the Buddha points out that the mental rod is greater and more powerful than the physical rod, once again contradicting Upali’s original view. Nevertheless, Upali reasserts his original statement that physical action is the most reprehensible.

Next, like the previous point, the Buddha reminds Upali that according to tradition the Dandaka, Kalinga, Mejjha, and Matanga forests became forests by means of a mental act of hate on the part of the seers. The foregoing establishes that the Pali Canon asserts the reality of psychic powers.

The Buddha reminds Upali that he agreed to debate based on truth, yet every answer that he gives contradicts his premise. Upali admits that he agreed with the Buddha from the beginning, yet he continued to oppose him in order to “hear the Blessed One’s varied solutions to the problem,” whereupon he takes refuge in the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Order for life as a lay follower. The Buddha exhorts Upali to “investigate thoroughly, householder. It is good for such well-known people like you to investigate thoroughly.”  Upali contrasts the Buddha’s commitment to inquiry with the attitude of other sectarians, thus clearly distinguishing Buddhism from sectarianism. The Buddha even advises Upali to continue to give alms to the Jains based on his long association with them. Once again, Upali praises the Buddha for recommending that Upali give generously and not only to the Buddha and his order.

The Buddha gives Upali “progressive instruction” on giving, virtue, the “heavens” (i.e., higher dimensions of reality), the danger of sensual pleasures, and the blessing of renunciation, i.e., a general religious talk as we have seen elsewhere, followed by a “special” teaching on the Four Noble Truths. “The spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in”  Upali, and he realizes the universality of change. Immediately he enters the stream.

Returning home, Upali advises his “doorkeeper” not to admit Jains to his home because he is now following the Buddha. If they need alms, however, they should wait and alms will be brought to them at the door.

Digha Tapassi hears that Upali has converted to the Buddhist teaching, which he reports to Mahavira. Mahavira does not believe it and asks Tapassi to go to Upali’s home to verify that this is true, which he does. Mahavira still does not believe it, and goes to Upali’s home himself, together with many his followers, and asks to see Upali, who meets with them in his home “in the hall of the central door,” perhaps some sort of antechamber or parlour. Whereas before Upali would give Mahavira the best seat, Upali himself takes the best seat, to Mahavira’s chagrin.

Mahavira becomes abusive and accuses Upali of insanity and being caught up in the Buddha’s “net of doctrine” and seduced by his “converting magic.” Upali does not deny this but rather praises the Buddha’s “converting magic.” Bodhi notes that Upali refers specifically to his attainment of stream entry.

Upali replies in a parable that “the doctrine of the foolish [Jains] will give delight to fools but not to the wise, and it will not withstand testing or being smoothened out,”  comparing Mahavira’s teachings to a monkey! On the other hand, Upali says that “the doctrine of that Blessed One, accomplished and fully enlightened, will give delight to the wise but not to fools, and it will withstand testing and being smoothened out,”  comparing the teachings of the Buddha to new garments.

Mahavira points out that Upali is known to the king and the Jain congregation as a follower of Mahavira and asks him who he follows now. Upali’s response is curious, in that it implies that he is wearing robes (perhaps the white robes of a lay follower?). It also seems to imply the presence of the Buddha, since the text says that he “extended his hands in reverential salutation in the direction of the Blessed One”  (perhaps the direction where the Blessed One is staying?), and recites a poem in praise of the qualities of the Buddha in response to Mahavira’s question, which he compares to a heap of flowers.

Upali praises the Buddha using many epithets, including the Wise One, the Blessed One, the Illuminator, the Hero, the Best of Seers, the Noble One, the Tathagata, the Sublime One, and the Enlightened One.

The poem compares the task of the arhant to that of a soldier, in keeping with the Buddha’s caste. Like an elephant, he is the victor in battle, the excellent leader, and the leader of the herd.

However, most of all the discourse describes Buddha by his psychological qualities: He is undeluded, unperplexed, confident, sorrowless, content, aware, insightful, skilled and able (punning on the Shakyan family name from which the Buddha comes), conversant, balanced, honest, humble, unworldly, ethical, wise, free, quiet, restrained, happy, beyond any possibility of temptation or vice, independent, fearless, completely self-possessed, retired, and dispassionate. Above all, he is the Tathagata who liberates and frees himself from the inveiglements of rebirth. The text explicitly affirms that the Buddha has gained the Triple Knowledge, i.e., the traditional knowledge of the Vedas that underlies Brahmanism that in Buddhism refers to past lives, moral causality, and the cessation of the taints.

One can discern a broad development in the stanzas of the poem, beginning with the Wise One whose knowledge is perfect. As such, he is the leader, the bull elephant, especially in the realm of religion, wherein he achieves the zenith of realization, characterized as dispassionate wisdom and freedom from involuntary rebirth.

Most worthy of gifts, most mighty of spirits,
Most perfect of persons, beyond estimation,
The greatest in grandeur, attained the peak of glory:
The Blessed One is he, and I am his disciple.

This poem causes Mahavira to vomit hot blood, whose followers carry him away to Pava on a litter, where he dies, probably as a result of a stroke or a heart attack.