Upālisutta

Majjhima Nikāya 56

With Upāli · Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato, SuttaCentral

Parallels & more translations on SuttaCentral

Glosses: Fluent · Literal · Off
Translation: Hide · Show

Tap any word for its dictionary entry.

“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho upāli gahapati nigaṇṭhassa nāṭaputtassa paṭissutvā uṭṭhāyāsanā nigaṇṭhaṁ nāṭaputtaṁ abhivādetvā padakkhiṇaṁ katvā yena pāvārikambavanaṁ yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho upāli gahapati bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:
“āgamā nu khvidha, bhante, dīghatapassī nigaṇṭho”ti?
“Āgamā khvidha, gahapati, dīghatapassī nigaṇṭho”ti.
“Ahu kho pana te, bhante, dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena saddhiṁ kocideva kathāsallāpo”ti?
“Ahu kho me, gahapati, dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena saddhiṁ kocideva kathāsallāpo”ti.
“Yathā kathaṁ pana te, bhante, ahu dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena saddhiṁ kocideva kathāsallāpo”ti?
Atha kho bhagavā yāvatako ahosi dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena saddhiṁ kathāsallāpo taṁ sabbaṁ upālissa gahapatissa ārocesi.

“Yes, sir,” replied the householder Upāli to the Jain Ñātika. He rose from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled him, keeping him on his right. Then he went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, did the Jain ascetic Dīgha Tapassī come here?” “He did, householder.” “But did you have some discussion with him?” “I did.” “And what kind of discussion did you have with him?” Then the Buddha informed Upāli of all they had discussed.

Evaṁ vutte, upāli gahapati bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:
“sādhu sādhu, bhante tapassī.
Yathā taṁ sutavatā sāvakena sammadeva satthusāsanaṁ ājānantena evamevaṁ dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena bhagavato byākataṁ.
Kiñhi sobhati chavo manodaṇḍo imassa evaṁ oḷārikassa kāyadaṇḍassa upanidhāya?
Atha kho kāyadaṇḍova mahāsāvajjataro pāpassa kammassa kiriyāya pāpassa kammassa pavattiyā, no tathā vacīdaṇḍo, no tathā manodaṇḍo”ti.
“Sace kho tvaṁ, gahapati, sacce patiṭṭhāya manteyyāsi siyā no ettha kathāsallāpo”ti.
“Sacce ahaṁ, bhante, patiṭṭhāya mantessāmi;
hotu no ettha kathāsallāpo”ti.

When he said this, the householder Upāli said to him, “Good, sir, well done by Tapassī! The Jain ascetic Dīgha Tapassī has answered the ascetic Gotama like a learned disciple who rightly understands their teacher’s instructions. For how impressive is the measly mental rod when compared with the solid physical rod? Rather, the physical rod is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or the mental rod.” “Householder, so long as you debate on the basis of truth, we can have some discussion about this.” “I will debate on the basis of truth, sir. Let us have some discussion about this.”

“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, gahapati,
idhassa nigaṇṭho ābādhiko dukkhito bāḷhagilāno sītodakapaṭikkhitto uṇhodakapaṭisevī.
So sītodakaṁ alabhamāno kālaṁ kareyya.
Imassa pana, gahapati, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto katthūpapattiṁ paññapetī”ti?
“Atthi, bhante, manosattā nāma devā tattha so upapajjati”.
“Taṁ kissa hetu”?
“Asu hi, bhante, manopaṭibaddho kālaṁ karotī”ti.
“Manasi karohi, gahapati, manasi karitvā kho, gahapati, byākarohi.
Na kho te sandhiyati purimena vā pacchimaṁ, pacchimena vā purimaṁ.
Bhāsitā kho pana te, gahapati, esā vācā:
‘sacce ahaṁ, bhante, patiṭṭhāya mantessāmi,
hotu no ettha kathāsallāpo’”ti.
“Kiñcāpi, bhante, bhagavā evamāha, atha kho kāyadaṇḍova mahāsāvajjataro pāpassa kammassa kiriyāya pāpassa kammassa pavattiyā, no tathā vacīdaṇḍo, no tathā manodaṇḍo”ti.

“What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is sick, suffering, gravely ill. They turn down cold water and use only hot water. Not getting cold water, they might die. Now, where does the Jain Ñātika say they would be reborn?” “Sir, there are gods called ‘mind-bound’. They would be reborn there. Why is that? Because they died with mental attachment.” “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said that you would debate on the basis of truth.” “Even though the Buddha says this, still the physical rod is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or the mental rod.”

“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, gahapati,
idhassa nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto cātuyāmasaṁvarasaṁvuto sabbavārivārito sabbavāriyutto sabbavāridhuto sabbavāriphuṭo.
So abhikkamanto paṭikkamanto bahū khuddake pāṇe saṅghātaṁ āpādeti.
Imassa pana, gahapati, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto kaṁ vipākaṁ paññapetī”ti?
“Asañcetanikaṁ, bhante, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto no mahāsāvajjaṁ paññapetī”ti.
“Sace pana, gahapati, cetetī”ti?
“Mahāsāvajjaṁ, bhante, hotī”ti.
“Cetanaṁ pana, gahapati, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto kismiṁ paññapetī”ti?
“Manodaṇḍasmiṁ, bhante”ti.
“Manasi karohi, gahapati, manasi karitvā kho, gahapati, byākarohi.
Na kho te sandhiyati purimena vā pacchimaṁ, pacchimena vā purimaṁ.
Bhāsitā kho pana te, gahapati, esā vācā:
‘sacce ahaṁ, bhante, patiṭṭhāya mantessāmi;
hotu no ettha kathāsallāpo’”ti.

“What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is restrained in the fourfold constraint, is restrained in all that is to be restrained, is bridled in all that is to be restrained, has shaken off evil in all that is to be restrained, and is curbed in all that is to be restrained. When going out and coming back they injure many little creatures. Now, what result does the Jain Ñātika say they would incur?” “Sir, the Jain Ñātika says that unintentional acts are not very blameworthy.” “But if they are intentional?” “Then they are very blameworthy.” “But where does the Jain Ñātika say that intention is classified?” “In the mental rod, sir.” “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said that you would debate on the basis of truth.”

“Kiñcāpi, bhante, bhagavā evamāha, atha kho kāyadaṇḍova mahāsāvajjataro pāpassa kammassa kiriyāya pāpassa kammassa pavattiyā, no tathā vacīdaṇḍo, no tathā manodaṇḍo”ti.

“Even though the Buddha says this, still the physical rod is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or the mental rod.”

“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, gahapati,
ayaṁ nāḷandā iddhā ceva phītā ca bahujanā ākiṇṇamanussā”ti?
“Evaṁ, bhante, ayaṁ nāḷandā iddhā ceva phītā ca bahujanā ākiṇṇamanussā”ti.
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, gahapati,
idha puriso āgaccheyya ukkhittāsiko.
So evaṁ vadeyya:
‘ahaṁ yāvatikā imissā nāḷandāya pāṇā te ekena khaṇena ekena muhuttena ekaṁ maṁsakhalaṁ ekaṁ maṁsapuñjaṁ karissāmī’ti.
Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, gahapati,
pahoti nu kho so puriso yāvatikā imissā nāḷandāya pāṇā te ekena khaṇena ekena muhuttena ekaṁ maṁsakhalaṁ ekaṁ maṁsapuñjaṁ kātun”ti?

“What do you think, householder? Is this Nāḷandā successful and prosperous, populous and full of people?” “Indeed it is, sir.” “What do you think, householder? Suppose a man were to come along with a drawn sword and say: ‘In one hour I will reduce all the living creatures within the bounds of Nāḷandā to one heap and mass of flesh!’ What do you think, householder? Could he do that?”

Lite mode — plain HTML for e-readers and old browsers. Full version