Erakapatta Maharaja.
The dragon king Erakapatta has already been mentioned in the Introduction. Here is the full story. At the time of Kassapa Buddha’s Sasana, he was a bhikkhu. One day as a young bhikkhu, he was travelling in a boat along the Ganges when he reached out and held a blade of grass called erakapatta. Eraka is the name of the grass and patta means leaf or blade. He did not release his hold on the blade of grass even though the boat was moving speedily along. So naturally it broke into two. Now, according to the Vinaya, it is a light offence to damage vegetation intentionally. But he thought, “Well, it’s just a trifle,” and did not bother to confess his offence to another bhikkhu. Let me digress here a little. A monk’s virtue (sãla) is different from that of a layperson’s. If a layperson should intentionally break a precept, all that he needs to do to restore the purity of his sila is to make a resolution, immediately or later, not to break that particular precept again. But it is not so easy for a bhikkhu. After having committed a Vinaya offence, a bhikkhu must atone for it by confessing to another bhikkhu if it is a light offence, or by undergoing a period of temporary penalty requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha if it is a grave offence, or by expulsion from the Sangha if it is a Defeat or Pàràjika offence. Only after having gone through the required procedure is his sila considered to be pure again. Moreover, purity of sila is regarded as a prerequisite for meditative progress. But the bhikkhu who broke the blade of grass thought the act a mere trifle and did not bother to atone for his offence. He must have completely forgotten about the misdeed for subsequently, he meditated for 20,000 years in the forest! Yet, despite his perseverance, he failed to attain enlightenment. Indeed, when he was dying, he felt as though that erakapatta, that blade of grass was strangling him. Now he really wanted to confess his offence, but there were no bhikkhus around.
“Oh, impure is my sila!”
he lamented.
At that moment, he died and was reborn as a dragon king by the name of Erakapatta Naga Raja. As soon as he saw his new body, he was again filled with remorse.
“After all those years of meditation I am now reborn in a rootless frog-eating species.
O, tragedy of tragedies!”
Nagas have very long lives and Erakapatta Naga Raja lived beyond our Lord Gotama’s life-span.1 When he heard that another Sammàsambuddha had already appeared, he came to pay his respects to our Lord Gotama and to lament over the cause of his unfortunate rebirth. The Buddha then gave a discourse and concluded with the following verse [now found in the Dhammapada]:
“Rare is birth as a human being Hard is the life of mortals Hard is the hearing of the Dhamma Rare is the appearance of Buddhas.”
At the end of the discourse, 84,000 beings attained enlightenment. The dragon king too would have attained the fruit of stream-entry but for the fact that he was an animal (born with a rootless rebirth-linking citta). For me this is a very thought-provoking story. During his 20,000-year meditation retreat, was the bhikkhu practising tranquillity (samatha), or insight (vipassanà) meditation, or both? Did he ever achieve access or momentary concentration, even for short periods of time?
Did he ever remember his offence?
What was the reason for his failure to attain jhana, path and fruition?
Was it because of insufficient pàramãs [perfections], or because his bhikkhu sila was not absolutely pure?
Was this story invented by the Elders of Old in order to instil a sense of fear into bhikkhus that they might become more conscientious in observing the Vinaya, and thereby preserve the unity of the Sangha and prolong the life of the Sasana?
Most probably we shall never know the answers to these questions. Nevertheless, canonical and commentarial Vinaya literature explicitly states that intentional transgression of the Buddha’s authority, i.e. Vinaya rules, would obstruct the attainment of jhana, path and fruition, and also rebirth in a favourable realm of existence (saggamokkhànaü antaràyaü karontãti antaràyikà... Sa¤cicca àpannà àpattiyo àõàvãtikkamantaràyikà nàma...). There is also a paragraph in the fifth book of the Vinaya Pitaka, Parivàra, which says: Discipline (Vinaya) is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquillity, tranquillity for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision
of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding without clinging. In the Meghiya Sutta, the Buddha recommends that a bhikkhu whose paramis are still immature for enlightenment should cultivate a number of things, one set of which is: Here a bhikkhu is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the restraint of the Pàtimokkha [Code of monastic rules], perfect in conduct and resort; seeing danger in the slightest faults, he trains himself by undertaking rightly the rules of training. This exhortation is frequently given throughout the Pali Canon, even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Yet, contrary to such overwhelming scriptural evidence, it is apparent, even to a casual observer, that robed meditation teachers and practitioners of today, who are supposed to be “perfect in conduct and resort, etc.”, may not exactly be paragons of virtue (according to Vinaya standards). How can one reconcile this discernible discrepancy between theory and practice? Different people have different standards of conscience. Some monks are bold and daring and are not easily disturbed by their conscience. During meditation, they may not be haunted by guilty feelings about their imperfect sila. On the other hand, some monks are cautious and sensitive by nature, and are easily agitated by the slightest misdeed. Such monks, when they are dying, may run a greater risk of harbouring remorse over Vinaya offences they have not atoned for.
To summarise, when there is no weighty kamma, and a potent near-death kamma is performed, this kamma will generally take on the role of generating rebirth. This does not mean that one will escape the fruits of the other good and bad deeds one has performed during one’s life. When they meet with suitable conditions, these kammas too will produce their due results.
“Oh, impure is my sila!”
he lamented.
At that moment, he died and was reborn as a dragon king by the name of Erakapatta Naga Raja. As soon as he saw his new body, he was again filled with remorse.
“After all those years of meditation I am now reborn in a rootless frog-eating species.
O, tragedy of tragedies!”
Nagas have very long lives and Erakapatta Naga Raja lived beyond our Lord Gotama’s life-span.1 When he heard that another Sammàsambuddha had already appeared, he came to pay his respects to our Lord Gotama and to lament over the cause of his unfortunate rebirth. The Buddha then gave a discourse and concluded with the following verse [now found in the Dhammapada]:
“Rare is birth as a human being Hard is the life of mortals Hard is the hearing of the Dhamma Rare is the appearance of Buddhas.”
At the end of the discourse, 84,000 beings attained enlightenment. The dragon king too would have attained the fruit of stream-entry but for the fact that he was an animal (born with a rootless rebirth-linking citta). For me this is a very thought-provoking story. During his 20,000-year meditation retreat, was the bhikkhu practising tranquillity (samatha), or insight (vipassanà) meditation, or both? Did he ever achieve access or momentary concentration, even for short periods of time?
Did he ever remember his offence?
What was the reason for his failure to attain jhana, path and fruition?
Was it because of insufficient pàramãs [perfections], or because his bhikkhu sila was not absolutely pure?
Was this story invented by the Elders of Old in order to instil a sense of fear into bhikkhus that they might become more conscientious in observing the Vinaya, and thereby preserve the unity of the Sangha and prolong the life of the Sasana?
Most probably we shall never know the answers to these questions. Nevertheless, canonical and commentarial Vinaya literature explicitly states that intentional transgression of the Buddha’s authority, i.e. Vinaya rules, would obstruct the attainment of jhana, path and fruition, and also rebirth in a favourable realm of existence (saggamokkhànaü antaràyaü karontãti antaràyikà... Sa¤cicca àpannà àpattiyo àõàvãtikkamantaràyikà nàma...). There is also a paragraph in the fifth book of the Vinaya Pitaka, Parivàra, which says: Discipline (Vinaya) is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquillity, tranquillity for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision
of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding without clinging. In the Meghiya Sutta, the Buddha recommends that a bhikkhu whose paramis are still immature for enlightenment should cultivate a number of things, one set of which is: Here a bhikkhu is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the restraint of the Pàtimokkha [Code of monastic rules], perfect in conduct and resort; seeing danger in the slightest faults, he trains himself by undertaking rightly the rules of training. This exhortation is frequently given throughout the Pali Canon, even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Yet, contrary to such overwhelming scriptural evidence, it is apparent, even to a casual observer, that robed meditation teachers and practitioners of today, who are supposed to be “perfect in conduct and resort, etc.”, may not exactly be paragons of virtue (according to Vinaya standards). How can one reconcile this discernible discrepancy between theory and practice? Different people have different standards of conscience. Some monks are bold and daring and are not easily disturbed by their conscience. During meditation, they may not be haunted by guilty feelings about their imperfect sila. On the other hand, some monks are cautious and sensitive by nature, and are easily agitated by the slightest misdeed. Such monks, when they are dying, may run a greater risk of harbouring remorse over Vinaya offences they have not atoned for.
To summarise, when there is no weighty kamma, and a potent near-death kamma is performed, this kamma will generally take on the role of generating rebirth. This does not mean that one will escape the fruits of the other good and bad deeds one has performed during one’s life. When they meet with suitable conditions, these kammas too will produce their due results.
Comments
Post a Comment