[Mahasi] [Ledi] [Other] [Pesala] [Suttas]

Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw

A Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

Is the Buddha Free From Desire?

Select a linkPrefaceDate for This DiscourseIs the Buddha Impartial?Does the Buddha Steal?Does the Buddha Tell Lies?Is the Buddha Free From Desire?Is the Buddha Wise and Moral?Hemavata's Praise of the BuddhaWhat is the Way to Liberation?Who Can Gain Liberation?

Hemavata said, “Friend Sātāgiri, is your teacher, the Buddha, free from desire for sensual pleasures? Is he free from the desire to kill or destroy? Has he overcome delusion? Does your teacher, the Buddha, have the eye of knowledge to see all the Dhamma?”

Of the three unwholesome deeds of the mind, covetousness refers to the desire to get others’ possessions and scheming to achieve that purpose. Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha was free from covetousness (abhijjhā). People generally want to possess beautiful things. Even those who declared themselves to be Buddhas were not free from covetousness.

To be free from the desire to kill or destroy means to be free from ill-will (byāpāda) — the wish entertained by a person to see others dead or destroyed. People generally wish someone they hate to be dead, and some even express that wish. The bogus Buddhas of those days were not free from this ill-will. They said that one could kill with impunity. The God who punishes his creatures with death cannot be said to be free from ill-will. The wish for other’s death is, after all, an expression of anger, so it can never be accepted as mental purity. Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha was mentally pure so he asked, “Is the mind of your teacher the Buddha free from the stain of evil wishes?”

Wrong view (micchā ditthi), is a combination of delusion and ignorance. When Hemavata asked whether the Buddha had overcome delusion he wanted to know whether the Buddha was free from wrong view, which is one of the mental defilements. Putting such a question about the Buddha seems very rude, but in those days many leaders of heretics were claiming to be Buddhas, so this question was pertinent.

Three Kinds of Wrong View

Among the bogus Buddhas, Purāna Kassapa preached that killing, stealing, and other unwholesome deeds were not demeritorious, and that alms-giving and other wholesome deeds were not meritorious. This belief, which rejects the principle of kamma, is called akiriya ditthi or no-effect belief.

Ajita, another heretical leader, held that deeds had no effect because after death there was no rebirth, since life ends at death. This belief is called nihilism (natthika ditthi).

Another heretical leader, Makkhali Gosāla, preached that no cause existed for the defilement and misery of beings, or for their purity and happiness. This no-cause belief is called ahetuka ditthi. This belief also rejected the principle of kamma.

The last of the heretics, Pakudha Kaccāyana, said that all beings were composed of the four elements, and happiness (sukha), pain (dukkha), and life (jīva). These seven elements could not be annihilated by any force, so no deeds could affect this composite entity. Therefore, neither demerit nor merit had any meaning, he added.

These heretics, holding wrong conceptions, were sunk in delusion and ignorance. Hemavata’s question whether the Buddha was free of delusion was therefore pertinent.

Questions relating to the unwholesome deeds of the body, speech, and mind had been presented, and categorical answers given. However, that did not convince Hemavata that the Buddha was the real Sammāsambuddha, for these attributes could also be possessed by Paccekabuddhas and Arahants. (A Paccekabuddha is a non-preaching, lesser Buddha). So Hemavata asked further; “Does your teacher, the Buddha, have the eye of knowledge to see all the Dhamma?”

The Buddha’s Mind is Always Pure

This is the answer to the question, “Friend Sātāgiri, is your teacher, the Buddha, free from desires for sensual pleasures?”

Since the time of renunciation at the age of twenty-nine, the Buddha had been free from sensual desires. Even when he was suffering acutely from extreme asceticism, his mind did not revert to the former joys and pleasures of the palace, and he was free from covetousness. When he attained Buddhahood, he rejected all aspects of craving through the path of arahantship. He declared this in giving his first discourse, saying that he had abandoned the cause of suffering, i.e. craving.

To the question, “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free from the desire to kill or destroy?” Sātāgiri replied, “The mind of our teacher is not sullied and is always pure.”

The Buddha’s mind was permeated with loving-kindness for all beings, without a trace of ill-will or aversion. When Angulimāla was chasing him with a sword, the Buddha had nothing but loving-kindness and compassion for him. When the drunken elephant, Nālāgiri, rushed to gore him, the Buddha was radiating pure love. So too, after Devadatta rolled down a huge rock upon him from a mountain. Even on such critical occasions his mind was free from negative emotions; nothing further needs to be said of other occasions. The Buddha, who had purified his mind of ill-will and anger through the path of arahantship, was always of pure mind, hence Sātāgiri’s answer.

In reply to the question “Has he overcome delusion?” — Sātāgiri said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has overcome all delusion and ignorance through the four Noble Paths.”

Hemavata meant to ask whether the Buddha had overcome wrong view based on delusion, but Sātāgiri’s answer went beyond that and was all-embracing. He said that the Buddha had overcome all delusion, which was a comprehensive answer.

The Bodhisatta Was Free From Wrong View

Since the time of confirmation by Dīpankara Buddha that he would become a Buddha, the Bodhisatta was free from beliefs that deny the principles of kamma, such as eternalism (sassata ditthi) and annihilationism (uccheda ditthi). When he attained Buddhahood, he eradicated all defilements, which of course includes heresy (duccarita micchā ditthi). This refers to the heresies propagated by the heretical leaders, Purāna Kassapa, and others.The Buddha exhorted his audience not to follow these wrong paths.

The Buddha said that heretical views like “Killing, stealing, and other unwholesome deeds do not produce bad effects” were due to attachment to the five aggregates: materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. He asserted that no one who knew the five aggregates were impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial could adopt such heresies.

The Buddha likened the views of a leading heretic, Makkhali Gosāla, to a dragnet and urged his disciples to reject the heresy. Let us briefly outline Makkhali’s view. According to him, no cause existed for either poverty or prosperity, and nothing could change or improve the situation, because all beings’ lives were predestined. They would each have their share of poverty and prosperity, and would be reborn in higher or lower realms according to predestination. Bad or foolish beings did not suffer any longer. Good or wise beings did not suffer for a shorter period. Each being was allotted a share of misery and happiness, of poverty and prosperity. Just as a rolling ball of thread stops when all the thread has unwound, the cycle of existences will end when each being has lived out a predestined period of existence.

This view of predestination asserts that one just has to live out one’s time, and need not try for improvement. The idea that one will mature automatically, suits those who are too lazy to do wholesome deeds, and those who delight in unwholesome deeds. It is an ideal philosophy for skivers and rogues. It also accords well with the current belief that those who have already attained human status will not sink any lower after death, but will gradually mature automatically. This belief is assumed in the Burmese term, “lu the lu phyit — man dies, becomes man.”

Once one gets caught in the dragnet of Makkhali’s view, one cannot escape and has to die in it. The Buddha meant that those who favoured this view would not do any good volitional act that would enable them to attain celestial realms or nibbāna, so they would fall into hell.

I have heard that some teachers maintain that it is enough merely to listen to what they preach, and practising meditation is unnecessary. Such preachers should take note of the metaphor of the dragnet used by the Buddha for Makkhali, the most blameworthy of the heretics. The views of Purāna Kassapa and Ajita Kesakambalī also fall into the category of ‘dragnet views,’ which preclude the possibility for beings to reach celestial realms, or to attain nibbāna.

The Origin of False Views

When did the false views denying kamma and its effect originate? According to the Cakkavatti Sutta, they arose during the era in which man’s life-span was one thousand years. Until that era, people probably had less greed, anger, and delusion, and so were not enamoured of this argument about kamma. Since then, people became ever more depraved, and began to subscribe to these views. However, these views were not very popular, for even at the time of the Buddha, when the span of man’s life was reduced to one hundred years, they were not liked by many.

As moral standards are deteriorating, people are becoming more depraved, and false views are beginning to flourish. According to the Cakkavatti Sutta, in the future, when man’s expectation of life is reduced to just ten years, morality will disappear and even the expression ‘an unwholesome deed’ will become obsolete. The denial of the law of kamma is gradually gaining more acceptance because people’s hankering after sensual pleasures is increasing. Even today, some think that if one avoids unwholesome deeds, one will not achieve any useful purpose. This opinion leads people to wrong views.

Free of All Delusion

The denial of the law of kamma is now commonplace because of overwhelming greed arising from delusion. The Buddha realised this, so he exhorted people to strive hard to reduce greed and delusion. Those who follow the Buddha’s exhortation, try to gain realisation through meditation, and thus free themselves from wrong views. They come to realise that the kamma of previous existences has moulded the present existence, and that the kamma of the present existence, if not yet free of craving, will determine the next existence. Thus, they confirm their belief in right view.

The Buddha was obviously free of wrong view, but at a time when there were many bogus Buddhas, it was quite pertinent for Hemavata to ask whether the Buddha had overcome delusion. Sātāgiri’s reply stated that the Buddha had overcome all delusion and all wrong views.

The Buddha Has the Eye of Knowledge

In reply to the Hemavata’s question about the Buddha’s knowledge of all the Dhamma, Sātāgiri said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has the eye of knowledge that sees all the Dhamma.”

There are five kinds of eyes:

1. The physical eye (mamsa cakkhu),
2. The Divine Eye (dibba cakkhu),
3. The Eye of the Dhamma (dhamma cakkhu),
4. The All-seeing eye — Omniscience (samanta cakkhu),
5. The Eye of the Buddha (Buddha cakkhu).

1. The physical eye is very clear and can see for a distance of one yojana (about 7 miles).
2. The Divine Eye can see all material forms, large or small, far or near; it can see the abodes of devas and brahmās, the realms of misery such as hell, hungry ghosts, and demons (asuras); it can also see the various universes. This eye can see anything anywhere, any shape or colour; it can also see where a being has gone to take up its next existence. The Buddha had attained this eye at midnight on the day when he was to attain Buddhahood. He then saw all the thirty-one realms of existence in which various beings were either enjoying pleasure or suffering from misery.
3. As for the Eye of the Dhamma, the term ‘Dhamma’ refers to the knowledge gained from the path of insight and knowledge of reviewing (paccavekkhanā-ñāna), especially to the knowledge of the Noble Path. The Eye of the Dhamma is synonymous with the path of the Stream-winner.
4. The Samanta cakkhu is synonymous with Omniscience (sabbaññuta-ñāna). It is the eye that sees all the Dhamma. The Buddha declared while giving his first discourse, the Dhammacakka Sutta, that he had gained this eye in becoming the Buddha.
5. The Eye of the Buddha includes indriyaparopariyatta-ñāna, which is the insight into the grades of spiritual maturity of beings. ‘Indriya’ (faculties) here refers to confidence (saddhā), energy (viriya), mindfulness (sati), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). The Buddha could see to what extent these faculties were mature. He examined the spiritual maturity of beings to find out their readiness to realise the Dhamma and attain nibbāna. If a certain individual was still lacking in maturity, the Buddha would not teach him the Dhamma at once. The period of postponement was sometimes months or years, but occasionally it was just a matter of minutes.

To illustrate such postponement there is the story of Bāhiya-dārucīriya. He was an ascetic from Suppāraka (in the region of Aparanta on the western coast of India) who came to Jetavana Monastery (near the city of Sāvatthi, about 1,400 miles away). When he arrived, the Buddha was out collecting alms-food in the city. Bāhiya did not wait at the monastery, but went into the city to find the Buddha. When he met the Buddha, he made obeisance and requested him to teach the Dhamma.

The Buddha saw that he was not yet mature enough to receive his teaching, and said that it was not fitting to give teachings while on alms-round. Bāhiya made the request a second time, and the Buddha refused. When he made the third request, the Buddha saw that his faculties had attained sufficient maturity, and gave the following brief discourse:

 “Bāhiya, when you see an object, be conscious of just the seeing; when you hear a sound, be conscious of just the hearing; when you smell or taste or touch something, be conscious of just the smell, taste or the touch; and when you think of anything, be conscious of just the thinking.” (Dhp v 101, Commentary)

While listening to the discourse, Bāhiya became an Arahant after passing through the stages of insight, and the four paths and fruitions. This is an instance of postponement for a few minutes.

Knowledge of Others’ Predispositions

Āsayānusaya-ñānameans the insight into the idiosyncrasies of an individual. Predispositions are called āsaya. There are two aspects to the psychology of an individual, namely wrong view (ditthi) and knowledge (ñāna). Those who are worldly usually have wrong view deep in their minds. They hold either eternalistic or nihilistic views. Those who prefer eternalism do not like nihilism since they cherish the idea of the soul’s immortality. Those who prefer nihilism do not like eternalism since they favour the idea of the disappearance of a being after death. Though either type may change their view for some reason or other, they usually revert to their preferred view later. They are like dogs that wander during the day and come back to their sleeping places at night. The Buddha knew whether an individual was inclined to eternalism or nihilism, and directed his teachings accordingly to enable that individual to gain right view and quickly attain the path.

Among those who want to escape from samsāra and attain nibbāna, some have gained insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāna). Although they have not reached the stage of the Noble Path, and still hold the views of permanence (nicca), happiness (sukha), and self (atta), they will regain insight into impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and non-self (anatta) when they hear the Buddha’s discourse. Similarly, those who have gained insight knowledge, but have stopped noting the three characteristics for some time, can regain their insight soon after they resume their practice. This is like returning to one’s home.

As Stream-winners and Once-returners are not fully free from sensual desire (kāma), lust (rāga), and ill-will (byāpāda), these defilements may recur during lapses of mindfulness. Once they regain mindfulness, they will retrieve their insight into the truth. It is like leaving the comfort and security of one’s home, to visit several places during the day for some reason and returning for the night. The Buddha saw this nature of the mind and gave a teaching best suited to the inclinations and idiosyncrasies of individuals so that they could attain the stages of the path and its fruition.

There are seven kinds of latent defilements (anusaya kilesā); namely, sexual desire (kāma rāga), lust for life (bhava rāga), aversion (patigha), conceit (māna), wrong view (ditthi), doubt (vicikicchā), and ignorance (avijjā). The Buddha discerned which one was predominant in the mind of an individual and gave the most appropriate teaching. That is why those who had the opportunity to hear the Buddha’s teaching personally, quickly attained nibbāna.

These two kinds of knowledge, namely insight into the spiritual maturity of beings, and insight into the predispositions of individuals, are together called the ‘Eye of the Buddha’ (Buddha cakkhu). This twin insight was possessed only by the Buddha and by no other Arahant. Even Venerable Sāriputta didn’t have it. Venerable Sāriputta could not determine the spiritual maturity or the mental inclination of an individual to give him the appropriate teaching.

Venerable Sāriputta once taught a disciple to contemplate the repulsiveness of the body, asking him to practice it for the whole rainy season. The disciple could make no progress, so Venerable Sāriputta took him to the Buddha. After considering the predispositions of that monk, the Buddha created and gave him a lotus of ruddy gold, and asked him to focus attention on it, noting the redness of the flower. The monk did as directed, and by meditating on the golden lotus, gained the four stages of absorption. Then the Buddha caused the flower to wilt, and the monk, coming out of jhāna, perceived the decay. He then realised the instability of his own body through introspection. Appearing before him, the Buddha gave him a discourse, and the monk attained arahantship.

The monk in this episode had been a goldsmith for five hundred existences, and naturally liked everything beautiful and delicate. He was not the least interested in contemplating decomposing corpses. Venerable Sāriputta did not know of his predisposition, and gave him an unsuitable object for contemplation. The Buddha, on the contrary, knew about the individual’s predisposition from previous lives, and so asked him to contemplate redness (lohitakammatthāna) after giving him a lotus of ruddy gold. Because of the Buddha’s very specific teaching, the monk could attain arahantship within a few hours.

As the Buddha alone possessed these two kinds of insight, Sātāgiri replied definitely: “Our teacher, the Buddha, has the eye to see the Dhamma in all its aspects.”

Of the five kinds of eyes enumerated earlier, all except the physical eye, which needs no special mention, pertain to insights into the Dhamma. The Buddha possessed all four, hence Sātāgiri’s reply.

To reiterate, Sātāgiri said to his friend, Hemavata, that the Buddha was free from all desire and lust, was of pure mind, and had eradicated anger and ill-will through the Path of Non-returning (anāgāmi magga). This means that the Buddha’s mind was never sullied by feelings of anger or anxiety.

Incidentally, Venerable Sāriputta was praised for his patience. He was never angry. A certain brahmin could not believe this. He maintained that Venerable Sāriputta was never angry because nobody ever provoked his anger. So one day, while Venerable Sāriputta was on alms-round, he gave the Arahant’s back a hefty slap. Venerable Sāriputta did not even look back at him, and continued walking with composure. Only then did the unbelieving brahmin realise the truth, and he humbly begged the Venerable Sāriputta’s pardon. Not only Venerable Sāriputta, but all Arahants are free from anger. Yet they still have some idiosyncrasies that are vestiges of anger. Only the Buddha had eliminated all character traits. His mind was exceedingly pure.

Sātāgiri said that the Buddha had overcome all aspects of delusion. Delusion means not understanding the Four Noble Truths, i.e. having wrong notions of them. For instance, regarding what is suffering (dukkha) as happiness (sukha).  Since one is subject to the process of incessant arising and passing away, nothing is pleasant or stable. So there is no happiness at all, but only suffering. Yet delusion leads one to mistake suffering for happiness.

Whatever is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched, or thought of is just mind and matter undergoing constant arising and passing away. However, delusion persuades one to regard these unstable phenomena as dependable and pleasant, which encourages one to be mentally attached to them. This attachment — the cause of suffering (samudaya sacca) leads to new existences. The cessation of existence is the truth of the end of suffering (nirodha sacca),  but delusion makes one dislike it, because cessation is taken to mean the final death, and is therefore not relished.

Charity, morality, and mental culture are the basis for attaining nibbāna but delusion makes one dislike them. They are taken to be arduous. Likewise with the practice of insight meditation. This is the nature of delusion, which gives us wrong notions. Sātāgiri meant to say that the Buddha had overcome all aspects of delusion, and was free from delusion and ignorance.