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

Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw

A Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

Does the Buddha Steal?

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?

The answer to the first query gave Hemavata sufficient cause to be convinced that the Buddha referred to by Sātāgiri was the genuine one. However, to be certain, Hemavata asked a second question: “Friend Sātāgiri, does your teacher take property the owner has not given by action or speech? Does he not rob or steal?”

The Buddha is Free From Stealing

Taking anything that is not given by the owner is stealing. Stealing consists in taking by stealth or by force. This question seems an insolent one to Buddhists. To ask whether such an individual as the Buddha had ever taken anything by stealth or by force is downright rude. If the same question were put to any monk, it would be regarded as very offensive. “Is your teacher, the monk, free of stealing?” It is indeed an insolent question. Nevertheless, at the time such a question was pertinent and not insolent. In those days people were eagerly looking for the genuine Buddha, and many bogus Buddhas had appeared on the scene.

The prominent bogus ones such as Purāna Kassapa, and five others were claiming that they were Buddhas. Their followers adored them and took refuge in them in the belief that they were genuine Buddhas. Yet these bogus Buddhas were giving discourses dismissing the concept of wholesome and unwholesome deeds.

Sātāgiri and Hemavata had been celestial ogres since the latter part of Kassapa Buddha’s dispensation until the beginning of Gotama Buddha’s dispensation. For such a long period these two celestial beings would have known pretenders to Buddhahood at a time when people were eagerly awaiting the coming of the Buddha, just as many pretenders spring up to claim the throne when citizens of a country are awaiting the coming of their real king. Hemavata knew that the bogus Buddhas were not free of stealing, so he put this question. He wanted to examine Sātāgiri’s teacher in respect of misdeeds.

We can make comparisons with those who worship God. According to their testament, their God does not seem to be free from unwholesome deeds. Their God is said to have punished some persons with death and destruction of property, and such acts are considered by Buddhism as unwholesome deeds. Therefore, Hemavata’s question was not impertinent; it was quite pertinent given the prevailing situation.

The Buddha is Free From Remorse and Lassitude

Then Hemavata asked: “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free from remorse and lassitude?”

Lassitude is a kind of heedlessness. When overwhelmed by sexual desires, one is apt to forget that it is an unwholesome deed to commit fornication. Sexual intercourse is an ignoble act, and is an unwholesome deed if committed in the wrong circumstances. Heedlessness (pamāda) is used in the original Pali text as a euphemism for immorality.

Rude Words of the Heretic Kassapa

A heretic named Kassapa came to see Venerable Bākula about fifty years after the passing away of the Buddha. This was not, of course, Purāna Kassapa, the Buddha-pretender. This Kassapa belonged to the sect of naked ascetics who were followers of Nigantha Nātaputta. The present-day members of this sect are now called Jains.

When I visited Migadavana Garden in India, I came upon a Jain temple. In that temple were photographs of their monks, called muni. Muni means a sage in Buddhism. Buddhist monks are fully clothed in yellow robes, but their monks are completely naked. We found such naked munis along the banks of the Ganges.

This Kassapa was a friend of Venerable Arahant Bākula when the latter was a layman. Kassapa asked Bākula, “Friend, how long have you been in the Buddha’s dispensation?” to which Bākula replied, “Eighty years.”

“How often did you indulge in sexual intercourse during that period?” asked Kassapa. That was obviously an insolent question.

Then Venerable Bākula said: “Friend Kassapa, you should ask, ‘How often did you think of sex?’ That is a civilized query.”

Kassapa revised the wording of his question accordingly. Then Venerable Bākula replied, “I became an Arahant on the eighth day after my ordination, and becoming an Arahant means becoming free from all desire for sex. So I have not thought of sex since the time of my ordination, which is not once in eighty years.”

This answer surprised Kassapa, who then took refuge in the Buddha’s dispensation, and after practising meditation, became an Arahant. Hemavata was polite because he was not ignorant of the dispensation of the Buddha, and so he referred to ‘heedlessness’ or ‘lassitude.’ He meant to ask if Sātāgiri’s teacher was free from lust.

The Buddha Never Neglected Jhāna

Hemavata asked whether Sātāgiri’s teacher, the Buddha, never neglected jhāna, or in other words, whether he was fully aware so that he could reject all lustful desire, which is an impediment to arahantship. Hankering after pleasant things and indulging in pleasures is a basic impediment. If one is free of that, one is said to have attained the first stage of jhāna. Now this question is just a corollary to the question of lassitude. Thus, Hemavata had put these questions relating to misdeeds of a physical nature, namely, killing, stealing, and the sexual act. He then asked about jhāna.

The Buddha Does Not Steal

“Friend Hemavata, our teacher is free of stealing. He does not steal or rob, like the bogus ones.” Why was Sātāgiri so sure? Because the Buddha said in his Dhammacakka discourse that he had found the middle path. He also said that he had developed the path factors. These eight factors include right action, which refers to refraining from killing, stealing, and the sexual act. One must avoid these actions. Such avoidance is called restraint (viratī).

Restraint is of three kinds: refraining from evil deeds by attainment of virtue (sampatta viratī), refraining from evil deeds after formally undertaking the precepts (samādāna viratī), and permanent avoidance by cutting off defilements (samuccheda viratī).

Sātāgiri knew that the Buddha was free of physical misdeeds because the Buddha had declared that he had completed the practice of the Noble Path which embraces all avoidance of all physical misdeeds. So he said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, is free of stealing.”

The Bogus Buddhas

I will give a further explanation regarding stealing. The bogus Buddhas claimed to be Buddhas long before the enlightenment of the genuine Buddha. Of the six bogus ones, Purāna Kassapa said that killing, stealing, and robbing were not unwholesome deeds, and that alms-giving and other good deeds were not wholesome.

Another bogus Buddha, Makkhali Gosāla, said that there was no cause for either misery or happiness, for such states were predestined, and so, however much one did evil deeds one would not suffer. Similarly, one would not gain any merit by doing good deeds. He maintained that samsāra did not exist, and that all beings would be saved when their turn came.

Pakudha Kaccāyana, a leader of another sect, said that all beings were composed of the four elements together with misery, happiness, and life. So if one were to cut a being with a sword, the sword would cut into these seven components, without affecting the being.

Ajita Kesakambalī, another bogus Buddha, maintained that there was no afterlife for any being, therefore wholesome and unwholesome deeds would not produce any effect.

From the teachings of these bogus Buddhas, we can surmise that they encouraged committing unwholesome deeds — they seemed to be urging people to kill and steal.

Nobody Wants to Be Killed Or Robbed

Naturally, every being would like to enjoy a long life, and would not want to be killed, or to be robbed of his or her hard-earned possessions. Therefore, no one should kill any living being. Sacrifices should not be made by killing living beings under a mistaken notion that such sacrifices are meritorious deeds. For the same reason, no one should steal anyone’s property, either for himself or for others.

Yet in those days the bogus leaders of the sects maintained that killing and stealing were not unwholesome deeds. It may be inferred that since they said so, they themselves were not free of such unwholesome deeds. As for the genuine Buddha, he declared these deeds to be unwholesome. He did not commit them himself, and would not urge anyone to commit them. This was what made Hemavata put the question about stealing, to which Sātāgiri made a prompt answer saying that his teacher, the Buddha, was free of the unwholesome deed of stealing because he was perfect as regards right action.

Restraint From Stealing

If one were not fully endowed with right action, one would not be totally trustworthy, even though one might declare that one avoids taking things not given. One may steal when one has a chance to and cannot resist the temptation. To give an example, at the time of the British evacuation of Burma, just before the coming of the Japanese troops, most of the people in the towns fled, leaving their property. Then, the country-folk swarmed into the towns to loot. It is said that it was amusing to see cabinets too large for the hovels in which these looters lived. These looters were normally observers of the five precepts, but when they were given the opportunity to steal with impunity, their precepts were broken. That is because of the absence of restraint by cutting off defilements, i.e. avoidance of unwholesome deeds by means of the Noble Path. The Buddha had perfected right action, and was therefore free of the unwholesome deeds of stealing and killing.

Stealing is Without Sympathy

One who steals from others is devoid of the sympathetic feeling that a moral person would have. Nobody likes to be robbed, so nobody should rob another. A truly moral person would have sympathy for others, and would not want to steal even without formally taking the precepts. This kind of avoidance is called restraint by attainment (sampatta viratī). Avoidance after taking the precepts is called restraint by undertaking (samādāna viratī).

On the subject of stealing, a Jain master once said, “A man’s property is his outer life, so stealing his property is taking his life.” This is quite a plausible argument, though a bit contrived. What he meant to say is that killing is taking another person’s life directly. Stealing is tantamount to killing since a man’s property constitutes his outer life because he depends upon it for his living. A person gets his property by hard work, careful budgeting, and thrift. So his property is really part of his life. Some people die of grief for the loss of their property. That is why the Jain master declared that property is one’s outer life.

Restraint by Insight

Even if one is not free from greed one should refrain from stealing through sympathy or scrupulous observance of the precepts. To meditators who note the arising and passing away of phenomena, avoidance of stealing is already accomplished. To them, everything is incessantly arising and passing away. The entire process is beyond one’s control (anatta), and so the desire to kill or steal will not occur. The practice of restraint is already accomplished by meditators.

Restraint Through the Noble Path

When the meditation practice reaches an advanced stage, one can comprehend the cessation of mentality (nāma) and materiality (rūpa), and gain the insight of the Noble Path. At that stage no desire to steal or commit any unwholesome deed ever occurs. At that moment the defilements are uprooted by means of the restraint of the Noble Ones. This complete abandonment is called restraint by cutting off defilements (samuccheda viratī). This occurs not only when one reaches the higher stages of insight, but even at the first stage when one becomes a Stream-winner. At that point all the unwholesome deeds referred to in the five precepts have been uprooted.

According to the Dhammadāsa Sutta, a Stream-winner possesses insight that enables him or her to know fully the attributes of the Buddha, so he or she has a deep reverence for him. Similarly, he or she comes to have a strong conviction of the attributes of the Dhamma and Sangha. Thus the Stream-winner has the ability to observe fully the five precepts that the Noble Ones hold in high esteem. So a Stream-winner has full confidence in the attributes of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and has joined the fold of the Noble Ones.

The Noble Ones adore the five precepts, and do not want to break them. They are always eager to preserve their morality. They observe the precepts, not because they are afraid that others would censure them, but because they want to keep their minds pure, for purity of mind can only be achieved by observance of the five precepts. Not only during this life but in all future existences, they do not transgress the precepts. They may not know that they have become a Stream-winner in a previous existence, but they do know that they must observe the five precepts fully and with no defect.

Sometimes one comes across a person who has never done any unwholesome deed such as killing or stealing since infancy. Though not given any particular instructions by his or her parents, he or she knows what is wrong, and refrains from it, keeping pure morality since childhood. Maybe he or she had achieved a special insight in a previous existence. There are also instances of persons who, though born of non-Buddhist parents, have come all the way to this country to practise meditation. Maybe such persons have had some practice of the Buddha’s Dhamma in their previous existences. These are interesting cases, but must be evaluated in accordance with the extent and depth of their study and practice of the Dhamma.

A genuine Stream-winner has already entered the fold of the Noble Ones, so strictly observes the five precepts having completely uprooted all immoral deeds. Though not entirely free from greed and anger, a Stream-winner is not driven by them to transgress the five precepts. A Stream-winner would not dream of stealing — if he or she wanted something, he or she would buy it or ask the owner to give it in charity. That is the natural behaviour of a Noble One. The Buddha had already removed all the unwholesome deeds by means of all three restraints, so stealing was entirely out of the question. When he was preaching the Dhammacakka Sutta, he declared that he had rejected all wrong-doing. That is why Sātāgiri said:

“Gotama Buddha is free from the unwholesome deed of taking anything that was not given by the owner by word or action. This I declare with the courage of conviction.”

Hemavata did not put this question relating to the unwholesome deed of stealing to know a mere temporary and occasional abstinence, but to be convinced that the Buddha had completely purified himself of the unwholesome deed of stealing. Sātāgiri’s answer was categorical.

Then the second answer was, “Gotama Buddha is also free of the unwholesome deed of torturing living beings. He is free of harming and killing beings.” This answer seems not to be needed, considering the attributes of the Buddha, but the question had to be asked because at the time several bogus Buddhas had appeared. The intention was to distinguish the genuine Buddha from the bogus ones. Some people at the time believed in God as the Creator of all beings and things. In their own books such a Creator is said to mete out punishment to those who went against his wishes. Punishment consisted of rousing great storms and floods to kill people, causing great earthquakes and destruction to crops for the same purpose. If so, then their God was not free from the unwholesome deed of killing. Hemavata’s question about the unwholesome deeds of killing and stealing, was pertinent in the prevailing situation.

One Who Kills is Not a Stream-winner

A writer once stated in a journal that a Stream-winner will not kill others, but if anyone comes to kill him, he will kill his attacker. The writer declared that he said that after researching into the nature of the human mind.

That is ridiculous. I wonder whose mind he researched, and how he did it. He must have made a research of his own mind. Perhaps he thought that he was a Stream-winner. Maybe he asked himself if he would allow an attacker to kill him if he had an effective weapon to defend himself. Thus, he got his own answer that he would kill the attacker first. From his own reasoning he obtained the conclusions that he expressed in his article. However, according to the tenets of Buddhism, this is a ridiculous statement.

The very fact that one thinks one can and should retaliate against an attacker proves that one is not a Stream-winner. According to the Buddha’s teaching, one who entertains such an idea is just an ordinary person (puthujjana), not a Stream-winner. A genuine Stream-winner would not even kill a bug, let alone a human being. This fact must be fully understood and remembered.

As for the Buddha, the rejection of such unwholesome deeds is complete. So Sātāgiri gave a categorical answer: “I declare with the courage of conviction that our teacher, the Buddha, never kills or tortures any living being.”

Then comes the third answer: “Our teacher, the Buddha, is never forgetful. He is far removed from heedlessness.”

Forgetfulness in the secular sense is well known. You forget to do something, or you forget someone’s name, etc. However, forgetfulness in the present context is not like that. Here it means to be absorbed in the five kinds of enjoyments of the senses, allowing the mind to be lost in enjoyment, or heedlessness, which is called pamāda in Pali.

Heedlessness means allowing the mind to freely enjoy all kinds of sense objects. It is like letting loose the ropes tied around the necks of cattle, and allowing them to wander and graze wherever they wish. Such forgetfulness is very enjoyable. Enjoying the beauty of a woman, or a man — the tender voice, the fragrant odour, the sweet taste, and the soft touch of an individual are pleasurable. To think about the good things of life, even if you cannot actually have them, is also enjoyment of the senses — such fantasising is extremely pleasurable.

All your waking hours are spent thinking about sensual pleasures and planning how to enjoy them. You do that not just for one day, one month, or one year, but you do it all your life. If you do not have time to think about such pleasures, you get bored. Without sensual pleasures to think about, or to plan to get, people wouldn’t really want to live in this world. Getting lost in thought and enjoyment of sensual pleasures is heedlessness. Of those sensual pleasures, sexual pleasures are most prominent. So Hemavata asked his friend whether his teacher, the Buddha, was free of the unwholesome deed of indulgence in sexual pleasure.

To this question Sātāgiri gave a definite answer, “Our teacher, the Buddha, is absolutely free of lust.”

Then, this apparently impertinent question, was pertinent. The answer was definitive. The Buddha was not only totally free from indulgence in sexual pleasures, but also did not indulge in pleasurable sights, sounds, odours, tastes, or tactile pleasures. He was always heedful in the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness (satipatthāna), and he never neglected jhāna.

There are two kinds of jhāna: samatha jhāna — concentration on one object, and vipassanā jhāna — constant mindfulness of mental and physical phenomena. By contemplating incessantly on the arising and passing away of phenomena, one perceives the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and soullessness of all phenomena.

Samatha Jhāna

Concentration of one’s mind on a certain object is called samatha jhāna. For instance, a circle of clay (pathavī kasina) is used for concentrating on the earth element. Such concentration does not lead to insight into the arising and passing away of phenomena. As the mind is fixed on one object, sensual thoughts do not have a chance to enter the mind. Using this method, one can attain to the four stages of absorption on forms (rūpa jhāna). Then one can progress to the four formless absorptions (arūpa jhāna). These absorptions would not give the practitioner any insight into the impermanence of the aggregates of existence. They are good only for obtaining concentration and keeping the mind calm and collected.

Further progress in jhāna will lead to attainment of the divine eye (dibbacakkhu), the divine ear (dibbasota), knowledge of former existences (pubbenivāsa-ñāna), and knowledge of the minds of others (cetopariya-ñāna).

One can practise insight meditation based on samatha jhāna, and in due course attain the path and its fruition, so samatha jhāna should not be held in contempt. If one practises mindfulness of breathing, or contemplation of the thirty-two parts of the body, one can keep one’s mind calm and collected, and attain jhāna. However, if one does not observe the arising and passing away of phenomena, one would gain only concentration and mental tranquillity.

Vipassanā Jhāna

Observing the three characteristics means vipassanā jhāna. The three characteristics are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and soullessness. However, to begin with the observation of these three characteristics is impossible. One must start by observing the consciousness arising at the six sense-doors as ‘seeing,’ ‘hearing,’ etc. To observe physical actions, one must note them as they occur, thus: the rising and falling of the abdomen; the lifting, moving forward, and dropping of the foot as one is walking. Similarly, one must note the standing, sitting, and lying postures, or the bending and stretching of the limbs as they occur.

While noting these mental and physical activities, one will come to perceive their arising and passing away, which are followed by a new series of activities. Thus, one will come to know their impermanence or instability, which entails difficulty, distress, and misery, and the absence of any controlling entity or self.

The awareness of these characteristics in psychophysical phenomena takes a meditator to the beginning of knowledge by comprehension (sammasana-ñāna). The meditator repeatedly notes any movement or action, whether physical or mental, deriving a measure of tranquillity born of concentration. This kind of concentration is called one-pointedness (ekaggatā), and is equivalent to the first jhāna.

As the meditator progresses, the actions and movements will spontaneously present themselves for noting. The meditator no longer has to try to note, and has reached the knowledge of arising and passing away (udayabbaya-ñāna). At this point, initial application (vitakka) and sustained application (vicāra) are absent, but joy (pīti) and bliss (sukha)  abound as concentration strengthens further. So the early part of this stage of insight is equivalent to the second jhāna.

In the advanced phase of knowledge of arising and passing away, the light emanating from joy will be overcome by bliss (sukha), and concentration will become prominent. The advanced phase of this stage of insight is equivalent to the third jhāna.

Later, even bliss dims and fades when attention is focused on the constant passing away of phenomena, when knowledge of dissolution develops. Here, equanimity (upekkhā) is prominent. This stage is equivalent to the fourth jhāna. Equanimity and one-pointedness become even more prominent in the next stage of insight, knowledge of equanimity with regard to formations. Those meditators who have advanced to this stage will know what it is.

When Sātāgiri said that the Buddha was not out of jhāna, he meant that the Buddha never neglected jhāna.

The Buddha Entered Jhāna Very Rapidly

The Buddha was consistently in jhāna, and for that he is adorable. At the end of part of a discourse, while the audience exclaimed in one voice, “Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! (Well said!),” the Buddha went into jhāna even during that brief interval. Then he resumed the discourse. Such consistency is really marvellous.

Correct Usage of Sādhu

During my discourses there are only a few occasions for the audience to say “sādhu.” In Burma it is usual for the audience to say “sādhu” at the end of a Pali verse of which the preaching monk gives a literal translation. When the monk ends in a long drawn-out voice with the [Burmese] phrase “phyitkya le dawt tha dee” the audience says without any hesitation, “sādhu.” They do not take care to distinguish whether the verse so recited and translated calls for exultation or not, they just note the ending words “tha dee,” and drone out “sādhu.”

For instance, in the Vessantara Jātaka, King Vessantara gave away his two children, a son and a daughter of tender ages of four and five, to Jujakā Brahmin. The Pali verse about that describes the brahmin’s cruel treatment of the children who wept desolately; how the brahmin beat them cruelly and dragged them away. When the preaching monk recited that verse and translated it into Burmese, ending his translation with the usual “tha dee”  the audience droned out the usual “sādhu.” However, that part of the story calls for sympathy and sadness from the listeners, not exultation, and so the “sādhu” went awry. In Burma the audience do not care to discriminate. In Sri Lanka, however, the audience intones “sādhu” three times only where a discourse refers to the attainment of arahantship or nibbāna. That is an occasion for exultation when a congratulatory exclamation such as “sādhu,” is called for.

In the time of the Buddha the practice of saying “sādhu” must have been of the Sri Lankan pattern. When the audience exclaimed “sādhu” three times, the Buddha paused, and during that brief interval he went into jhāna. Soon after the exclamation of “sādhu” by the audience, he resumed his discourse — he never remained idle. How adorable!

The preaching monks of today may not be entering jhāna; that brief interval is probably the time to rest his voice or consider the words he will use when he resumes his discourse.

Moreover, the Buddha looked on all beings with great compassion, abiding in the attainment of great compassion (mahākarunā samāpatti) and the fruition of arahantship (arahatta samāpatti) for 120 million times each, altogether 240 million times daily. That shows that the Buddha did not miss a single opportunity for entering into jhāna. So Sātāgiri said in reply to his friend’s query, “The Buddha who knows all the Dhamma fully never neglected jhāna.”

To sum up, the Buddha was free of the unwholesome deed of stealing, the unwholesome deed of torture and killing, and was always remote from heedlessness, nor did he ever neglect jhāna.

As the Buddha was Omniscient, he did not need to consider in advance what he would say in a discourse, he was always prepared. He also knew the appropriate teaching to suit the maturity of any individual. Not only did he enter into jhāna after the discourse, but he utilised even brief intervals during the discourse to enter into jhāna. He never remained idle for a moment.

If we consider this, we will realise just how adorable the Buddha is, thus we should take refuge in him with concentrated attention. While doing so, we should note the arising of the joy emanating from the adoration, and the immediate fading away of that joy. By using the vipassanā method we should strengthen our insight until we reach the final stage of the Noble Path.

To end today’s session, I urge the meditators to continue their practice by first noting the actions of the body, such as the rising and falling of the abdomen, and then the thoughts and imaginations of the mind. Noting mental phenomena is cittānupassanā. Noting the stiffness and aching of the limbs, and all the other physical discomfort is vedanānupassanā. Noting ‘seeing,’ ‘hearing,’ etc., and anger, disappointment, and other mental states is dhammānupassanā. Noting the various movements and actions of the body is kāyānupassanā.

The meditators at this centre are doing this practice, and all of them are trying to win freedom from heedlessness. In due course, they will attain advanced stages of insight.

Of the four path knowledges, the path of a Stream-winner enables one to gain deep concentration. Then advancing from that stage to the next, the path of a Once-returner, the meditator will have his concentration power strengthened further. When one reaches the third stage, the path of a Non-returner, there will not be any wandering of the mind, and the concentration will be very deep. With diligence, one can advance to the ultimate stage of arahatta magga and thus attain the state of an Arahant. At that final stage heedlessness is impossible because mindfulness is ever present. So in praising the insight of an Arahant, it is said: “The Arahant is always mindful whether walking, standing, sleeping, or sitting.”

An Arahant never misses a moment in his mindfulness of mental and physical phenomena. His awareness is all-encompassing. By ‘sleeping’ it means that there is mindfulness till the point of falling asleep, and mindfulness resumes at the point of waking up. Of course, there is no question of mindfulness while one is asleep. That is how mindfulness is practised every moment of one’s waking life, according to the Buddha’s admonition “apamādena sampādetha — strive on with heedfulness.”

Our meditators have been developing mindfulness, which is really heartening. They must work hard enough to attain at least the first stage of the path — the path of stream-winning. When one attains that stage, one will never again fall into the realms of misery.