Episode Transcript
On the Invitation of Divinity
So I have heard. This sutta is a unique fusion of high philosophy and cosmic drama, positing an unthinkable alliance between what in Christian terms would be called God and the Devil. Nonetheless, due to a plethora of textual difficulties and uncertain readings, caution in interpretation would be wise. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants, “Mendicants!”
“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“This one time, mendicants, I was staying near Ukkaṭṭhā, in the Subhaga Forest at the root of a magnificent sal tree. The same setting as MN 1, with which this sutta shares some themes. Both critique the sophisticated philosophy of the Kosalan brahmins, and hence are set in the town of their leader Pokkharasāti (DN 3:1.2.1). Now at that time Baka the Divinity had the following harmful misconception: Baka maintains the same wrong view at SN 6.4, where his past lives are revealed. In neither sutta is he said to go for refuge, although SN 6.4 does end with effusive praise of the Buddha. The word baka means “stork” or “crane”. To search for a high divinity of this name in Brahmanism is to be disappointed, for instead we find a man-eating demon (rakṣasa) in bird form whose fate is to be slain by the hero Bhīma (or Kṛṣṇa). Pali stories (Ja 38, Ja 236) tell of how the stork dozes peacefully as if meditating by the water, while in reality he is trying to fool fish into approaching so he can snatch them up. A cunning, large, white, high-flying, predatory bird who fakes meditation is a fitting image for the antagonist of this sutta. ‘This is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is whole, this is not liable to pass away. For this is where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And there’s no other escape beyond this.’ The use of the impersonal pronoun (idaṁ) to refer to the self as divinity is a characteristic Upaniṣadic idiom: “you are that” (tat tvam asi, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7); “that self is divinity” (ayam ātmā brahma, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.2); “I am that” (so’ham asmi, Īśa Upaniṣad 16); “this is that self hidden in all” (eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.4.1, etc.); “this, verily, is that” (etad vai tat, Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.5). | For idaṁ niccaṁ see eṣa nityo (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.23); for idaṁ dhuvaṁ see etad apramayaṁ dhruvam (4.4.20).
Then I knew what Baka the Divinity was thinking. As easily as a strong person would extend or contract their arm, I vanished from the Subhaga Forest and reappeared in that realm of divinity.
Baka saw me coming off in the distance and said, ‘Come, good sir! Welcome, good sir! The vocative mārisa (possibly equivalent to mādisa, “one like me”), is used by the gods in Buddhist texts. It’s been a long time since you took the opportunity to come here. For this is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is complete, this is not liable to pass away. For this is where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And there’s no other escape beyond this.’
When he had spoken, I said to him, ‘Alas, Baka the Divinity is lost in ignorance! Alas, Baka the Divinity is lost in ignorance! Because what is actually impermanent, not lasting, transient, incomplete, and liable to pass away, he says is permanent, everlasting, eternal, complete, and not liable to pass away. And where there is being born, growing old, dying, passing away, and being reborn, he says that there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And although there is another escape beyond this, he says that there’s no other escape beyond this.’
Then Māra the Wicked took possession of a member of the retinue of Divinity and said this to me, ‘Mendicant, mendicant! Don’t attack this one! Don’t attack this one! For this is the Divinity, the Great Divinity, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. Māra adopts the boast of Brahmā (DN 1:2.5.2). | It is rare for the Buddha to be addressed as “mendicant” (bhikkhu) and it is probably meant in a slighting sense.
There have been ascetics and brahmins before you, mendicant, who criticized and loathed earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Progenitor, and the Divinity. This is a summary of the items in MN 1. | The “ascetics and brahmins” referred to here would include the ancient practitioners of movements such as Jainism, whose rejection of Vedism predates the Buddha. When their bodies broke up and their breath was cut off they were reborn in a lower realm. “With breath cut off” (pāṇupacchedā) is a unique idiom for death in Pali, but compare Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.5.14: prāṇaṁ na vicchindyāt; Atharvaveda 19.58.1c: prāṇo’chinno.
There have been ascetics and brahmins before you, mendicant, who praised and approved earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Progenitor, and the Divinity. This would be the ancient sages revered in the Vedic tradition. When their bodies broke up and their breath was cut off they were reborn in a higher realm.
So, mendicant, I tell you this: please, good sir, do exactly what the Divinity says. Don’t go beyond the word of the Divinity. If you do, then you’ll end up like a person who, when approached by Lady Luck, would ward her off with a staff; or who, as they are falling over a cliff, would lose grip of the ground with their hands and feet. “Lady Luck” is Siri, later famed as goddess of fortune and prosperity. The same idiom recurs at Thag 8.3:2.1. As to why someone would ward her off, Siri (Sanskrit śrī) is identified with Lakṣmī “the undeparting” (Śrī Sūkta 2, lakṣmīmanapagāminīm). Atharva Veda 7.115 opens with, “Fly away wicked Lakṣmī, vanish, fly hence”. Apparently 101 Lakṣmīs attach to a man when born, and the spell chases away the wicked (pāpi) while keeping the good (puṇya). In this case the Pali text does not draw directly from the Veda, as there is no close verbal parallel, and the Pali presents as irrational an action that makes good sense in the context of the Vedic passage. Rather, it would seem, the Pali draws from a more general cultural awareness. | For “falling over a cliff” see DN 12:78.2. Please, dear sir, do exactly what the Divinity says. Don’t go beyond the word of the Divinity. Do you not see the assembly of the Divinity gathered here?’
And so Māra the Wicked presented the assembly of the Divinity to me.
When he had spoken, I said to Māra, ‘I know you, Wicked One. Do not think, “He does not know me.” You are Māra the Wicked. And the Divinity, the Divinity’s assembly, and the retinue of Divinity have all fallen into your hands; they’re under your sway. Normally Māra is believed to hold sway over all the sensual realms, while the jhānas (and their corresponding planes of rebirth) are beyond him (MN 25:12.1). Here his reach goes even further, as even the Brahmā realms, while freed from sensuality, are not freed from the attachment to continued existence. And you think, “Maybe this one, too, has fallen into my hands; maybe he’s under my sway!” But I haven’t fallen into your hands; I’m not under your sway.’
When I had spoken, Baka the Divinity said to me, ‘But, good sir, what I say is permanent, everlasting, eternal, complete, and not liable to pass away is in fact permanent, everlasting, eternal, complete, and not liable to pass away. And where I say there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn there is in fact One of Māra’s talents is making people believe that his malign ideas are in fact their own. no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And when I say there’s no other escape beyond this there is in fact no other escape beyond this. There have been ascetics and brahmins in the world before you, mendicant, whose deeds of fervent mortification lasted as long as your entire life. Note the use of kasiṇa in the sense “entire”. When there was another escape beyond this they knew it, and when there was no other escape beyond this, they knew it. So, mendicant, I tell you this: you will never find another escape beyond this, and you will eventually get weary and frustrated. If you attach to earth, you will lie close to me, in my domain, subject to my will, and expendable. If you attach to water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Progenitor … the Divinity, you will lie close to me, in my domain, subject to my will, and expendable.’
‘Divinity, I too know that if I attach to earth, I will lie close to you, in your domain, subject to your will, and expendable. If I attach to water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Progenitor … the Divinity, I will lie close to you, in your domain, subject to your will, and expendable. And in addition, Divinity, I understand your range and your light: The measuring of a Brahmā by their “light” (juti) shows the close connection between divinity and the stars. “That’s how powerful is Baka the Divinity, how illustrious and mighty.”’
‘But in what way do you understand my range and my light?’
‘A galaxy extends a thousand times as far as the moon and sun revolve and the shining ones light up the quarters. And there you wield your power.
You know the high and low, the passionate and dispassionate, and the coming and going of sentient beings from this realm to another.
That’s how I understand your range and your light.
But there are three other realms that you don’t know or see, MS reads añño kāyo (“another realm”), but the PTS and BJT reading aññe tayo kāyā is supported by the Chinese parallel (MA 78 at T i 548a28). Possibly this change was necessitated by the addition of a fourth realm below. but which I know and see. PTS and BJT have tyāhaṁ (= te ahaṁ), consistent with their plural reading, as opposed to MS’s singular tamahaṁ. This shows that this variation, which is not decided by the commentary, was a deliberate editorial choice. There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance. You passed away from there and were reborn here. Here ābhassarā is masculine plural, hence not an adjective of kāyo but a reference to the “gods” of that realm. MS is inconsistent in this point, for below we find subhakiṇho andvehapphalo as singular adjectives, where PTS and BJT consistently use the plural form. You’ve dwelt here so long that you’ve forgotten about that, so you don’t know it or see it. Brahmā also forgets his origins at DN 1:2.2.1. But I know it and see it. So Divinity, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.
There is the realm named after the gods of universal beauty … There is the realm named after the gods of abundant fruit, which you don’t know or see. MS adds a fourth class here, abhibhū (“the Vanquisher”), which is not supported by PTS or BJT, or the Chinese parallel. But I know it and see it. So Divinity, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.
Since directly knowing earth as earth, and since directly knowing that which does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by earth, I have not become earth, I have not become in earth, I have not become as earth, I have not become one who thinks ‘earth is mine’, I have not affirmed earth. This difficult passage directly echoes MN 1:3.3. | Anubhūta has its normal sense of “experiences”, “undergoes” (Thig 10.1:8.2, more commonly paccanubhūta, eg. MN 79:8.1, SN 15.1:1.14). Commentary has appattaṁ, “not attained” (i.e. not within the scope of absorption). | That which “falls within the scope of experience characterized by earth” (yāvatā pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṁ) is sense experience and the four absorptions; that which does not fall in such a scope are the formless attainments and especially Nibbana. | For nāhosiṁ (prefer over MS nāpahosiṁ) the commentary glosses “grasps”. The sense is that he does not identify. | For abhivadati, compare Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.14, which says that so long as there is the appearance of duality, one sees, hears, smells, “speaks about” (abhivadati), “conceives” (manute), and “cognizes” (vijānāti) particulars. Notice that this employs abhivadati alongside manute, just as abhivadati in the Pali appears alongside where maññati appears in MN 1:3.3. So Divinity, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.
Since directly knowing water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Progenitor … the Divinity … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods of universal beauty … the gods of abundant fruit … the Vanquisher … Since directly knowing all as all, and since directly knowing that which does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by all, I have not become all, I have not become in all, I have not become as all, I have not become one who thinks ‘all is mine’, I have not affirmed all. This whole passage seems designed to culminate with “experience characterized by all” (sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṁ) in answer to Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.5.19, which says that “this self that experiences all is divinity” (ayam ātmā brahma sarvānubhūḥ). In surpassing even the “experience of all” the Buddha unequivocally asserts his superiority to the Upaniṣadic teaching. So Divinity, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.’
‘Well, good sir, if you have directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by all, may that not be vacuous and hollow for you! The close -ti in MS edition indicates the end of Baka’s speech, but this is not found in PTS or BJT editions. If the close -ti is accepted here, then the next paragraph is spoken by the Buddha and it should also end with close -ti, but no edition has this. We would also expect the Buddha to use a vocative, but there is none. The only reading that is both coherent and attested is that Baka’s speech begins here and ends when he says he will vanish. This is supported by the Chinese parallel, which while lacking an exact equivalent, attributes a similar claim to Brahmā (MA 78 at T i 548b11).
Consciousness where nothing appears, These two lines are a fragment of verse found in full at DN 11:85.18. Baka is asserting that what the Buddha has described is none other than the domain of “infinite consciousness”, which is one of the highest attainments attributed to Brahmanical sages. | “Where nothing appears” (anidassanaṁ) here is a synonym for “formless” (see eg. MN 21:14.8, “space is formless and invisible”, ākāso arūpī anidassano). Normally the colors and images seen in the “form” absorptions are described as “visible” (eg. DN 16:3.29.1), so this indicates the formless attainments. infinite, luminous all-round.
That is what does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Progenitor, the Divinity, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods of universal beauty, the gods of abundant fruit, the Vanquisher, and the all.
Well look now, good sir, I will vanish from you!’
‘All right, then, Divinity, vanish from me—if you can.’
Then Baka the Divinity said, ‘I will vanish from the ascetic Gotama! I will vanish from the ascetic Gotama!’ But he was unable to vanish from me. Since he believes the dimension of infinite consciousness is that which the Buddha speaks of, he mistakenly assumes he has the power.
So I said to him, ‘Well now, Divinity, I will vanish from you!’
‘All right, then, good sir, vanish from me—if you can.’
Then I used my psychic power to will that my voice would extend so that Divinity, his assembly, and his retinue would hear me, but they would not see me. This is a dramatic expression of the philosophical gulf between the Buddha and Baka. Baka’s power manifests as “light”, whereas the Buddha demonstrates invisibility. And while vanished I recited this verse:
‘Seeing the danger in continued existence—The Buddha shifts the focus from the attainment of a state of exalted consciousness to the cessation of existence. that life in any existence will cease to be—Following Bodhi and Critical Pali Dictionary in reading vibhavesi. | The ca here answers to the last line of the verse. I didn’t affirm any kind of existence, and didn’t grasp at relishing.’
Then the Divinity, his assembly, and his retinue, their minds full of wonder and amazement, thought, ‘Oh, how incredible, how amazing! The ascetic Gotama has such psychic power and might! We’ve never before seen or heard of any other ascetic or brahmin with psychic power and might like the ascetic Gotama, who has gone forth from the Sakyan clan. Though people enjoy continued existence, loving it so much, he has extracted it, root and all.’
Then Māra the Wicked took possession of a member of the retinue of Divinity and said this to me, ‘If such is your understanding, good sir, do not present it to your disciples or those gone forth! The verb upanesi here is used above at MN 49:5.12 in the opposite case, where Māra “presents” Brahmā’s assembly to the Buddha. Do not teach this Dhamma to your disciples or those gone forth! Do not wish this for your disciples or those gone forth!
There have been ascetics and brahmins before you, mendicant, who claimed to be perfected ones, fully awakened Buddhas. They presented, taught, and wished this for their disciples and those gone forth. When their bodies broke up and their breath was cut off they were reborn in a lower realm.
But there have also been other ascetics and brahmins before you, mendicant, who claimed to be perfected ones, fully awakened Buddhas. They did not present, teach, or wish this for their disciples and those gone forth. When their bodies broke up and their breath was cut off they were reborn in a higher realm.
So, mendicant, I tell you this: please, good sir, remain passive, dwelling in blissful meditation in this life, for this is better left unsaid. Good sir, do not instruct others.’
When he had spoken, I said to Māra, ‘I know you, Wicked One. Do not think, “He doesn’t know me.” You are Māra the Wicked. You don’t speak to me like this out of sympathy, but with no sympathy. For you think, “Those who the ascetic Gotama teaches will go beyond my reach.”
Those who formerly claimed to be fully awakened Buddhas were not in fact fully awakened Buddhas. But I am. The Realized One remains as such whether or not he teaches disciples. The Realized One remains as such whether or not he presents the teaching to disciples. Why is that? Because the Realized One has given up the defilements that are corrupting, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death. He has cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, obliterated them so they are unable to arise in the future. Just as a palm tree with its crown cut off is incapable of further growth, the Realized One has given up the defilements that are corrupting, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death. He has cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, obliterated them so they are unable to arise in the future.’”
And so, because of the silencing of Māra, and because of the invitation of the Divinity, the name of this discussion is “On the Invitation of Divinity”.
