Buddhism in India

The Dhamma 73

first creepers, and then rice, and as their bodies grow more and

more solid, they become differentiated into male and female;

immorality develops. As evil and immoral customs grow, the rice

ceases to replenish itself automatically, and people begin to divide

the rice fields, setting up boundaries between them.

Now some being...of greedy disposition, watching over his own plot,

stole another plot and made use of it. They took him and holding him

fast, said: Truly, good being, thou has wrought evil in that...See, good

being, that thou do not such a thing again! Ay, sirs, he replied. And a

second time he did so. And yet a third. And again they took him and

admonished him. Some smote him with the hand, some with clods,

some with sticks. With such a beginning, Vasettha, did stealing

appear, and censure and lying and punishment became known (Digha

Nikaya III, 1921: 87).

After this the people decide to choose a king to enforce justice and

punishment. He is variously described as Mahasammata which

means ‘chosen by the whole people,’ Khattiyya, or ‘Lord of the

Fields’ and Raja, ‘He who charms by the Dhamma.’

The story of the origin of the king is a story of the origin of the

Khattiyas, who are considered by Buddhists to be supreme among

the four sections. Following this the origin of the Brahmans is

described, (they are described as being related to meditation and

learning), with the comment that ‘at that time they were looked

upon as the lowest; now they are thought the best’, followed by the

Vessas (described as those who follow various or ‘vessa’ trades)

and the Suddas, those who ‘live by hunting and suchlike trifling

pursuits’. It is however emphasised that all can be good or bad, all

can become bhikkus. Not only does the tale have no gods; humans

themselves are depicted as originally spirit-like, but gradually, in a

process of cause-and-effect and not through some inherent ‘essential’

nature, falling into disorder and crime.

The differences between Buddhism and Brahmanism as given in

the story about the origin of the state is only the beginning of

differences. In Buddhism, the ideal king is described as a universal

emperor or ‘cakkavatti’, a wheel-ruler. Both Buddhist and Jain

traditions see their teachers as having the potentiality, at birth, of

becoming either a Buddha (or tirthankara) or a cakkavatti king.

However, whereas in Jain literature the gap between the samanas

and the worldly life remains acute, so that the king is often shown

man.... For (the king’s) sake, the Lord in ancient times emitted the

Rod of Punishment, his own son, (the incarnation of) Justice, to be the

protector of all living beings, made of the brilliant energy of ultimate

reality.... The Rod is the king and the man, he is the inflictor and he

is the chastiser, traditionally regarded as the guarantor for the duty of

the four stags of life.... The whole world is mastered by punishment,

for an unpolluted man is hard to find. Through fear of punishment,

everything that moves allows itself to be used.... The king was created

as the protector of the classes and the stages of life, that are appoint

each to its own particular duty, in proper order (7, 1–35).

These are selections from the first 35 stanzas of the chapter; in
them the emphasis is on the divinity of the king and his danda, or
rod of punishment. There is not a single word of welfare; the state
is associated with ‘legitimate violence’ or punishment. And it is
specifically the caste system and ideal stages of life which are to be
protected and enforced upon the population. This is a major theme
running through the later epics and shastras. Not only is Rama, the
ideal king, depicted as killing Shambuk in order to protect the laws
of varna; he is also shown as killing the rakshasasof the forests at
the urging of the Brahman rishis. Kautilya, while considerably
more liberal than Manu, still does not stress upon welfare as a
responsibility of the king in the way the Buddhist texts do. The
17th century Maratha ruler Shivaji, who described himself in his
own inscriptions as maintaining welfare, is instead constantly
depicted in Hindu nationalist propaganda as ‘gobrahman pratipalak’.
From the Brahmanical viewpoint, the ‘protection of society’ begins
with the ‘protection of cows and Brahmans’.
A Buddhist story of the origin of kingship is given in the Aganna
Suttantaof the Digha Nikaya. The setting is a dispute about the
status of Brahmans, with Brahmans once again calling the bhikkus
‘shaveling friarfolk, menials, swarthy of skin, offspring of our kins-
man’s heels.’ The Buddha denies the relevance of birth, arguing
that good and evil can be done by people of all varnas, and then
tells a story of the origin of Brahmans, with no gods at all in it. It
depicts original humans, made up of mind, living on rapture, until
some develop a taste for savoury earth and their self-luminescence
fails. The result is the origin of night and day and the seasons, and
the development of solid bodies. From this, some begin to feel they
are more comely than others, and with this pride the savoury earth
they have fed on vanishes. They begin to eat growths from the soil,

72 Buddhism in India