The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha - Bhikkhu Nanamoli [227]
“The Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī came here, householder.”
“Venerable sir, did you have some conversation with him?”
“I had some conversation with him, householder.”
“What was your conversation with him like, venerable sir?”
Then the Blessed One related to the householder Upāli his entire conversation with the Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī.
10. When this was said, the householder Upāli said to the Blessed One: “Good, good, venerable sir, on the part of Tapassī! The Nigaṇṭha Dīgha Tapassī has answered the Blessed One like a well-taught disciple who understands his teacher’s dispensation rightly. What does the trivial mental rod count for in comparison with the gross bodily rod? On the contrary, the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”
“Householder, if you will debate on the basis of truth, we might have some conversation about this.”
“I will debate on the basis of truth, venerable sir, so let us have some conversation about this.”
11. “What do you think, householder? Here some Nigaṇṭha might be afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill [with an illness needing treatment by cold water, which his vows prohibit] and he might refuse cold water [though mentally longing for it] and use only [the permissible] hot water [thus keeping his vows bodily and verbally]. Because he does not get cold water he might die. Now, householder, where would the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe his rebirth [as taking place]?”
“Venerable sir, there are gods called ‘mind-bound’; he would be reborn there. Why is that? Because when he died he was still bound [by attachment] in the mind.”583
“Householder, householder, pay attention how you reply! What you said afterwards does not agree with what you said before, nor does what you said before agree with what you said afterwards. Yet you made this statement: ‘I will debate on the basis of truth, venerable sir, so let us have some conversation about this.’”
“Venerable sir, although the Blessed One has spoken thus, yet the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”584
12. “What do you think, [377] householder? Here some Nigaṇṭha might be restrained with four checks—curbed by all curbs, clamped by all curbs, cleansed by all curbs, and claimed by all curbs585—and yet when going forward and returning he brings about the destruction of many small living beings. What result does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for him?”
“Venerable sir, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta does not describe what is unintended as greatly reprehensible.”
“But if one intends it, householder?”
“Then it is greatly reprehensible, venerable sir.”
“But under which [of the three rods] does the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe volition, householder?”
“Under the mental rod, venerable sir.”586
“Householder, householder, pay attention how you reply! What you said afterwards does not agree with what you said before, nor does what you said before agree with what you said afterwards. Yet you made this statement: ‘I will debate on the basis of truth, venerable sir, so let us have some conversation about this.’”
“Venerable sir, although the Blessed One has spoken thus, yet the bodily rod is the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.”
13. “What do you think, householder? Is this town of Nāḷandā successful and prosperous, is it populous and crowded with people?”
“Yes, venerable sir, it is.”
“What do you think, householder? Suppose a