The Middle-Length Suttas Collection 103

Is This What You Think Of Me?

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kusinārā, in the Forest of Offerings. There the Buddha addressed the bhikkhus, “Bhikkhus!”

“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

“Bhikkhus, is this what you think of me? ‘The ascetic Gotama teaches the Dhamma for the sake of robes, almsfood, lodgings, or rebirth in this or that state.’”

“No sir, we don’t think of you that way.”

“If you don’t think of me that way, then what exactly do you think of me?”

“We think of you this way: ‘The Buddha is compassionate and wants what’s best for us. He teaches out of compassion.’”

“So it seems you think that I teach out of compassion.

In that case, each and every one of you should train in the things I have taught from my direct knowledge, that is: the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening factors, and the noble eightfold path. You should train in these things in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling.

As you do so, it may happen that two bhikkhus disagree about the teaching.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables disagree on both the meaning and the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever bhikkhu you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables disagree on the meaning and the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such disagreement on the meaning and the phrasing comes to be. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ Then they should approach whichever bhikkhu they think is most amenable among those who side with the other party and say to them: ‘The venerables disagree on the meaning and the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such disagreement on the meaning and the phrasing comes to be. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ So you should remember what has been incorrectly memorized as incorrectly memorized and what has been correctly memorized as correctly memorized. Remembering this, you should speak on the teaching and the training.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables disagree on the meaning but agree on the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever bhikkhu you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables disagree on the meaning but agree on the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such disagreement on the meaning and agreement on the phrasing comes to be. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ Then they should approach whichever bhikkhu they think is most amenable among those who side with the other party and say to them: ‘The venerables disagree on the meaning but agree on the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such disagreement on the meaning and agreement on the phrasing comes to be. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ So you should remember what has been incorrectly memorized as incorrectly memorized and what has been correctly memorized as correctly memorized. Remembering this, you should speak on the teaching and the training.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables agree on the meaning but disagree on the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever bhikkhu you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on the meaning but disagree on the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such agreement on the meaning and disagreement on the phrasing comes to be. But the phrasing is a minor matter. Please don’t get into a dispute about something so minor.’ Then they should approach whichever bhikkhu they think is most amenable among those who side with the other party and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on the meaning but disagree on the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how such agreement on the meaning and disagreement on the phrasing comes to be. But the phrasing is a minor matter. Please don’t get into a dispute about something so minor.’ So you should remember what has been correctly memorized as correctly memorized and what has been incorrectly memorized as incorrectly memorized. Remembering this, you should speak on the teaching and the training.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables agree on both the meaning and the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever bhikkhu you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on both the meaning and the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how they come to agree on the meaning and the phrasing. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ Then they should approach whichever bhikkhu they think is most amenable among those who side with the other party and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on both the meaning and the phrasing. But the venerables should know that this is how they come to agree on the meaning and the phrasing. Please don’t get into a dispute about this.’ So you should remember what has been correctly memorized as correctly memorized. Remembering this, you should speak on the teaching and the training.

As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, one of the bhikkhus might commit an offense or transgression. In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this: ‘I won’t be troubled and the other individual won’t be hurt, for they’re not irritable and hostile. They don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and hostile. However, they don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for the other individual to get hurt is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled but the other individual won’t be hurt, for they’re not irritable and hostile. However, they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. Nevertheless, I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for me to be troubled is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and hostile. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. Nevertheless, I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for me to be troubled and the other individual to get hurt is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and hostile. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity for such a person.

As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, mutual tale-bearing might come up, with contempt for each other’s views, resentful, bitter, and exasperated. In this case you should approach whichever bhikkhu you think is most amenable among those who side with one party and say to them: ‘Friend, as we were training, mutual tale-bearing came up. If the Ascetic knew about this, would he rebuke it?’ Answering rightly, the bhikkhu should say: ‘Yes, friend, he would.’ ‘But without giving that up, friend, can one realize Nibbana?’ Answering rightly, the bhikkhu should say: ‘No, friend, one cannot.’

Then they should approach whichever bhikkhu they think is most amenable among those who side with the other party and say to them: ‘Friend, as we were training, mutual tale-bearing came up. If the Ascetic knew about this, would he rebuke it?’ Answering rightly, the bhikkhu should say: ‘Yes, friend, he would.’ ‘But without giving that up, friend, can one realize Nibbana?’ Answering rightly, the bhikkhu should say: ‘No, friend, one cannot.’

If others should ask that bhikkhu: ‘Were you the venerable who drew those bhikkhus away from the unskillful and established them in the skillful?’ Answering rightly, the bhikkhu should say: ‘Well, friends, I approached the Buddha. He taught me the Dhamma. After hearing that teaching I explained it to those bhikkhus. When those bhikkhus heard that teaching they were drawn away from the unskillful and established in the skillful.’ Answering in this way, that bhikkhu doesn’t glorify themselves or put others down. They answer in line with the teaching, with no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the bhikkhus approved what the Buddha said.