Milindapañha

Translators: kelly

Milinda's Questions

Addhānavagga
Time Chapter

6. Nāmarūpaekattanānattapañha

Question on the Identity or Difference of Name-and-Form

Rājā āha—
The king asked:

“bhante nāgasena, ko paṭisandahatī”ti?
“Venerable Nāgasena, what reconnects?”

Thero āha—
The elder said:

“nāmarūpaṁ kho, mahārāja, paṭisandahatī”ti.
“Name-and-form, your majesty, reconnects.”

“Kiṁ imaṁyeva nāmarūpaṁ paṭisandahatī”ti?
“Does this very name-and-form reconnect?”

“Na kho, mahārāja, imaṁyeva nāmarūpaṁ paṭisandahati, iminā pana, mahārāja, nāmarūpena kammaṁ karoti sobhanaṁ vā pāpakaṁ vā, tena kammena aññaṁ nāmarūpaṁ paṭisandahatī”ti.
“This very name-and-form, your majesty, does not reconnect. With this name-and-form one performs a lovely or an evil action, and by this action another name-and-form reconnects.”

“Yadi, bhante, na imaṁ yeva nāmarūpaṁ paṭisandahati, nanu so mutto bhavissati pāpakehi kammehī”ti?
“If, venerable sir, this very name-and-form does not reconnect, is it not then that it would be freed from evil actions?”

Thero āha—
The elder said:

“yadi na paṭisandaheyya, mutto bhaveyya pāpakehi kammehi.
“If it would not reconnect, then it would be freed from evil actions.

Yasmā ca kho, mahārāja, paṭisandahati, tasmā na mutto pāpakehi kammehī”ti.
But because, your majesty, it does reconnect, it therefore is not freed from evil actions.”

“Opammaṁ karohī”ti.
“Please give me an analogy.”

“Yathā, mahārāja, kocideva puriso aññatarassa purisassa ambaṁ avahareyya, tamenaṁ ambasāmiko gahetvā rañño dasseyya ‘iminā, deva, purisena mayhaṁ ambā avahaṭā’ti, so evaṁ vadeyya ‘nāhaṁ, deva, imassa ambe avaharāmi, aññe te ambā, ye iminā ropitā, aññe te ambā, ye mayā avahaṭā, nāhaṁ daṇḍappatto’ti.
“Just as, your majesty, some person or other might steal another person’s mangos, and the mango owner might grab that person and point him out to the king, saying ‘My mangos have been stolen by this man.’ And he might say ‘Lord, I did not steal this person’s mangos. Those mangos I took are not the same as those that this person planted; I do not deserve punishment.’

Kiṁ nu kho so, mahārāja, puriso daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti?
Would that man, your majesty, deserve punishment?”

“Āma, bhante, daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti.
“Yes, venerable sir, he would deserve punishment.”

“Kena kāraṇenā”ti?
“For what reason?”

“Kiñcāpi so evaṁ vadeyya, purimaṁ, bhante, ambaṁ appaccakkhāya pacchimena ambena so puriso daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti.
“Whatever he might say, venerable sir, while not disavowing the earlier mangos, he would be deserving of punishment due to the later mangos.”

“Evameva kho, mahārāja, iminā nāmarūpena kammaṁ karoti sobhanaṁ vā pāpakaṁ vā, tena kammena aññaṁ nāmarūpaṁ paṭisandahati, tasmā na mutto pāpakehi kammehī”ti.
“In the same way, your majesty, with this name-and-form one performs a lovely or an evil action, and by this action another name-and-form reconnects. Therefore, one is not freed from evil actions.”

“Bhiyyo opammaṁ karohī”ti.
“Give me another analogy.”

“Yathā, mahārāja, kocideva puriso aññatarassa purisassa sāliṁ avahareyya …pe…
“Just as, your majesty, some person or other might steal another person’s rice, …

ucchuṁ avahareyya …pe…
sugar-cane …

yathā, mahārāja, koci puriso hemantakāle aggiṁ jāletvā visibbetvā avijjhāpetvā pakkameyya, atha kho so aggi aññatarassa purisassa khettaṁ ḍaheyya, tamenaṁ khettasāmiko gahetvā rañño dasseyya ‘iminā, deva, purisena mayhaṁ khettaṁ daḍḍhan’ti.
Just as, your majesty, some person or other might light a fire during the wintertime, and warm himself, and might leave without having extinguished it, and that fire might burn another person’s field. And the owner of the field might grab that person and point him out to the king, saying ‘My field has been burned by this man.’

So evaṁ vadeyya ‘nāhaṁ, deva, imassa khettaṁ jhāpemi, añño so aggi, yo mayā avijjhāpito, añño so aggi, yenimassa khettaṁ daḍḍhaṁ, nāhaṁ daṇḍappatto’ti.
And he might say ‘Lord, I did not set fire to this person’s field. The fire I did not extinguish was not the same as the fire that burned this person’s field; I do not deserve punishment.’

Kiṁ nu kho so, mahārāja, puriso daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti?
Would that man, your majesty, deserve punishment?”

“Āma, bhante, daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti.
“Yes, venerable sir, he would deserve punishment.”

“Kena kāraṇenā”ti?
“For what reason?”

“Kiñcāpi so evaṁ vadeyya, purimaṁ, bhante, aggiṁ appaccakkhāya pacchimena agginā so puriso daṇḍappatto bhaveyyā”ti.
“Whatever he might say, venerable sir, while not disavowing the earlier fire, he would be deserving of punishment by means of the later fire.”

“Bhiyyo opammaṁ karohī”ti.
“Give me another analogy.”

“Yathā, mahārāja, kocideva puriso padīpaṁ ādāya pāsādaṁ abhirūhitvā bhuñjeyya, padīpo jhāyamāno tiṇaṁ jhāpeyya, tiṇaṁ jhāyamānaṁ gharaṁ jhāpeyya, gharaṁ jhāyamānaṁ gāmaṁ jhāpeyya, gāmajano taṁ purisaṁ gahetvā evaṁ vadeyya ‘kissa tvaṁ, bho purisa, gāmaṁ jhāpesī’ti, so evaṁ vadeyya ‘nāhaṁ, bho, gāmaṁ jhāpemi, añño so padīpaggi, yassāhaṁ ālokena bhuñjiṁ, añño so aggi, yena gāmo jhāpito’ti, te vivadamānā tava santike āgaccheyyuṁ, kassa tvaṁ, mahārāja, aṭṭaṁ dhāreyyāsī”ti?
“Just as, your majesty, some person or other, having taken a lamp and ascended to the top of a mansion, might use it, and the burning lamp might set fire to the roof thatch, and the burning thatch might set fire to the house, and the burning house might set fire to the village, and the villagers, having seized that man, might say, ‘Why, sir, did you set fire to the village?’ And he might say ‘I did not, friend, set fire to the village. The fire in the lamp whose light I enjoyed was not the same as the fire that burned the village.’ And if they were to come before you while arguing, whose side of the argument, your majesty, would you support?”

“Gāmajanassa, bhante”ti.
“That of the villagers, venerable sir.”

“Kiṁ kāraṇā”ti?
“For what reason?”

“Kiñcāpi so evaṁ vadeyya, api ca tato eva so aggi nibbatto”ti.
“Since, whatever he might say, this fire was produced just from that one.”

“Evameva kho, mahārāja, kiñcāpi aññaṁ māraṇantikaṁ nāmarūpaṁ, aññaṁ paṭisandhismiṁ nāmarūpaṁ, api ca tatoyeva taṁ nibbattaṁ, tasmā na mutto pāpakehi kammehī”ti.
“In the same way, your majesty, whatever name-and form that has death as its end, another name-and-form is in reconnection, and it was produced just from that one. Therefore, one is not freed from evil actions.”

“Bhiyyo opammaṁ karohī”ti.
“Give me another analogy.”

“Yathā, mahārāja, kocideva puriso dahariṁ dārikaṁ vāretvā suṅkaṁ datvā pakkameyya.
“Just as, your majesty, some person or other, having contracted for a young girl in marriage and having paid the bride price, might leave.

Sā aparena samayena mahatī assa vayappattā, tato añño puriso suṅkaṁ datvā vivāhaṁ kareyya, itaro āgantvā evaṁ vadeyya ‘kissa pana me tvaṁ, ambho purisa, bhariyaṁ nesī’ti?
Then, after some time, she would reach full marriageable age, then another man, having paid the bride price would lead her away in marriage. The former man would come and say, ‘Why, sir, have you led away my wife?’

So evaṁ vadeyya ‘nāhaṁ tava bhariyaṁ nemi, aññā sā dārikā daharī taruṇī, yā tayā vāritā ca dinnasuṅkā ca, aññāyaṁ dārikā mahatī vayappattā mayā vāritā ca dinnasuṅkā cā’ti, te vivadamānā tava santike āgaccheyyuṁ.
And he might say ‘I have not led away your wife. The young girl for whom you have contracted and paid the bride price is not the same as the young woman who has attained marriageable age and been contracted for and paid for by me.’ And if they were to come before you while arguing,

Kassa tvaṁ, mahārāja, aṭṭaṁ dhāreyyāsī”ti?
whose side of the argument, your majesty, would you support?”

“Purimassa, bhante”ti.
“That of the former man, venerable sir.”

“Kiṁ kāraṇā”ti?
“For what reason?”

“Kiñcāpi so evaṁ vadeyya, api ca tatoyeva sā mahatī nibbattā”ti.
“Since, whatever he might say, this grown woman was produced just from that one.”

“Evameva kho, mahārāja, kiñcāpi aññaṁ māraṇantikaṁ nāmarūpaṁ, aññaṁ paṭisandhismiṁ nāmarūpaṁ, api ca tatoyeva taṁ nibbattaṁ, tasmā naparimutto pāpakehi kammehī”ti.
“In the same way, your majesty, whatever name-and form that has death as its end, another name-and-form is in reconnection, and it was produced just from that one. Therefore, one is not freed from evil actions.”

“Bhiyyo opammaṁ karohī”ti.
“Give me another analogy.”

“Yathā, mahārāja, kocideva puriso gopālakassa hatthato khīraghaṭaṁ kiṇitvā tasseva hatthe nikkhipitvā pakkameyya ‘sve gahetvā gamissāmī’ti, taṁ aparajju dadhi sampajjeyya.
“Just as, your majesty, some person or other, having bought a pot of milk from the hand of a cowherd, might put it in his care and leave, saying, ‘I will come back for it tomorrow,’ and that milk would become curds.

So āgantvā evaṁ vadeyya ‘dehi me khīraghaṭan’ti.
Then, he might come back and say ‘Give me my pot of milk.’

So dadhiṁ dasseyya.
And the cowherd would show him the curds.

Itaro evaṁ vadeyya ‘nāhaṁ tava hatthato dadhiṁ kiṇāmi, dehi me khīraghaṭan’ti.
The other would then say, ‘I did not buy curds from you, give me my pot of milk.’

So evaṁ vadeyya ‘ajānato te khīraṁ dadhibhūtan’ti te vivadamānā tava santike āgaccheyyuṁ, kassa tvaṁ, mahārāja, aṭṭaṁ dhāreyyāsī”ti?
Then, that one would say, ‘Without you knowing it, the milk has become curds.’ And if they were to come before you while arguing, whose side of the argument, your majesty, would you support?”

“Gopālakassa, bhante”ti.
“That of the cowherd, venerable sir.”

“Kiṁ kāraṇā”ti?
“For what reason?”

“Kiñcāpi so evaṁ vadeyya, api ca tato yeva taṁ nibbattan”ti.
“Since, whatever he might say, this one was produced just from that one.”

“Evameva kho, mahārāja, kiñcāpi aññaṁ māraṇantikaṁ nāmarūpaṁ, aññaṁ paṭisandhismiṁ nāmarūpaṁ, api ca tato yeva taṁ nibbattaṁ, tasmā na parimutto pāpakehi kammehī”ti.
“In the same way, your majesty, whatever name-and form that has death as its end, another name-and-form is in reconnection, and it was produced just from that one. Therefore, one is not freed from evil actions.”

“Kallosi, bhante nāgasenā”ti.
“You are clever, venerable Nāgasena!”

Nāmarūpaekattanānattapañho chaṭṭho.
Question on the Identity or Difference of Name-and-Form sixth