Introduction

In this chapter I explore the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya. In addition to providing a translation of the Ekottarika-āgama version, the present chapter is in particular concerned with the information the Isigili-sutta and its parallel provide about the concept of a Paccekabuddha, a topic to which I will return in the next but one chapter on the Jiṇṇa-sutta.[n.1] Cf. below p. 249ff.

Whereas arahants and the Buddha are a recurrent feature in the early discourses, Paccekabuddhas are mentioned with considerable less frequency.[n.2] [1] In the words of Gombrich 1979: 80, "when the paccekabuddha is mentioned in Pali literature, it is usually only as the category between the sammāsambuddha and the sāvaka; the figure has hardly any life outside this context." One of the relatively rare instances where they do feature is the Isigili-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya.[n.3] [2] MN 116 at MN III 68,1 to 71,6. The discourse begins with the Buddha stating that Mount Isigili, which in contrast to other mountains around Rājagaha already had the same name in past times, had been the abode of several Paccekabuddhas. The Buddha then lists their names, after which he delivers a set of stanzas on various Paccekabuddhas and their qualities. The counterpart to the Isigili-sutta in the Ekottarika-āgama, translated below,[n.4] [3] The translated discourse is EĀ 38.7 at T II 723a6 to 723c5. helps to appreciate the significance of the Paccekabuddha in the early stages of Buddhist thought as reflected in the Pāli discourses and their Āgama parallels.

---

Translation

1. Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Rājagaha, on Mount Gijjhakūṭa,[n.5] [6] In MN 116 at MN III 68,2, the Buddha is staying on Mount Isigili itself. together with a great company of five hundred monks.

2. At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: "Do you see this Mount Gijjhakūṭa?" The monks replied: "Yes, we see it."

[The Buddha said]: "You should know that in the distant past this mountain had another name, [not the same as the present one].[n.6] [7] Adopting the variant 汝 instead of 卿. Do you also see this Mount Vepulla?" The monks replied: "Yes, we see it."

[The Buddha said]: "You should know that in the distant past this mountain had another name, not the same as the present one. Do you see this Mount Paṇḍava?" The monks replied: "Yes, we see it."

[The Buddha said]: "In the distant past this mountain had another name, not the same as the present one. Do you see this Mount Vebhāra?" The monks replied: "Yes, we see it."

[The Buddha said: "In the distant past this mountain had another name, not the same as the present one]. Do you see this Mountain of Seers?"[n.7] [8] Mount Isigili in MN 116 at MN III 68,21; on ºgili versus ºgiri, cf. the discussion below. The monks replied: "Yes, we see it."

3. [The Buddha said]: "In the distant past this mountain had the same name, not a different name. The reason is that this Mountain of Seers has always been a place inhabited by bodhi- sattvas possessed of spiritual power, by arahants who have attained awakening, and by seers. Moreover, Paccekabuddhas delighted in staying there. I will now tell you the names of these Paccekabuddhas.[n.8] [10] Before announcing the names of Paccekabuddhas, according to MN 116 at MN III 68,26 the Buddha reported a folk-etymological explanation for the name of the mountain; cf. the discussion below. You should listen and pay careful attention!

4. "There was a Paccekabuddha called Ariṭṭha,[n.9] [11] The lists of Paccekabuddhas in the two versions appear to have just three names in common, identified by the editor of the Taishō edition as Ariṭṭha, Upariṭṭha, and Sudassana. Besides the three names common to the two versions, MN 116 at MN III 69,9 lists Tagarasikhī, Yasassī, Piyadassī, Gandhāra, Piṇḍola, Upāsabha, Nītha, Tatha, Sutavā, and Bhāvitatta. Be, Ce, and Se designate each of these as a Paccekasambuddha, whereas Ee uses the expression Paccekabuddha. Similar variations can be found in regard to a listing of recipients of offerings in MN 142 at MN III 254,30, where Ce agrees with Ee in speaking of a Paccekabuddha, whereas Be and Se refer to a Paccekasambuddha. [a Paccekabuddha called] Upariṭṭha, a Paccekabuddha [called] Shěndìzhòng, a Paccekabuddha [called] Sudassana, a Paccekabuddha [called] Niṭṭha, a Paccekabuddha [called] Paṇḍita, a Paccekabuddha [called] Vimala, a Paccekabuddha [called] Dìshēniànguān, [a Paccekabuddha called] Anuruddha, [a Paccekabuddha called] Anidassana, [a Paccekabuddha called] Jina, [a Paccekabuddha called] Vijaya, [a Paccekabuddha called] Jídà, and a Paccekabuddha [called] Jíléidiànguāngmíng. "Monks, these were Paccekabuddhas at the time when the Tathāgata had not yet appeared in the world. At that time on this mountain there were five hundred Paccekabuddhas, who were dwelling on this Mount of Seers.[n.10] [23] From this point onwards, the two versions diverge completely and have nothing any more in common. When the Tathāgata was in the Tusita heaven, wishing to come and take birth, the devas of the Pure Abodes came here and each said: 'Let everywhere in the world this Buddha-field be purified! In two years a Tathāgata will appear in the world.'

"Having heard what the devas had said, the Paccekabuddhas all rose up into space and spoke this poem:

"'At the time when Buddhas have not yet appeared,
This place is a noble and sacred dwelling
For Paccekabuddhas who have awakened on their own
And always dwell on this mountain.
This is called the Mount of Seers,
Dwelled on by Paccekabuddhas,
By seers and arahants;
At no time is it bereft of them'.
"At that time the Paccekabuddhas autocombusted their bodies while being up in space and attained final Nirvāṇa. The reason is that there cannot be two [types of those] who are called Buddhas in the world, therefore they entered Nirvāṇa. [Just as] among travelling merchants there cannot be two leaders, and in one country there cannot be two kings, so in one Buddha-field there cannot be two [types of] honoured ones, this is the reason.

"In the distant past there was a king called Xǐyì in Rājagaha, who was constantly recollecting the suffering in hell, and also recollecting [the suffering] of hungry ghosts and in the animal realm. Then the king thought: 'Now, I constantly recollect the suffering in hell, in the animal realm, and among hungry ghosts.

It is not proper for me now to enter these three evil paths again. It is proper for me now to give up my rule over the country completely, [give up] my wife, children, and servants, and to go forth out of firm faith to practise the path.'

"Then the great King Xǐyì, being weary of such suffering, gave up his rule, shaved off his hair and beard, put on the three Dharma robes, and went forth to practise the path. He stayed in an empty and secluded place. Having disciplined himself, he contemplated the five aggregates. Contemplating them, he realized that they are impermanent, that is: 'This is bodily form, this is the arising of bodily form, this is the cessation of bodily form … feelings … perception … formations … consciousness is also like that. They are all impermanent.'

"When he was properly contemplating these five aggregates, that all that is of a nature to arise is of a nature to cease completely, having contemplated their nature, he accomplished the awakening of a Paccekabuddha. Then, when the Paccekabuddha Xǐyì had accomplished the fruit of awakening, he spoke this poem:

"'Recollecting the suffering in hell,
Among animals and in the five [lower] paths,
I renounced and now have practised the path.
Alone I depart, free from sorrow.'
"At that time this Paccekabuddha lived on the Mount of Seers. Monks, you should know, by this expedient means, knowing that on this mountain there have always dwelled bodhisattvas possessed of spiritual power, arahants who have attained awakening, and those who train in the path of seers. For this reason it is called the Mountain of Seers and has no other name.

"When no Tathāgata has appeared in the world, there are always devas who come to pay respect at this Mount of Seers.

The reason is that on this mountain there are only arahants, there are no deluded people.

"When Maitreya Buddha descends to this world, each of these mountains will have another name, but this Mountain of Seers will not have another name.[n.11] [26] A reference to Maitreya is not found in MN 116. In this auspicious aeon, this mountain will not have another name.

"Monks, you should frequent this mountain and hold it in high regard. That will in turn be for your benefit and welfare. Like this, monks, you should train yourselves."

Then the monks, having heard what the Buddha had said, delighted in it and received it respectfully.

---

Study

Placing the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika-āgama parallel side by side, a minor difference is that, although they agree on the names of the mountains enumerated by the Buddha, they differ in the sequence in which they list them. In the Isigili-sutta, this listing runs: (1) Vebhāra, (2) Paṇḍava, (3) Vepulla, (4) Gijjhakūṭa, (5) Isigili. Compared to the Pāli listing, the Ekottarika-āgama version has the sequence (4), (3), (2), (1), (5). Apart from the last item, which in any case stands out as the only mountain that does not change its name, the listings adopt precisely the reverse sequence.[n.12] [27] According to Ps IV 127,14, the Buddha had listed the mountains in order, paṭipātiyā. Thus the sequence in the two versions would presumably reflect a clockwise and an anti-clockwise survey of the mountains surrounding Rājagaha.

When it comes to the listing of Paccekabuddhas, the differences are more pronounced, as the two versions appear to have only three names in common. These three do, however, occur in nearly the same places, as Ariṭṭha and Upariṭṭha are the first and second in both versions, whereas Sudassana comes fifth in the Pāli listing and fourth in its Chinese counterpart.

Before coming to this list of Paccekabuddhas, each of the two discourses has a passage that is not found in the other version. In the case of the Ekottarika-āgama discourse, the passage not found in its Pāli parallel indicates that there had been "bodhisattvas possessed of spiritual power" among those who inhabited this mountain in the past. This reference to bodhisattvas seems to reflect a developed stage of the bodhisattva concept, not attested to in the Pāli discourses and other Āgamas.[n.13] [28] The present instance exemplifies a recurrent tendency in the Ekottarika-āgama of incorporating a type of thought that came to particular prominence with the Mahāyāna; cf. in more detail below p. 443ff. The passage found only in the Isigili-sutta gives the following information on the mountain:

In former times five hundred Paccekabuddhas had for a long time been dwelling on this Mount Isigili. They were seen entering this mountain, and having entered they were no longer seen. Hence people, on seeing this, spoke like this: "This mountain swallows up (gilati) those seers (isi)" – thus the name "Isigili", "Isigili" arose as its designation.[n.14] [29] MN 116 at MN III 68,25: bhūtapubbaṃ … pañca paccekabuddhasatāni imasmiṃ isigilismiṃ pabbate ciranivāsino ahesuṃ. te imaṃ pabbataṃ pavisantā dissanti, paviṭṭhā na dissanti. tam enaṃ (Ce: ena) manussā disvā evam āhaṃsu: ayaṃ pabbato ime isī gilatī ti; isigili, isigili (Ce and Se: isigilī for the second instance) tveva samaññā udapādi; on the expression bhūtapubbaṃ cf. Tanabe 2002/2003.

The Ekottarika-āgama version refers to this mountain as 仙人 山, which suggests that the name found in its Indic original would have been Isigiri / Ṛṣigiri. The name Ṛṣigiri is attested, for example, in the Mahābhārata as the name of one of the mountains surrounding Rājagaha.[n.15] [30] Mbh 2.799, noted by Lüders 1954: 45; cf. also Law 1938/1991: 3 and 10 as well as Bapat and Hirakawa 1970: 220 note 28. This gives the impression that the etymology proposed in the Pāli version would have arisen only after the equivalence between Middle Indo-Aryan ºgili and ºgiri was no longer understood and ºgili was felt to be in need of some explanation, which then led to imagining a relation to gilati.[n.16] [31] Caillat 1968: 178. On the relationship of Middle Indo-Aryan l to Sanskrit r cf., e.g., Pischel 1900/1981: 210–213 (§§256–259), Geiger 1916: 59 (§44), Lüders 1954: 31–76 (§§25–86, of which §37 is specifically on gilati and §43 on Isigili), Lamotte 1958/1988: 560 (who refers to the discussion of the Laghulovāda by Lévi 1912, on which cf. also Lévi 1896), von Hinüber 1985/2001: 176 (§ 217), and Norman 1994/1996: 99. This in turn implies that this etymology would be a later addition to the discourse. In this way both versions, alongside considerable similarities, show signs of what appear to be later developments.

The remaining parts of both discourses then proceed quite differently from each other. Before coming to an overall assessment of the Isigili-sutta and its parallel, in what follows I explore the information on Paccekabuddhas provided in these sections of the two versions, especially regarding the significance of the qualification pacceka, the solitary nature of Paccekabuddhas, and their inability to co-exist with a Buddha.

After listing the names of Paccekabuddhas that lived on the Mount of Seers, the Isigili-sutta continues with a set of stanzas which describe the qualities of several other Paccekabuddhas;[n.17] [32] Winternitz 1920/1968: 37 considers this listing of names in prose and then in verse to be a sign of lateness, as this type of pattern is more frequent in later Buddhist Sanskrit literature; cf. also Barua 1971/2003: 530. the discourse then ends without the standard conclusion found in other Pāli discourses. This set of stanzas is still in use nowadays in the Theravāda tradition as a protective chant, a paritta.[n.18] [33] Kloppenborg 1983: 42 comments that "images of Paccekabuddhas were used for the purpose of protection. This could well be the outcome of their reputation for extended practice of mettā, popularly believed to be a protective power which counteracts inimical influences", a protective power she then suggests to underlie the use of the Isigili-sutta as a paritta; cf. also Cooray 2004: 246.

Regarding these Paccekabuddhas, the Pāli stanzas specify that they had awakened in a way that is pacceka.[n.19] [34] MN 116 at MN III 69,25: paccekam ev' ajjhagamuṃ subodhiṃ (Be: ajjhagamaṃ). The term pacceka occurs elsewhere in the Pāli discourses to qualify truth, paccekasacca.[n.20] [35] AN 4.38 at AN II 41,6; cf. also, e.g., DN 33 at DN III 269,12 (= DN 34 at DN III 291,5), AN 10.20 at AN V 30,7 (whose introductory section = AN 10.19 at AN V 29,12), and Sn 824, as well as Mvy no. 426, Sakaki 1926: 35. In that context, the term refers to various views held by other recluses and brahmins, hence it conveys the meaning of an "individual truth" or perhaps a "private truth", in the sense of a personal opinion held to be true.[n.21] [36] Cf. Jayatilleke 1963/1980: 354–356.

In other passages, the word pacceka designates ladies of the royal household, paccekā itthī, each of whom is seated on a separate elephant when accompanying the king during an outing.[n.22] [37] DN 2 at DN I 49,30. Another occurrence qualifies gods who reign in their own respective heavenly sphere, pacceka vasavattin.[n.23] [38] DN 20 at DN II 261,16.

Other instances describe an offering of pairs of robes, pacceka dussayuga, given to each of the monks present on that occasion;[n.24] [39] MN 52 at MN I 353,13. or stanzas, pacceka-gāthā, each of which is spoken by one out of a group of devas in turn.[n.25] [40] DN 20 at DN II 253,16 and SN 1.37 at SN I 26,14; a usage also found in the Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1977: 121,9: pratyekapratyekaṃ gāthābhir abhiṣṭuyāma, in which case the Chinese counterpart, T 1450 at T XXIV 125a2, reads "each", 各, and the Tibetan counterpart, Waldschmidt 1957: 75,11, "each one", re res.

The sense conveyed by these occurrences of pacceka is that of being "individual", "separate", or "private".[n.26] [41] Cooray 2004: 250 note 1 sums up that pacceka in the Pāli discourses conveys "the idea of separation". This usage suggests that the qualification pacceka in the stanza in the Isigili-sutta is intended to convey that a paccekabuddha is one who attains awakening individually. Other discourses in the Ekottarika-āgama confirm that Paccekabuddhas awaken on their own, without a teacher.[n.27] [42] EĀ 26.9 at T II 642b20 and EĀ 51.3 at T II 816c5: 無師自覺. Nyanatiloka 1952/1988: 140 sums up that according to tradition a Paccekabuddha "has realized Nibbāna without having heard the Buddha's doctrine from others. He comprehends the four noble truths individually (pacceka), independent of any teacher, by his own effort."

An alternative interpretation suggested by Norman (1983b) is that pacceka or its Sanskrit equivalent pratyeka could be an incorrect backformation from pratyaya.[n.28] [43] Cf. also Boucher 1998: 491. However, von Hinüber 1985/2001: 193 (§248) prefers the suggestion by Smith that the derivation is from *prāpteyabuddha; cf. also Schmithausen 1999: 249. On this interpretation, the idea behind this particular type of Buddha would be that they awaken owing to an external "condition" (pratyaya), in that some external stimulus or peculiar event leads to their awakening.

This interpretation would suit a set of stories held in common by the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which report how four kings reached awakening because of some external condition.[n.29] [44] The text of these tales can be found in Jacobi 1886: 34–55; for comparative studies of the Buddhist and Jain versions of these narrations cf., e.g., Pavolini 1899, Charpentier 1908, and Wiltshire 1990: 118–166. In the Pāli canon, these tales are found in the Jātaka collection. The external signs that caused these kings to develop insight and become Paccekabuddhas were:

• the sight of a mango tree despoiled of its fruit,
• the sound caused by two bangles on the arm of a woman,[n.30] [45] This image can already be found in Sn 48; cf. below note 68.
• the sight of a bird harassed by other birds for a piece of meat,[n.31] [46] The simile of the bird that has got hold of a piece of meat and is thereupon attacked by other birds, who try to take it from him, can be found in MN 54 at MN I 364,28 and its parallel MĀ 203 at T I 774a27. The same image is referred to, e.g., in MN 22 at MN I 130,26 (cf. also Vin II 25,33 or Vin IV 134,21 and T 1428 at T XXII 682a24) and its parallel MĀ 200 at T I 763c17, as well as in, e.g., SĀ2 185 at T II 440a6, EĀ 16.1 at T II 578b21, and T 203.96 at T IV 486c20. Franke 1906: 345 notes that a counterpart to this simile occurs in the Mahābhārata, which describes an eagle who, being in possession of a piece of meat, is attacked by other eagles.
• the sight of a bull in rut being killed by another bull.[n.32] [47] Jā 408 at Jā III 375,15–383,27, for a summary of a counterpart in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya cf. Panglung 1981: 163.

Two other jātaka tales report the attainment of Paccekabodhi on seeing a withered leaf fall.[n.33] [48] Jā 378 at Jā III 239,22 and Jā 529 at Jā V 248,23. In these cases, too, it is clearly an external condition that is responsible for the break-through to awakening.

With another tale in the same Jātaka collection, however, the situation is less clear-cut. This tale reports several Paccekabuddhasto-be committing very minor misdeeds, such as drinking from the water vessel of a companion instead of their own, or looking at a pretty woman, etc.[n.34] [49] Jā 459 at Jā IV 113,19–119,11. When they later reflect on their faulty behaviour, they feel remorse and have the wish to remove such defilement for good, which in turn triggers insight and leads to Paccekabodhi. In these cases, the proximate cause of the development of insight is remorse and, unlike the previous instances, in several of these cases the narration explicitly indicates that the break-through to awakening took place at a temporal distance from the external event.

Other tales found in the commentary on the Sutta-nipāta depict kings who have attained a certain level of jhāna and then, in order to protect their attainment, go forth and eventually become Paccekabuddhas.[n.35] [50] Three tales that report how kings go forth to protect an attainment of concentration they have reached and then become Paccekabuddhas can be found at Pj II 118,26, Pj II 119,14, and Pj II 127,29; the respective attainments are the first jhāna, the fourth jhāna, and mettā developed up to jhāna level. Pj II 63,2 reports how yet another king makes mettā developed up to the level of jhāna the basis for becoming a Paccekabuddha, although in this instance an external condition does play a role, as his practice of mettā takes place after he has just averted major bloodshed between his army and the forces of another king. In these instances, the idea of an external condition (pratyaya) does not seem to be relevant at all.

In the jātaka tales mentioned above that allot a prominent role to an external condition, the stanzas do not refer to becoming or being a Paccekabuddha, but only speak of an act of renunciation.[n.36] [51] In Jā 408 at Jā III 380,9+13+17+21 each of the four stanzas concludes by indicating that "on having seen this, I [went forth] to live the life of a monk", taṃ disvā bhikkhācariyaṃ carāmi. Thus the theme of the verses is the act of renunciation, not the attainment of Paccekabodhi; cf. also Wiltshire 1990: 121 and Collins 1992: 275. The same holds for Jā 378, where the first stanza at Jā III 241,7 also mentions the theme of going forth (here in the form of an encouragement to a king), and for Jā 459, where each of the stanzas refers to going forth, Jā IV 116,19+22+25+28 and 117,3: tasmā pabbajito ahaṃ. In both cases no reference to the notion of Paccekabodhi occurs in the stanzas. That is, the notion of becoming a Paccekabuddha is found only in the prose sections. Now the prose sections of the Jātaka collection tend to be later than the stanzas and often have incorporated a variety of ideas and tales from a range of different sources that are not necessarily Buddhist.[n.37] [52] Cf., e.g., Franke 1906, Winternitz 1920/1968: 90f, Cummings 1982: 17, Norman 1983a: 79, Sarkar 1990: x, Laut 1993: 503, Kulasuriya 1996: 10f, Peris 2004: 36, and Anālayo 2010b: 56. Such tales therefore could reflect a later understanding of the term and need not be expressions of the early Buddhist conception of a Paccekabuddha.

Judging from the passages surveyed above, in its use in the early discourses the term pacceka rather conveys the sense of being "individual". This becomes particularly evident when this term qualifies a Brahmā as pacceka-brahmā.[n.38] [53] SN 6.6 at SN I 146,24 and AN 10.89 at AN V 171,3; cf. also the corresponding pratyekabrahmā in the Karmavibhaṅga, Lévi 1932: 34,8 (or Kudo 2004: 44,1 and 45,1) and the pratyekabrāhmaṇa in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1882b: 103,1 and 457 (cf. Edgerton 1953/1998: 379 and Jones 1949/1973: 81 note 1 on pratyekabrāhmaṇa probably standing for pratyekabrahmā). A Brahmā could indeed be one who dwells individually or separately, in the sense of being without a retinue, but it would be difficult to relate its status to an external condition (pratyaya).[n.39] [54] Norman 1983b: 106 note 73 suggests that "the fact that the pacceka-buddhas were thought of as being inferior to the sammāsambuddhas seems to have led to the idea that the word pacceka meant 'inferior'. This probably accounts for such compounds as pacceka-brahma in Pali and pratyeka-brahman and pratyeka-rājan in Buddhist Skt." Yet, SN 6.6 and AN 10.89 do not give the impression that these Paccekabrahmās were "inferior", in fact the Paccekabrahmā mentioned in AN 10.89 had, according to AN V 171,8, been declared by the Buddha to be a non-returner (the subcommentary notes that he had taken birth in the Pure Abodes, Mp-ṭ III 347 (Be): suddhāvāsaloke). From an early Buddhist perspective he would have to be considered very much a superior type of Brahmā. The subcommentary to SN 6.6, Spk-ṭ I 244 (Be), then explains that to fare singly, without a retinue, is what characterizes a Paccekabrahmā, paccekabrahmā ti ca ekacārī brahmā, na parisacārī brahmā ti, confirming the impression gained from the Pāli discourses that the qualification pacceka was not understood to convey that a Paccekabrahmā is inferior to other Brahmās.

The idea of awakening through an external condition also does not seem to be relevant to the case of awakening to Paccekabodhi reported in the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta, which depicts King Xǐyì becoming a Paccekabuddha without mentioning any external condition. It is after reflecting on the fearfulness of rebirth in the lower realms that Xǐyì decides to go forth and his actual awakening takes place by way of contemplating the impermanent nature of the five aggregates. This supports the impression that the issue at stake is not the particular mode of arriving at awakening that marks someone off as a Paccekabuddha. In fact the same contemplation led according to the Mahāpadāna-sutta and some of its parallels to the awakening of the former Buddha Vipassin.[n.40] [55] DN 14 at DN II 35,15, T 3 at T I 156b20, and Sanskrit fragments S 462 R5 and S 685 V1f, Waldschmidt 1953: 50; cf. also Fukita 2003: 143 (122.5 and 123.2). In this way the awakening realized by King Xǐyì does not show any evident relation to an external cause and rather seems to follow the same basic pattern as the realization gained by the Buddha Vipassī.

Elsewhere the Ekottarika-āgama similarly relates the awakening of another Paccekabuddha to contemplation of the impermanent nature of the five aggregates.[n.41] [56] EĀ 51.3 at T II 815c12: 觀此五陰身已, 所謂習法, 皆是盡法, 即於座上 得辟支佛. Yet another discourse in the Ekottarika-āgama collection reports how a prince, who had been indulging in sensual pleasures with his entourage of ladies, realizes their impermanent nature and consequently goes forth. Having gone forth, he contemplates that whatever is of a nature to arise is also of a nature to cease, and in turn becomes a Paccekabuddha.[n.42] [57] EĀ 38.11 at T II 727a15: 思惟有習之法, 皆是磨滅, 成辟支佛.

The tale of his disenchantment with his female companions reminds one of the traditional account of Gotama's going forth, according to which he had similarly realized the lack of satisfaction to be found in indulging in sensual pleasures with his entourage of dancing girls and thereupon decided to go forth.[n.43] [58] Cf., e.g., Jā I 61,21.

That progress to Paccekabodhi can take place by way of the standard approaches to awakening is also reflected in two discourses in the Saṃyukta-āgama. These report that the development of the four satipaṭṭhānas and understanding the four noble truths result in Paccekabodhi.[n.44] [59] According to SĀ 393 at T II 106b15, all those who attain awakening as a Paccekabuddha do so because of understanding the four noble truths, 若得辟 支佛道證, 彼一切知四聖諦故. SĀ 635 at T II 176a11 points out that through frequent cultivation of the four satipaṭṭhānas one can become a Paccekabuddha, 於四念處修習多修習 … 得辟支佛 (SĀ 635 envisages this as one of various alternative attainments, such as becoming an arahant, etc.). A discourse in the Ekottarika-āgama adds another relevant factor, which is the cultivation of the five faculties (indriya).[n.45] [60] EĀ 32.1 at T II 674a3 stipulates the cultivation of the five faculties (faith or confidence, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom) as a necessary requirement for reaching any level of awakening, including that of a Paccekabuddha.

In sum, although occurrences of the term Pratyayabuddha can be found in Buddhist literature, these need not reflect the original sense of this particular type of awakened being in early Buddhist thought.[n.46] [61] For a survey of terminological variations cf. Wiltshire 1990: 301f. The tales of kings becoming Paccekabuddhas, common to the Buddhist and Jain traditions, may perhaps best be understood as specific instances where external conditions played a central role, rather than as the norm for attaining Paccekabodhi, at least from an early Buddhist viewpoint.[n.47] [62] Norman 1983b: 99 points out himself that "the only criterion available for the assessment of the correctness or otherwise of the suggestion that the original form of the term was pratyaya-buddha is whether it makes better sense than the traditional derivation from pratyeka-buddha." Judging from the instances surveyed above, Wright 2001: 14 is right when he comments on the hypothesis by Norman that "the evidence, however, points rather strongly in the opposite direction."

A discourse in the Ekottarika-āgama, not otherwise related to the Isigili-sutta, states that Paccekabuddhas have no disciples; they live without followers, and do not teach the Dharma to others.[n.48] [63] EĀ 32.5 at T II 676c18 indicates that Paccekabuddhas have no disciples, 無弟子, adding that they live alone, without followers, and do not teach the Dharma to others, 獨逝無伴侶, 不與他說法; cf. also Fujita 1975: 127 note 84. According to Hirakawa 1997: 107, 伴侶 can render sahāya, which according to Monier-Williams 1899/1999: 1195 can stand for "companion", but also for "follower" or "adherent". Given the earlier reference to disciples and the subsequent mention of not teaching, the sense of being without followers seems to me the more probable of these alternatives. From the viewpoint of this mode of presentation, a Paccekabuddha is pacceka, "individual", not so much in relation to his awakening, but rather in the sense that he does not have a following of disciples with whom he shares the Dharma. Such lack of a following would imply a significant difference between a Paccekabuddha and a fully awakened Buddha. Both types of Buddha awaken on their own,[n.49] [64] According to SN 56.11 at SN V 422,3 (= Vin I 11,1), the Buddha claimed to have reached realization on his own among things unheard of before; for the parallel versions cf., e.g., Chung 2006, Anālayo 2012a, and below p. 267ff. According to SN 22.58 at SN III 66,15, SĀ 75 at T II 19c3, and SĀ 684 at T II 186c6, discovering the path to awakening on one's own marks the decisive difference between a Tathāgata and an arahant. Thus King 1980/1992: 30 is not correct in assuming that the Paccekabuddha "seems to be the only teacher-less attainer of Nibbāna recognized in Theravāda Buddhism". but only a fully awakened Buddha takes up the role of teaching the Dharma to humankind.

Another significant indication regarding the "individual" nature of Paccekabuddhas, given in the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta, is that on Mount Isi five hundred Paccekabuddhas were dwelling together at the same time. Although in the early discourses the number five hundred has a predominantly symbolic value,[n.50] [65] (C.A.F) Rhys Davids 1937: 410 explains that the number five is "a comprehensive unit in Indian thought … probably derived from the pañcaṅgulika formation of the human hand". (T.W.) Rhys Davids and Stede 1921/1993: 388 s.v. pañca comment that the number five hundred has lost its "original numerical significance … psychologically five hundred is to be explained as a 'great hand', i.e. the five fingers magnified to the 2nd decade, and is equivalent to an expression like 'a lot'", a number that is "especially frequent in recording a company of men, a host of servants, animals in a herd, etc., wherever the single constituents form a larger … whole". Hence Bareau 1971a: 80f takes the number five hundred to represent "many" (beaucoup); and Wagle 1966: 16 speaks of "a sizable group"; cf. also Feer 1884: 114 and Wiltshire 1990: 176, who in relation to the notion of five hundred Paccekabuddhas comments that "no precise significance need be attached to this number since it is a literary stereotype denoting a sizeable collection of people." it nevertheless does imply that there was a substantial congregation of Paccekabuddhas.

The Isigili-sutta also mentions five hundred Paccekabuddhas, although from its presentation it is not entirely clear if these perhaps lived on the same mountain at different times. In the Ekottarika-āgama account this is definitely not the case, since they all decide to autocombust on being told that the Buddha is about to take birth, which of course implies that these "five hundred" Paccekabuddhas were living at the same time. Indications that Paccekabuddhas are not invariably solitary hermits can also be found in the Mahāvastu and in the Saṅghabhedavastu.[n.51] [66] The Mahāvastu, Senart 1897: 347,18, describes a Paccekabuddha who had various other Paccekabuddhas as his attendants, tena dāni pratyekabuddhena ye paricāritā pratyekabuddhā. The Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1978: 15,6, reports how a group of five hundred Paccekabuddhas went to beg for alms together.

The same idea would also work for the Isigili-sutta, since it is on observing the behaviour of Paccekabuddhas that people come up with the idea that the mountain swallows them. This tale reads more naturally if one assumes that at least some of these Paccekabuddhas, referred to in the text in the plural as isī, were living at the same time.

Hence, although a Paccekabuddha would naturally be given to solitary dwelling, in fact all Buddhas are portrayed as being fond of seclusion,[n.52] [67] Cf. e.g. DN 25 at DN III 54,11 and its parallels DĀ 8 at T I 49a20, T 11 at T I 225c18, and MĀ 104 at T I 595a24. such a taste for solitude need not be seen as the most distinctive characteristic of Paccekabuddhas, as at times they are depicted as living in the company of others.[n.53] [68] Ruegg 2004: 56 explains that "in Buddhist tradition continued by both the Prajñāpāramitā and the Abhidharma, the category of Pratyekabuddha is subdivided into two", distinguishing between those who live a solitary life and those who live in a group; cf. also Feer 1881: 520, Kern 1896: 62 note 1, de La Vallée Poussin 1918: 153 note 5, and Yonezawa 1999: 24 note 2. Ray 1994: 244 note 30 points out that "no such explicit distinction appears in the hagiographies, and pratyekabuddhas are depicted in both ways as if these were simply two modes of the same way of life."

Another noteworthy indication given in the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta is that, although the five hundred Paccekabuddhas evidently could co-exist,[n.54] [69] Malalasekera 1938/1998: 95 comments that "there does not seem to be any limit to the number of Pacceka Buddhas who could appear simultaneously." none of them should be present when a Buddha is born. Hence on hearing the news that a Buddha is about to take birth, they rise into the air and autocombust.[n.55] [70] The Pāli discourses do not report such an act by Paccekabuddhas. However, it is noteworthy that according to SN 4.23 at SN I 121,19 and SN 22.87 at SN III 123,9 on the same Mount Isigili the monks Godhika and Vakkali committed suicide. Given that the self-cremation of the Paccekabuddhas does involve a conscious decision to end life, the parallelism is striking, since both of these monks are reckoned to have passed away as fully awakened ones, although there is some ambivalence about their level of awakening previous to committing suicide; cf. the discussion of these two cases in, e.g., de La Vallée Poussin 1919: 689f and 1922: 25, Thomas 1933/2004: 131, de La Vallée Poussin 1936, Filliozat 1963: 32f, Thakur 1963: 108f, Lamotte 1965: 160–162, Filliozat 1967: 73, Wiltshire 1983: 131–135, Berglie and Suneson 1986: 31–38, Becker 1990: 547, Keown 1996: 14–17, Koike 2001: 151–157, Delhey 2006: 34–41, Oberlies 2006: 218, Anālayo 2007b: 162f, Bingenheimer 2007: 51–54, Choong 2009: 41, Delhey 2009, and Anālayo 2011j. A similar tale is found in the Mahāvastu.[n.56] [71] Senart 1882b: 357,3; cf. also Senart 1882b: 197,1 and Bu ston's History of Buddhism, Obermiller 1932/1986: 7. Wilson 2003: 41 comments that "these solitary Buddhas committed their bodies to the flames in what may be seen through the lenses of Vedic-Hindu mortuary rites as a sacrificial act of passing the torch to their successor." An auto-combustion of Paccekabuddhas is also described in the Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1977: 92,16, although here this act forms the background narration to a gift of robes to the bodhisattva who had just gone forth. For a description of a Bhārhut relief that could be depicting this act of auto-combustion cf. Lüders 1941/1966: 44.

The Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta specifies that the Paccekabuddhas had taken this action because they knew that there could be only one (type of) Buddha at a time in the world.[n.57] [72] EĀ 38.7 at T II 723b7: 所以然者, 世無二佛. The Mahāvastu also reports that devas from the Pure Abodes had told the Paccekabuddhas to clear the place in time for the bodhisattva to take birth, Senart 1882b: 357,4: riṃcatha buddhakṣetraṃ. Judging from the illustration provided in the Ekottarika-āgama discourse, this incompatibility has to do with leadership. Merchants on a journey need to have a single leader, who takes decisions to be followed by all, in order to pass safely through what in ancient times would often have been potentially dangerous territory. Similarly, a country should have a single king in order to be led in unity through any crisis like facing enemies or other threats. Just as the leader of merchants or the king of the country cannot properly exercise his function unless he is the only one to hold this position, so too the role of a Buddha apparently requires the absence of others who have reached awakening on their own.

Thus even though Paccekabuddhas by their very nature would not be engaging in teaching activities and therefore stand little chance of in some way competing with the Buddha, even if only in the eyes of the population, they nevertheless cannot co-exist with a Buddha. Notably, this is the case already when Gotama is about to take birth, that is, when for a number of years he will still be a bodhisattva, not yet a fully awakened Buddha. Yet, even coexistence with a bodhisattva who is in the final life of his career is apparently not possible for Paccekabuddhas.[n.58] [73] The same notion is reflected in Pj II 129,1, according to which the Paccekabuddha Mātaṅga, qualified as the last of the Paccekabuddhas (that had been living previous to the Buddha Gotama), decided to enter final Nirvāṇa as soon as devas informed him that the bodhisattva had taken birth.

Of further interest in this respect are the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels. The parallel versions show some variations inasmuch as, whereas the Pāli and Tibetan versions stipulate the impossibility of the co-existence of two fully awakened Buddhas (sammāsambuddha),[n.59] [74] MN 115 at MN III 65,15: dve arahanto sammāsambuddhā and D 297 sha 300a7 or Q 963 lu 329a4: rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas gnyis; cf. also AN 1.15 at AN I 27,38. Chinese parallel versions speak of the impossibility of the co-existence of two Tathāgatas,[n.60] [75] MĀ 181 at T I 724a1 and T 1537 at T XXVI 502b14 speak of the impossibility of the co-existence of two Tathāgatas, 二如來; the same holds for the Mahāvastu, Senart 1897: 199,11. or just of two Buddhas.[n.61] [76] T 776 at T XVII 713b18 speaks just of the impossibility of the co-existence of two Buddhas, 二佛; the same holds for a listing of impossibilities in DĀ 3 at T I 31a15 and DĀ 18 at T I 79a7; cf. also T 1509 at T XXV 237a22.

Although such variations could be a result of imprecision or variation in transmission or translation, it could also be that the original idea was just that a fully awakened Buddha is without equal. If this should indeed have been the case, then the impossibility of such a Buddha co-existing with Paccekabuddhas would have developed only subsequently. As a natural result of increasing systematization, qualities originally related to a Buddha only would then in turn have been applied to Paccekabuddhas as well.

Another discourse in the Ekottarika-āgama goes further, as it proclaims that the whole aeon in which a Buddha arises will be without Paccekabuddhas.[n.62] [77] EĀ 50.10 at T II 814a13: "In an aeon when no Buddhas appear in the world, at that time there are as well Paccekabuddhas who appear in the world. This is called a small aeon. In an aeon when a Tathāgata appears in the world, at that time and in that aeon there are no Paccekabuddhas who appear in the world. This is called a great aeon." Since this stands in direct opposition to the description in the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Isigili-sutta, where five hundred Paccekabuddhas live in the same aeon as the Buddha Gotama and only pass away shortly before his birth, this passage seems to reflect a further development of the idea that the co-existence of Paccekabuddhas with a Buddha is a sheer impossibility.

Looking back on the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika-āgama parallel, as noted above, the first parts of both versions appear to have incorporated later additions. The Ekottarika-āgama discourse refers to bodhisattvas and the Pāli version presents a folk-etymology of the name Isigili. These two aspects suggest that some degree of development took place in both versions before they came to have their present shape. Given that their subsequent parts are completely different, the most natural explanation for this divergence would be that these parts are later expansions, which manifested in different forms as the result of developments specific to the respective reciter traditions within which the two versions were transmitted.

If this should indeed have been the case, then the common starting point of the two versions would have been a relatively brief reference by the Buddha to the constancy of the name of the Mount of Seers, explaining that this mountain was frequented in former times by Paccekabuddhas, such as Ariṭṭha, Upariṭṭha, and Sudassana.

This mountain also features in the concluding section of the Ekottarika-āgama discourse, where, after noting the persistence of its name up to the time of Maitreya, the Buddha instructs his monks that they "should frequent this mountain and hold it in high regard", as this will be for their benefit and welfare. This concords with the impression that the focus of the discourse would originally have been on the Mount of Seers. The same theme is reflected in the title of the Pāli version, which announces the topic of the discourse to be the Isigili. The rationale behind highlighting the inspiring nature of the Mountain of Seers as a dwelling place of former awakened ones would presumably have been to encourage the monks to frequent this mountain for secluded living and intensive meditation.

Such encouragement would be in line with a recurrent emphasis in other discourses on the need to withdraw into seclusion.[n.63] [78] For a case study cf. above p. 9ff.

From this viewpoint, the Paccekabuddhas themselves would not have been central to this discourse, as their function would have been mainly to enhance the importance of the mountain. Nevertheless, the fact that reference is made to them in both versions suggests that, from a comparative perspective, this reference probably belongs to an early version of the discourse.

Such reference made to Paccekabuddhas in the present text and in other early discourses entails that, according to early Buddhist thought, full awakening can be reached even when the dispensation of a Buddha is not in existence. In fact, a discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its parallels report that the Buddha considered his awakening a rediscovery of an ancient path, trodden by awakened ones of the past.[n.64] [79] SN 12.65 at SN II 106,15, with parallels in SĀ 287 at T II 80c27, EĀ 38.4 at T II 718c6, T 713 at T XVI 827b7, T 714 at T XVI 828b21, T 715 at T XVI 830a24, and a Sanskrit fragment, Bongard-Levin et al. 1996: 80 (I.32); cf. also Lévi 1910: 440 and Tripāṭhī 1962: 103. This squares well with the notion of other Buddhas or awakened ones in former times.

Judging from the later part of both versions, this basic notion of Paccekabuddhas must have aroused increasing interest, since both versions expand on it, albeit in different ways. Whereas the Ekottarika-āgama version approaches this topic in a narrative mode, the Isigili-sutta does so in verse form, concluding with an injunction given by the Buddha to the monks that they should revere those Paccekabuddhas of past times.[n.65] [80] MN 116 at MN III 71,3: paccekabuddhā … parinibbute vandatha; cf. also Skilling 1996: 182 note 112 and Wiltshire 1990: 7, who comments that this listing "would seem to imply that paccekabuddhas held or were intended to hold some special significance for those to whom the Buddha's discourse was addressed." The theme of the inspiring nature of those Paccekabuddhas in fact pervades the stanzas found in the Pāli version, suggesting that the apparent development of this discourse from a nucleus held in common with its parallel was particularly influenced by such feelings of reverence and veneration. The stanzas could, however, have been originally intended to enhance the inspiration provided by the Mountain of Seers as a dwelling place of former awakened ones, thereby poetically continuing what appears to be the original theme of the discourse.

Such interest aroused by the figure of the Paccekabuddha was evidently not only felt among ancient generations of Buddhists,[n.66] [81] On the significance of Paccekabuddhas in early Buddhist thought cf. also below p. 249ff; for a brief survey of Japanese scholarship on the notion of a Paccekabuddha cf. de Jong 1976: 322. but also had its influence within the Jain tradition, as testified to by the tales mentioned above of kings that become Paccekabuddhas due to some particular external event. One of these events, namely the sound caused by two bangles on the arm of a woman, is a motif already mentioned in a stanza in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta of the Sutta-nipāta, which according to the Pāli commentarial tradition was spoken by a former Paccekabuddha.[n.67] [82] Pj II 46,21 indicates that each of the verses in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta was spoken by a Paccekabuddha. Pj II 95,21 then reports the tale associated with this particular verse; cf. also Salomon 2000: 8f.

The image conveyed by this stanza takes up what in the world in general is perceived as sensually attractive – bangles adorning the arm of a woman – showing that this can issue in an insight powerful enough to lead to the awakening of a Paccekabuddha. This image sums up in a few words the basic contrast seen in the Buddhist and the Jain traditions between liberation and the world of sensual enjoyment, which on closer inspection reveals its unsatisfactory nature and thereby inspires renunciation and the quest for liberation. The stanza in question reads:

"Having seen shining golden [bangles] Well-forged by a goldsmith's son, Clashing together [when worn] as a pair on an arm, Fare singly like a rhinoceros."[n.68] [83] Sn 48: disvā suvaṇṇassa pabhassarāni, kammāraputtena suniṭṭhitāni, saṅghaṭṭamānāni duve bhujasmiṃ, eko care khaggavisāṇakappo; cf. also Ap 2.22 at Ap 9,27. Although this stanza is not found in a counterpart to the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1882b: 357ff, it does occur in a Gāndhārī parallel; cf. Salomon 2000: 107 (no. 16). On the question of whether khaggavisāṇakappa refers to the horn of the rhinoceros or to the rhinoceros itself cf., e.g., Jayawickrama 1949/1977: 22f, Jones 1949/1973: 250 note 1, Edgerton 1953/1998: 202 s.v. khaḍga-viṣāṇa, Kloppenborg 1974: 59f, Bautze 1985: 414, Saddhatissa 1985: 8 note 1, Norman 1996/2001, Jamison 1998: 253, Schmithausen 1999: 233 note 13, Salomon 2000: 10–14, Wright 2001: 3–5, Caillat 2003: 38, Anālayo 2014h: 36f, and Jones 2014. For a description of the Indian rhinoceros according to Megasthenes cf. McCrindle 1877: 59.