Introduction

The present chapter studies the Bāhitika-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, which record an inquiry into the ethical conduct of the Buddha, delineating what type of action the Buddha would undertake and what he would not do.

In the thought world of early Buddhism, the Buddha embodies the ideal of ethical perfection. A living example for his early disciples and an inspiring memory for later generations, descriptions of the Buddha's conduct exemplify the ethical standards aspired to and emulated by his followers. The Bāhitika-sutta takes up this theme in a rather direct manner, as its main topic is to scrutinize if the Buddha was indeed an embodiment of ethical perfection.

According to the information provided in the Pāli commentary, the Bāhitika-sutta takes its occasion from an inquiry by King Pasenadi into rather serious allegations against the Buddha's ethical purity, allegations related to an incident that involved the female wanderer Sundarī.[n.1] Ps III 346,16: sundarivatthusmiṃ uppannam. A discourse in the Udāna reports this incident in detail, indicating that in order to discredit the Buddha other wanderers had asked the female wanderer Sundarī to frequently visit Jeta's Grove. When her visits had become public knowledge, these wanderers killed Sundarī and buried her in Jeta's Grove.

Once her body was discovered, the wanderers went around town accusing the Buddhist monks of having taken their pleasure with Sundarī and then killed her.[n.2] Ud 4.8 at Ud 43,22 to 45,31. People believed this defaming report and started to revile the monks. The Buddha thereon instructed the monks to react to such abuse with a stanza on the bad destiny of those who make false allegations or deny a misdeed they have done. This served its purpose and convinced people of the innocence of the Buddhist monks.

An account of the same incident in the commentary to the Dhammapada differs in so far as here the attempt at defamation is more directly aimed at the Buddha.[n.3] Dhp-a III 474,3; cf. also Jā 285 at Jā II 415,12. According to the Dhammapada commentary, on coming from Jeta's Grove Sundarī had told people that she had spent the night with the Buddha. Thus the rumour spread by the wanderers was that the Buddha's disciples murdered her in order to cover up the Buddha's misconduct. This account fits the Bāhitika-sutta better, as its inquiry is concerned with the moral integrity of the Buddha himself.[n.4] A version of this incident found in the Chinese counterpart to the Aṭṭhakavagga (serving as the introductory narration to its version of the Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka-sutta, Sn 780–787, whose Pāli commentary, Pj II 518,23, also narrates the Sundarī tale) agrees with the Dhammapada commentary that the purpose of the plot was to bring the Buddha into disrepute; cf. T 198 at T IV 176c3, translated in Bapat 1945: 156–158.

Whether the defamation was directed against the Buddha or against his monk disciples, the Sundarī incident appears to have been a famous tale known among generations of Buddhists, in fact the Chinese pilgrim Făxiăn (法顯), who travelled India in the early fifth century, even refers to the place where she was believed to have been buried.[n.5] T 2085 at T LI 860c17; for further references cf. Deeg 2005: 307–308.

---

Translation

Discourse on the Bāhitikā Cloth[n.6] The translated text is MĀ 214 at T I 797c7 to 799b25; for a comparative study cf. Anālayo 2011a: 505–510. MĀ 214 at T I 797c7 gives the title as 鞞 訶提經. The corresponding title Bāhitika-sutta (Se reads Bāhitiya-sutta) in MN 88 refers to the cloth that Pasenadi offers Ānanda at the end of the discourse, which according to the Pāli commentary, Ps III 347,13, was called bāhitikā because it came from a foreign country, bāhitiraṭṭha. Rhys Davids 1912/1993: 486 s.v. bāhitikā instead derives bāhitikā from bāheti, "to ward off," and suggests it to refer to a mantle or wrapper that "keeps out" the cold or the wind. Yet, in both discourses the bāhitikā is of considerable size, measuring sixteen spans by eight. A cloth of such a size would be too large to serve as a mantle or wrapper. The same size would, however, be suitable for making three robes, for which purpose according to both versions Pasenadi presented it to Ānanda. Thus the commentarial explanation seems preferable in the sense that bāhitikā stands for a "foreign cloth".

1. Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was dwelling at Sāvatthī, staying in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.

2. At that time, the venerable Ānanda was [also] staying in Sāvatthī and [had gone to] the Eastern Park, the Mansion of Migāra's mother, for some small matter.

At that time the venerable Ānanda, who had left Sāvatthī together with another monk and gone to the Eastern Park, the Mansion of Migāra's mother, after settling that matter was returning with that monk towards Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.[n.7] In MN 88 at MN II 112,12 Ānanda appears to be alone, has just finished his meal and is on his way to the Eastern Park for his daily abiding [in meditation].

3. At that time Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, who was riding the elephant Ekapuṇḍarika,[n.8] MĀ 214 at T I 797c14: 一奔陀利, which according to the Taishō edition corresponds to Ekapuṇḍarīka. The same elephant recurs in two Chinese parallels to the Piyajātika-sutta, MĀ 216 at T I 801c19 and T 91 at T I 915c25. The Piyajātika-sutta itself, MN 87 at MN II 111, however, does not mention the elephant. had gone out of Sāvatthī together with the minister Sirivaḍḍha.[n.9] MĀ 214 at T I 797c14: 尸利阿荼, which Akanuma 1930/1994: 622 identifies as a rendering of Sirivaḍḍha. In this case, too, the Piyajātika-sutta parallel MĀ 216 at T I 801c19 refers to him, whereas he is not mentioned in the Piyajātika-sutta itself. The other Piyajātika-sutta parallel, T 91 at T I 915c25, refers to this minister with the different rendering 賢首. In the four Pāli Nikāyas, the name Sirivaḍḍha recurs in SN 47.29 at SN V 176,14 as the name of a sick householder visited by Ānanda. The venerable Ānanda saw from afar that Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, was coming. He asked his monk companion: "Is that Pasenadi, the king of Kosala?" [The other monk] answered: "That is so." The venerable Ānanda then went down from the path to the foot of a tree. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, saw from afar the venerable Ānanda among the trees. He asked: "Sirivaḍḍha, is that the recluse Ānanda?" Sirivaḍḍha replied: "That is so."

4-5. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, told the minister Sirivaḍḍha: "Drive this elephant towards the recluse Ānanda!" Having received the king's instruction, Sirivaḍḍha drove the elephant towards the venerable Ānanda.

6. Then Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, said: "Ānanda, where are you coming from and where do you wish to go?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, I am coming from the Eastern Park, the Mansion of Migāra's mother, and I intend to go to Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park." Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, said: "Ānanda, out of compassion, if you have no urgent business in Jeta's Grove, we could go together to the river Aciravatī."

7. The venerable Ānanda accepted [the invitation] by Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, by remaining silent. Then Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, letting the venerable Ānanda [walk] in front, approached the bank of the river Aciravatī together [with the venerable Ānanda]. Having arrived he dismounted, took the elephant's rug, folded it in four, placed it on the ground and invited the venerable Ānanda: "Ānanda, you may sit on this seat." The venerable Ānanda replied: "Stop, stop, great king, just your intention suffices [to put me] at ease."

Three times Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, invited the venerable Ānanda: "Ānanda, you may sit on this seat." Three times the venerable Ānanda said: "Stop, stop, great king, just your intention suffices [to put me] at ease." [He added]: "I have my own sitting mat, I shall now sit on it." Thereupon the venerable Ānanda placed his sitting mat [on the ground] and sat down cross-legged.

8. After exchanging greetings with venerable Ānanda, Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, stepped back to sit to one side and said: "Ānanda, I would like to ask a question, will you listen to my question?" The venerable Ānanda said: "Great king, ask what you wish to ask. Having heard it, I will consider it."[n.10] Following the variant reading 聞 instead of 問.

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, would the Tathāgata undertake a type of bodily conduct [of such kind] that this bodily conduct would be detested by recluses and brahmins?"

The venerable Ānanda answered: "Great king, the Tathāgata does not undertake a type of bodily conduct [of such kind] that this bodily conduct would be detested by recluses and brahmins who are intelligent and wise, as well as by others in the world [who are intelligent and wise].

9. Having heard this, Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, approvingly said: "Well done, well done, Ānanda. [What] my [question] did not touch on, namely if they are intelligent and wise, as well as if others in the world [who are intelligent and wise would similarly detest it], Ānanda has touched on.[n.11] The king's appreciation appears to be due to the finer distinction introduced by Ānanda at this point, in that he speaks of censure by "intelligent and wise" recluses and brahmins, thereby making it clear that the point at stake is justified criticism, not the type of unjustified criticism that might be levied at the Buddha by recluses and brahmins who are not intelligent and wise. This finer distinction is also reflected in the Burmese and Ceylonese editions (Be and Ce), where the king's inquiry similarly mentions only censure by "recluses and brahmins," whereas Ānanda replies by speaking of "wise recluses and brahmins," samaṇehi brāhmanehi viññūhi. In the PTS and Siamese editions (Ee and Se), however, the king uses the qualification viññūhi already in his question, so that in these versions the reply given by Ānanda does not introduce anything new. This may be due to an error in transmission, since otherwise there would be no reason for the king to express his appreciation for Ānanda's ability to accomplish something with his answer that the king had not accomplished with his question, MN II 114,7: yaṃ hi mayaṃ, bhante, nāsakkhimha pañhena paripūretuṃ taṃ, bhante, āyasmatā ānandena pañhassa veyyākaraṇena paripūritaṃ. Ānanda, if there are unworthy ones who thoroughly criticize or praise, we do not see that as true. Ānanda, if there are worthy ones who thoroughly criticize or praise, we see that as true.[n.12] My rendering of this somewhat cryptic passage is oriented on the corresponding passage in MN 88 at MN II 114,10, where King Pasenadi contrasts praise and blame spoken by fools without prior investigation to that of the wise, who will properly investigate a matter before forming an opinion.

"Ānanda, would the Tathāgata undertake such a type of bodily conduct that this bodily conduct would be detested by recluses and brahmins who are intelligent and wise, as well as by others in the world [who are intelligent and wise]?"

The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, the Tathāgata does not at all undertake a bodily conduct of such a type that this bodily conduct would be detested by recluses and brahmins who are intelligent and wise, as well as by others in the world [who are intelligent and wise]."

10-12. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what [kind of] bodily conduct is [that]?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, unwholesome bodily conduct!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what is unwholesome bodily conduct?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, bodily conduct that constitutes an offence!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what is bodily conduct that constitutes an offence?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, undertaking bodily conduct that is detested by the wise!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what do the wise detest?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, that is, undertaking bodily conduct that harms oneself, harms others, harms both; that destroys wisdom and fosters evil; that does not [lead to] attaining Nirvāṇa, does not lead to knowledge, does not lead to awakening and does not lead to Nirvāṇa.

"Those [who undertake such conduct] do not know as it really is what things should be undertaken and do not know as it really is what things should not be undertaken. Not knowing as it really is what things should be undertaken and not knowing as it really is what things should not be undertaken, they do not know as it really is what things should be accepted and do not know as it really is what things should not be accepted. Not knowing as it really is what things should be accepted and not knowing as it really is what things should not be accepted, they do not know as it really is what things should be eliminated and do not know as it really is what things should not be eliminated. Not knowing as it really is what things should be eliminated and not knowing as it really is what things should not be eliminated, they do not know as it really is what things should be accomplished and do not know as it really is what things should not be accomplished.

"Not knowing as it really is what things should be accomplished and not knowing as it really is what things should not be accomplished, they do not undertake things that should be undertaken and undertake things that should not be undertaken. Not undertaking things that should be undertaken and undertaking things that should not be undertaken, they do not accept things that should be accepted and accept things that should not be accepted. Not accepting things that should be accepted and accepting things that should not be accepted, they do not eliminate things that should be eliminated and eliminate things that should not be eliminated. Not eliminating things that should be eliminated and eliminating things that should not be eliminated, they do not accomplish things that should be accomplished and accomplish things that should not be accomplished. Not accomplishing things that should be accomplished and accomplishing things that should not be accomplished, unwholesome states increase, wholesome states decrease. For this reason the Tathāgata does not undertake such things at all."

13. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, for what reason does the Tathāgata not undertake such things at all?"

The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, free from sensual desire, sensual desire being extinguished, free from hate, hate being extinguished, free from delusion, delusion being extinguished, the Tathāgata has eliminated all unwholesome states and accomplished all wholesome states. He is the edifying teacher, the sublime teacher, the skilful and well-disposed teacher, the leading charioteer, the well-disposed charioteer, [who uses] skilful words, sublime words, skilful and well-disposed words.[n.13] Such a listing of the Buddha's qualities is not found in MN 88. For this reason the Tathāgata does not undertake such things at all."

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, approvingly said: "Well done, well done, Ānanda, the Tathāgata does not at all undertake things that should not be undertaken. Why? Because he is a Tathāgata, free from attachment, rightly and fully awakened. Ānanda, you are that teacher's disciple practising the path with the wish to attain the unsurpassable peace of Nirvāṇa. Even you would not undertake such things, how then could the Tathāgata undertake such things?"[n.14] This line of reasoning of the king is not reported in MN 88.

14-16. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, would the Tathāgata undertake a type of bodily conduct [of such kind] that this bodily conduct will not be detested by recluses and brahmins who are intelligent and wise, as well as by others in the world [who are intelligent and wise]?"

The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, the Tathāgata certainly undertakes a bodily conduct of such type that this bodily conduct will not be detested by recluses and brahmins who are intelligent and wise, as well as by others in the world [who are intelligent and wise]."

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what [kind of] bodily conduct is [that]?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, wholesome bodily conduct!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what is wholesome bodily conduct?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, bodily conduct that constitutes no offence!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what is bodily conduct that constitutes no offence?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, undertaking bodily conduct that is not detested by the wise!"

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, what do the wise not detest?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, undertaking bodily conduct that does not harm oneself, does not harm others, does not harm both; that [leads to] awakening wisdom and does not foster evil; that [leads to] attaining Nirvāṇa, leads to knowledge, leads to awakening and leads to Nirvāṇa.

"Those [who undertake such conduct] know as it really is what things should be undertaken and know as it really is what things should not be undertaken. Knowing as it really is what things should be undertaken and knowing as it really is what things should not be undertaken, they know as it really is what things should be accepted and know as it really is what things should not be accepted. Knowing as it really is what things should be accepted and knowing as it really is what things should not be accepted, they know as it really is what things should be eliminated and know as it really is what things should not be eliminated. Knowing as it really is what things should be eliminated and knowing as it really is what things should not be eliminated, they know as it really is what things should be accomplished and know as it really is what things should not be accomplished.

"Knowing as it really is what things should be accomplished and knowing as it really is what things should not be accomplished, they undertake things that should be undertaken and do not undertake things that should not be undertaken. Undertaking things that should be undertaken and not undertaking things that should not be undertaken, they accept things that should be accepted and do not accept things that should not be accepted. Accepting things that should be accepted and not accepting things that should not be accepted, they eliminate things that should be eliminated and do not eliminate things that should not be eliminated. Eliminating things that should be eliminated and not eliminating things that should not be eliminated, they accomplish things that should be accomplished and do not accomplish things that should not be accomplished. Accomplishing things that should be accomplished and not accomplishing things that should not be accomplished, unwholesome states decrease, wholesome states increase. For this reason the Tathāgata certainly undertakes such things."

17. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, asked: "Ānanda, for what reason does the Tathāgata certainly undertake such things?"

The venerable Ānanda replied: "Great king, free from sensual desire, sensual desire being extinguished, free from hate, hate being extinguished, free from delusion, delusion being extinguished, the Tathāgata has accomplished all wholesome states and eliminated all unwholesome states. He is the edifying teacher, the sublime teacher, the skilful and well-disposed teacher, the leading charioteer, the well-disposed charioteer, [who uses] skilful words, sublime words, skilful and well-disposed words. For that reason the Tathāgata certainly undertakes such things."

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, approvingly said: "Well done, well done, Ānanda, the Tathāgata certainly undertakes things that should be undertaken. Why? Because he is a Tathāgata, free from attachment, rightly and fully awakened. Ānanda, you are that teacher's disciple, practising the path with the wish to attain the unsurpassable peace of Nirvāṇa. Even you will undertake such things, how then could the Tathāgata not undertake such things?

18. "Ānanda has spoken well and now I am pleased, Ānanda has spoken aptly and I am extremely pleased. If Ānanda [for his] teaching could accept the income of a village, I would give him the income of a village as a gift for his teaching. Ānanda, if [for his] teaching Ānanda could accept an elephant, a horse, an ox, a sheep, I would give him an elephant, a horse, an ox, a sheep as a gift for his teaching.[n.15] In MN 88 at MN II 116,22 King Pasenadi speaks of offering Ānanda an elephant-treasure, hatthiratana, or a horse-treasure, assaratana, in addition to referring to the gift of a village. Ānanda, if [for his] teaching Ānanda could accept a woman or a girl, I would give him a woman or a girl as a gift for his teaching. Ānanda, if [for his] teaching Ānanda could accept gold or jewellery, I would give him gold or jewellery as a gift [for his] teaching. [Yet], Ānanda, all such things Ānanda cannot accept.

"There is one cloth in my Kosala clan called bāhitikā, that is supreme. A king sent it [to me] contained within the shaft of a parasol as a token of trust.[n.16] The corresponding passage in MN 88 at MN II 116,29 indicates that King Ajātasattu had sent the cloth packed in the shaft of a parasol, rañño māgadhena ajātasattunā vedehiputtena chattanāḷiyā pakkhipitvā pahitā. Ānanda, out of all cotton cloths in the Kosala clan, this bāhitikā is the supreme of all those cloths.[n.17] A comparable statement that the bāhitikā is supreme is not found in MN 88. Why? This bāhitikā cloth is sixteen span long and eight wide. This bāhitikā cloth I now give as a gift to Ānanda for his teaching. Ānanda can make a triple robe [out of it]. Accept it, so that the Kosala clan will for a long time increase in merit."

The venerable Ānanda said: "Stop, stop, great king, just your intention suffices [to put me] at ease. I myself have a triple robe, that has been accepted by me."

19. Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, said: "Ānanda, let me deliver a simile, on hearing a simile the wise will understand its meaning.[n.18] This introductory statement on the purpose of a simile being to lead the wise to an understanding, though not found in MN 88, is a recurrent pericope in the Pāli discourses, where it is mostly employed by monks to introduce a simile. In SN 41.1 at SN IV 282,30, however, the same introductory statement is also used by a householder who is about to deliver a simile to a group of monks. In this particular case, such a type of statement is absent from the parallel SĀ 572 at T II 152a14. Just as at the time of a great rain this river Aciravatī is full of water, overflowing both banks. Has Ānanda seen this?" The venerable Ānanda replied: "I have seen it."[n.19] The overflowing of the Aciravatī river appears to have been proverbial; cf., e.g., its occurrence in a simile in DN 13 at DN I 244,13 and its parallel DĀ 26 at T I 106a5. According to the Dhammapada commentary, Dhp-a I 360,8, after a great rain a whole army that had camped on the banks of the Aciravatī was swept away by this river.

Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, said: "In the same way, Ānanda, the three robes you have, you may give to [another] monk or nun, or to a male or female novice in training. Therefore, Ānanda, with this bāhitikā cloth make a triple robe, accept it, so that the Kosala clan will for a long time increase in merit."

20. The venerable Ānanda accepted [the invitation] by Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, by remaining silent. Then Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, knowing that the venerable Ānanda had accepted [by remaining] silent, gave the bāhitikā cloth to the venerable Ānanda as a gift for the teaching, got up from his seat, circumambulated [Ānanda] three times and left.[n.20] The threefold circumambulation is a recurrent pericope in Madhyamaāgama discourses. While not regularly employed in the Pāli discourses, a similar description can be found in DN 16 at DN II 163,27, where Mahākassapa performs three circumambulations of the Buddha's funeral pyre.

21. Not long after [the king] had left, the venerable Ānanda took the bāhitikā cloth and went to the Buddha, paid respects at the Buddha's feet, stepped back to stand to one side and said: "Blessed One, this bāhitikā cloth was given to me today by Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, as a gift for my teachings. May the Blessed One place his two feet on the bāhitikā cloth, so that the Kosala clan will for a long time increase in merit."[n.21] In MN 88 at MN II 117,22 Ānanda offers the cloth to the Buddha, bāhitikaṃ bhagavato pādāsi.

Then the Blessed One placed his two feet on the bāhitikā cloth and said: "Ānanda, you may now tell me the whole conversation you had with Pasenadi, the king of Kosala."

Then the venerable Ānanda told the Buddha the entire conversation he had with Pasenadi, the king of Kosala. Holding his hands together [in homage] he said: "In speaking like this, did I not misrepresent the Blessed One? Did I speak truly in accordance with the Dharma, did I teach the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma, so that there is no censure in accordance with the Dharma?"

21. The Blessed One answered: "Speaking like this you did not misrepresent me, you spoke truly in accordance with the Dharma, you taught the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma and there is no censure in accordance with the Dharma. Ānanda, if Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, had come to ask me about this matter in these phrases and words, I would have answered Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, about this matter in these phrases and words.[n.22] In the corresponding section in MN 88 at MN II 117,24, the question of a possible misrepresentation of the Buddha does not arise. Instead, the Buddha highlights the great gain of the king, as he had been able to meet and pay his respects to Ānanda. Ānanda, you should keep in mind this matter, [just] as you spoke it. Why? This exposition [by you] is exactly [the way to explain] this matter."

The Buddha spoke like this. The venerable Ānanda and the other monks, having listened to what the Buddha said, were delighted and received it respectfully.

---

Study

The introductory narration in the Madhyama-āgama discourse differs in several respects from the Pāli version of the Bāhitika-sutta. In both versions King Pasenadi asks his minister if the monk they see in the distance is Ānanda. In the Madhyama-āgama account, Ānanda in a similar way inquires from his companion monk if the person they see riding an elephant is the king of the country, an inquiry not found in the Majjhima-nikāya discourse.

When evaluating this difference, it seems that whereas someone not well acquainted with the Buddhist monastic community might indeed be in doubt if the monk he sees at a distance is Ānanda, it is difficult to imagine that anyone could be uncertain of the identity of the king of the country. Even if Ānanda had never met King Pasenadi, the very fact that the person he sees is riding an elephant and would be wearing the emblems of a king (such as turban, chauri, royal umbrella, etc.) should make it selfevident that this is the king of the country.[n.23] According to the report given by Megasthenes, McCrindle 1877: 90, in ancient India "a private person is not allowed to keep ... an elephant. These animals are held to be the special property of the king." A relief on a pillar of the Bharhut Stūpa, reproduced in Cunningham 1879 plate 13 (described on p. 91), shows Pasenadi in a chariot attended by three servants, one of whom holds an umbrella over the king while the other holds a chauri (fly whisk). Though in this instance Pasenadi rides a chariot and not an elephant, this relief gives some idea of the pomp with which an ancient Indian king like Pasenadi would set out. Thus for someone who meets Pasenadi out on the road it should be relatively easy to realize that the person he sees is the king of the country. Hence the additional inquiry found in the Madhyama-āgama does not fit the situation well and could be an attempt to counterbalance the loss of status incurred by Ānanda through not being immediately recognized by Pasenadi.

The two versions' description of events does in fact exhibit a recurring tendency to enhance Ānanda's status. Thus, according to the Madhyama-āgama account, King Pasenadi simply rides on his elephant close to Ānanda and in polite terms requests a meeting on the bank of the nearby river. In doing so, according to the Madhyama-āgama account he directly addresses Ānanda by his name, without using the respectful address bhante he employs in the Majjhima-nikāya version. According to the Majjhima-nikāya discourse, however, he first sends an envoy to convey the message to Ānanda that Pasenadi pays homage to him and asks him to wait a moment.[n.24] MN 88 at MN II 112,20. Then Pasenadi comes close on his elephant, dismounts and approaches Ānanda on foot, pays homage and politely asks for a meeting on the bank of the river nearby. Then Pasenadi remounts his elephant to approach the riverbank, where he gets down again from the elephant and again pays homage to Ānanda. This procedure seems rather complicated for the simple task of meeting a monk and may also be an attempt to enhance the status of Ānanda by showing the complicated etiquette employed by the king of the country. The way Pasenadi acts in the Madhyama-āgama account appears more realistic in comparison.

The two versions agree that on reaching the riverbank Pasenadi offers his elephant rug to Ānanda, which the latter declines to use. According to the Madhyama-āgama version, Pasenadi repeats this offer three times and Ānanda consequently refuses three times. While in the Majjhima-nikāya version King Pasenadi simply poses his question, according to the Madhyama-āgama account he first asks permission to pose a question. Though the latter is a standard pericope in Madhyama-āgama discourses, the tendency to enhance the respectful behaviour shown by King Pasenadi towards Ānanda seems to have influenced the introductory narration in both versions, albeit in different ways.

This tendency may well be related to the nature of the inquiry King Pasenadi is about to make. According to an indication given in the Saṅgīti-sutta and its Sanskrit parallel, the Buddha's ethical purity was such that he had no need to hide any of his actions out of fear that others might come to know about them.[n.25] DN 33 at DN III 217,8 and the parallel Sanskrit fragments in Stache-Rosen 1968: 78f; cf. also the Saṅgītiparyāya, T 1536 at T XXVI 381c19, and the Mahāvyutpatti §12, Sakaki 1926: 17. In view of this it is perhaps not surprising that the reciters were uncomfortable with the king of the country inquiring whether the Buddha had something to hide. This would explain why they are at pains to show that King Pasenadi did not exhibit any disrespect to Ānanda, even though his mission was to inquire into the moral integrity of Ānanda's teacher, the Buddha.

In both versions, King Pasenadi carries out his inquiry in a quite straightforward manner, as he keeps on putting into question all the indications given by Ānanda until they reach the basic definition of what makes a deed unwholesome. As illustrated in table 7 below, in the Majjhima-nikāya version this line of inquiry proceeds from qualifying conduct as unwholesome – via its nature of being blameworthy and afflictive – to the basic definition that such conduct causes affliction either to oneself, or to others, or to both, and thus leads to an increase in unwholesomeness and a decrease in what is wholesome. In the Madhyama-āgama version this inquiry proceeds from qualifying conduct as unwholesome – via it being an offence and detested by the wise – to the definition that it harms oneself, or others, or both, and thus obstructs wisdom.

Table 7: The Definition of Unwholesomeness

MN 88	MĀ 214
unwholesome	unwholesome
↓	↓
blameworthy	constitutes an offence
↓	↓
afflictive	detested by the wise
↓	↓
afflicts oneself and/or other	harms oneself and/or other

The agreement between the Pāli and Chinese versions on the basic aspects of the definition of the nature of unwholesomeness throws into relief a fundamental principle of early Buddhist ethics. This agreement is noteworthy since otherwise the two versions show considerable variations.

While the Madhyama-āgama version inquires only into bodily conduct, the Majjhima-nikāya parallel also undertakes a similar inquiry into verbal and mental conduct. The Madhyama-āgama discourse also differs from the Majjhima-nikāya account in that it has a more detailed coverage of the results of unwholesome deeds. Where the Pāli version briefly refers to an increase in unwholesomeness and a decrease in wholesomeness, the Chinese version brings up the topic of attaining Nirvāṇa and then continues with a long exposition on not knowing as it really is what things should be undertaken and what things should not be undertaken, etc.[n.26] This part of the exposition in MĀ 214 has some similarity to the four ways of undertaking things described in the Mahādhammasamādāna-sutta, MN 46 at MN I 310,10.

In spite of such differences, the basic principle underlying the definition of what constitutes an unwholesome deed is the same in the two versions and thus constitutes common ground between them, in that an unwholesome deed involves affliction or harm to oneself, to others, or to both.

The theme of causing affliction to oneself or others comes up again in the detailed instructions given in the Ambalaṭṭhikārāhulovāda-sutta and its Chinese, Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels on proper conduct by way of body, speech or mind. The different versions agree that, just as if one were to look into a mirror, one should reflect before, during and after any activity on whether this activity leads to affliction for oneself or others.[n.27] MN 61 at MN I 415,25, with parallels in MĀ 14 at T I 436c9, in Sanskrit fragment SHT V 117, Sander 1985: 111–112, and in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya preserved in Chinese and Tibetan, T 1442 at T XXIII 761a8 and D 3 cha 217a5 or Q 1032 je 201a6. The same presentation is also reflected in discourse quotations from this exposition found in the Vyākhyāyukti-ṭīkā, D 4069 si 200b3 or Q 5570 i 71a5, and in the Śrāvakabhūmi, Shukla 1973: 55,16 or ŚSG 1998: 88,20 and T 1579 at T XXX 405b4.

A closely related type of reflection was, according to the Dvedhāvitakka-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, undertaken by the Buddha previous to his awakening. The two discourses report that, during the time of his quest for liberation, he developed a clear distinction between those types of thoughts that lead to affliction for oneself or others and those that do not have such a result.[n.28] MN 19 at MN I 115,2 and MĀ 102 at T I 589a19. The former type are thoughts related to sensuality, ill will and harming, while thoughts of renunciation, non ill will and harmlessness are the type of thought that will not afflict oneself or others. As a discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its Saṃyuktaāgama parallel point out, once lust, hatred and delusion are removed, one will no longer think in ways that lead to affliction for oneself or others.[n.29] SN 42.12 at SN IV 339,19 and SĀ 912 at T II 229b17.

This points to what appears to be the chief message of the Bāhitika-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, namely the reason why the Buddha would not perform any unwholesome deed. The two versions differ in the way they introduce this conclusion, as in the Majjhima-nikāya account King Pasenadi asks if the Buddha recommends the abandoning of all unwholesome states,[n.30] MN 88 at MN II 116,13: kiṃ pana, bhante ānanda, so bhagavā sabbesaṃ yeva kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ upasampadaṃ vaṇṇeti? while in the Madhyama-āgama discourse he asks why the Buddha does not undertake unwholesome conduct. But the conclusion is the same in the two versions, in that the Buddha's ethical perfection is based on his successful eradication of all unwholesome mental states. In other words, early Buddhist ethics leads up to, culminates in, and is an expression of purity of the mind.[n.31] Cf. in more detail Anālayo 2012d.