The Parable of the Tortoise

I present here a translation of the Kummopama Sutta along with Buddhaghosa's commentary. The former is a very tasty teaching on the benefits of guarding the gates of the senses (indriyesu gutta-dvāratā). The latter is not of huge interest, but those who are unfamiliar with the Pāli commentaries may be interested to see the kind of thing that they contain. Often it is simply synonyms, sometimes commentary in the sense of interpretation or exegesis. The commentaries can be invaluable when translating obscure passages.

As far as I know this is the only translation of this text on the web (I offered it to Access to Insight and they didn't want it).


Kummopama Sutta (SN 35.240; PTS: S iv 177)
With the Pāli Commentary from the Saḷāyatanavagga-aṭṭhakathā (SA 3.29)

Once, monks, a tortoise was intent on grazing along the banks of a river in the evening time. At the same time a jackal was also intent on foraging along the river. The tortoise saw the jackal in the distance. Seeing the jackal, the tortoise pulled his head and limbs into his shell, and stayed silent and still. The jackal also saw the tortoise in the distance, and went over to it. He thought: ‘when this tortoise pokes out its head, or one of its limbs I will grab it and pull it out and eat it!’ However the tortoise did not emerge from his shell and the jackal did not get an opportunity. So, becoming bored, the jackal went away. 

In the same way, monks, you should be ready because evil Māra is always waiting. He thinks ‘perhaps my opportunity will come from the eye, or the ear, or nose, or tongue, or body, or the mind.’ Therefore, monks, dwell guarding the gates of the senses. Seeing a form with the eye, do not grasp the appearance, nor the associations. Because dwelling with the eye-sense unrestrained leaves you open to attack by covetousness and grief, to wicked, unhelpful mental states. So exercise restraint, protect the eye-sense, and practice restraint of the eye. Similarly having heard a sound with the ear… smelled an odour with the ear… tasted a flavour with the tongue… touched a thing with the body… or experienced a mental state with the mind, do not grasp the appearance, nor the associations. Because dwelling with the senses unrestrained leave you open to attack by covetousness and grief, to wicked, unhelpful mental states. So exercise restraint, protect the senses, and practice restraint of the senses. Therefore, monks, dwell guarding the gates of the senses. Then evil Māra, finding no opportunity, will become bored and leave you, like the jackal left the tortoise. 

The tortoise, limbs in his own shell,
Drawn up. The monk, steady mind,
Not given to oppressing others,
Completely calm, he abuses no-one.

Commentary

‘kummo’ is just a synonym for ‘kaccahapo’ [tortoise]. ‘Anunadītīre’ means along the bank of the river. ‘Gocarapasuto’ means ‘if I locate any sort of food, I will eat it’; for the sake of grazing it is intent, eager, always [doing it]’. ‘Samodahitvā’ means ‘having put [it] in something like a box’. ‘Saṅkasāyati’ is ‘sit still’

So this is what is said: "just as the tortoise pulls his limbs into his shell and does not give the jackal an opportunity, and the jackal could not overcome him; so the bhikkhu pulling his turning mind back to the object of meditation does not give the taints or Māra an opportunity, and [Māra] cannot overcome [the monk]."

‘Samodahaṃ’ means remaining tucked up. ‘Anissito’ refers to not being attached [nissito] to the foundations of craving and views. ‘Aññamaheṭhayāno’ means not oppressing [aviheṭhento] any other person. ‘Parinibbuto’ means the complete calming [parinibbuto] associated with the extinguishing of the taints.’ Nūpavadeyya kañci’ means he should not insult [upavadati] another person, by moral transgression, failure of manners, longing for self-aggrandisement, desire to deceive another – surely having produced five subjective states: ‘I will speak at the proper time, not at an inopportune time, I will naturally not unnaturally, I will speak kindly not harshly, I will speak profitably not uselessly, I will speak with the loving thought, not bearing illwill’ that is how to dwell with a helpful disposition.


My Comments

Clearly the commentary makes better sense when read along with the text in Pāli - which I got from tripiṭaka.org (scroll down to find sutta 240). I have a typed up version with everything linked up by foot notes, but it's a bit complex for this format (it's on my other website as a pdf). The second paragraph which sums up what is being said comes after paragraph one of the text.

In the case of a word like anunadītīre it can be quite helpful to have someone point out how to interpret it. The break down is anu-nadī-tīre: nadī is river, tīre is bank, and anu a preposition meaning 'along'. Nadītīre is a tatpuruṣa compound meaning the bank of the river which is relatively easy, but role of anu- did take a bit of thinking about (I'm still not sure how to describe the construction) and I was glad of the hint.

In the sentence in which the tortoise pulls in his head the sentence is a bit awkwardly phrased. The Pāli goes:

Disvāna soṇḍipañcamāni aṅgāni sake kapāle samodahitvā.
Seeing the jackal, the tortoise pulled his head and limbs into his shell, and stayed silent and still.

The commentary explains the verb samodahitvā. It is a gerund of samodahati which literally means 'to put together'. So the sentence appears to say that the tortoise put together its limbs (aṅgāni) with its head (soṇḍi) as a fifth (pañcama) [i.e. its four limbs and his head] in its shell (kapāle). Buddhaghosa helpfully explains:

Samodahitvāti samugge viya pakkhipitvā.
‘Samodahitvā’ means ‘having put [it] in something like a box’.

Of course if you haven't seen a tortoise pull it's limb and head into it's shell this might be quite confusing and one might be glad of a little hint. It's much easier to say in English because we have the verb 'to tuck'!

These are relatively trivial examples, but they do give an idea of how the text and commentary work together.


Notes

A similar parable is found in the Bhagavadgīta (Bhg 2.56-58):

duḥkheṣv anudvigna-manāḥ sukheṣu vigata-spṛhaḥ |vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ sthita-dhīr munir ucyate ||56||

yaḥ sarvatrānabhisnehas tat tat prāpya śubhāśubham |nābhinandati na dveṣṭi tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||57|| 

yadā saṃharate cāryaṃ kūrmo 'ṅgānīva sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇīndriyārthebhyas tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā || 58 ||

Hīnayāna reprise.

Abandoned Bicycle now defective
(a hīnayāna). Jayarava

I've mentioned my view that the pejorative term hīnayāna has intimations of caste prejudice to a few people and several have expressed doubts over my interpretation. In this essay I want to reprise my earlier, in fact my first ever, rave 'Don't mention the H word' with a closer eye on the philology of the world hīna and particularly how it is used in compounds. That previous essay was a bit reactionary and the argument not very sophisticated. The argument here is more rigorous and searching. I will follow this with a brief look at how the word is used in the context of Saddharmapuṇḍarika or White Lotus Sūtra.

Hīna is a past-participle from the verbal root of the 3rd class: √hā - which forms stems by reduplication. "hahā" is disallowed, so the reduplicated 'ha' becomes 'ja'. The 3rd person singular present is jahati or jahāti (in both Pāli and Sanskrit) - the rules for reduplication apparently leaving room for ambiguity. The basic meaning is 'to leave, desert, abandon, renounce, forsake'. The past-participle then means 'abandoned, deserted, forsaken.' In practice it also means 'to fall short of, be deficient, or defective'.

Roots in 'h' are often abbreviated from gha and PED suggests a comparison with an Indo-European root *ghē from which we get the Greek words khēros (void), khēra (widow), khora (open space), and khorizo (separate). Compare this with the word kha in Sanskrit which means a space, or aperture; and it seems likely that words 'hole' and 'hollow' from this same root. It is from kha in the sense of 'the hole in the wheel through which the axle goes', that we get the two important terms sukha and duḥkha: the metaphor is a contrast between smoothly (su 'good, well') running cart' and one which gives a lumpy uncomfortable (dus) ride.

Monier-Williams gives more than two dozen compounds using this word. About half of them relate to social grade, or a social role; while the other half relate to something which is defective or absent. In the first category we have hīnakula and °kuṣṭa (low status family), °ja/jati/yoni (low birth), and °varga/varṇa which specifically refer to the śudra caste.

The second category we find °karman/kriya/kratu (someone who neglects the sacrifice), °guṇa/carita/vṛtta (of inferior virtue, base conduct) both of these clusters reflect the Brahminical prejudice against non-Brahmins who did not participate in their sacrificial religion. Another term for a non-believer was hīnapratijña (faithless). A drama with an anti-hero is hīnanāyaka ('whose leader is corrupt'). Finally those who associate with inferiors might be described as °sakhya (friends of the low people) or °seva (an attendant on low people).

The third category refers to something which is missing or defective: hīnakosa (empty treasury), °cakṣu/darsana-sāmarthya (blind), °bala (feeble), °buddhi (stupid), °rūpa (ugly), °roman (bald), hīnaṇga (crippled), hīnāṃsu (dark [an insult in the Brahmin lexicon]); °dagdha (insufficiently burned), °pakṣa (unprotected), °mūtya (a low price), °vāda (defective statement, contradictory evidence), °vyañjana (indistinct consonants), °svara (discordant or silent), hīnārtha (fallen short of his goals, [opposite of siddhartha]). Used abstractly we find: °tva (defectiveness), hīnātirikta (defective), hīnādhika (too few, too much, i.e. the wrong amount), °krama (in diminishing order), °tara (worse, worst).

On this basis of this survey I must temper my statement about hīnayāna and caste. However since there are several related terms which clearly are caste related, we can say that a connotation of caste prejudice cannot be ruled out. Clearly none of the other compounds with hīna as a first member have a positive connotation, and most are related to ways in which people or things fail to live up to (especially Brahmanical) ideals.

The compound mahāyāna is clearly a karmadhāraya compound meaning 'big or great vehicle'; so we could expect hīnayāna to be intended as the same type of compound. From this point of view it would mean 'defective vehicle'. However hīnayana could also be read as a tatpuruṣa - 'vehicle of the defective', or 'vehicle of the abandoned'. Read as a bahuvrīhi we could take is referring to someone who has 'abandoned the way'. Clearly English translators have fudged this term by translating it as "lesser" vehicle, but to be fair it is likely that they were following the influential translator Kumārajīva, who rendered hīnayāna into Chinese as 小乘 'hsiao-sheng, little vehicle'. (See Nattier p.172, n.4). Kumārajīva's translation of the Lotus Sūtra (for instance) is the preferred translation, and except for Kern's translation from the Sanskrit, all of the English translations are from Kumārajīva's Chinese translation (despite there being later, arguably better, Chinese translations).

The Saddharmapuṇḍarika Sūtra (SP) is a locus classicus for the use of 'hīnayāna' as a pejorative. In chapter two after the Buddha announces that he will give a new teaching, a new yāna, a group of 5000 men and women, monks and lay leave before the sermon is delivered. After which the Buddha says to Śāriputra (taking my examples from the verse section):

śuddhā ca niṣpalāvā ca susthitā pariṣanmama|
phalguvyapagatā sarvā sārā ceyaṁ pratiṣṭhitā||41|| 

Pure and free of chaff, my assembly is well established
The worthless have retreated and all the strong are steadfast

Hīnayāna does not seem to apply to the people themselves, though they are 'chaff' and 'worthless'. Curiously the text seems to use the term hīnayāna quite vaguely. Later in Chapter 2 the Buddha says:

ekaṁ hi kāryaṁ dvitiyaṁ na vidyate
na hīnayānena nayanti buddhāḥ ||55|| 

There is only one method, not a second,
The Buddhas do not lead by a defective way.

I think the definite article would be out of place here - it is 'a' not 'the' defective way. If we were to use the definite article it would imply that "the hīnayāna" was not something taught by the Buddha, and this would contradict everything we know about the history of Buddhism. Two verses on, the Buddha continues:

yadi hīnayānasmi pratiṣṭhapeya-
mekaṁ pi sattvaṁ na mamate sādhu||57|| 

It would not be good if even one being
Were to become established in a defective vehicle.

Again my sense here is of 'a defective vehicle', not 'the defective vehicle'. And actually it's not that clear what is being criticised here. It is curious and not at all what I expected to find, but this essay is already quite long, so I will have to explore it more at a later date. I will mention that SP uses the term hīnābhirata which Kern translates as 'low dispositions'. Abhirata means pleased or satisfied, as well as practising. There's every chance that hīnābhirata means 'dissatisfied' or 'lacking contentment' here. There is one other mention of a 'defective way' in chapter 6, but it doesn't add much to the picture. It almost seems as though the association of the people who leave the assembly and the 'defective way' is accidental. I don't see a direct connection between them in the key chapter. I'm reminded of the accidental identification of Lucifer ('the light bearer', an epithet of Nebuchadnezzar) with the Christian Devil based on a misreading of Isaiah 14:12 by Origen.

The argument over a suitable replacement term continues with some (me) using "Early Buddhism"; some opting for "Pāli Buddhism" (since the best known texts are in Pāli); and some "Mainstream Buddhism". All of these are problematic for a variety of reasons. My current favourite comes from Wikipedia and is "pre-sectarian". I'm going to adopt this and suggest other people do as well - it avoids the temporal problems (unlike "early"), it is neutral (unlike Pāli and Hīnayāna), it is a fair description of the subject (unlike "mainstream").

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Vaidya, P. L. Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram. The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1960. Online: Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon. 

Kern, H. Saddharma-pundarika or The Lotus of the True Law. 1884. Sacred Books of the East, Vol XXI. Online: Internet Sacred Text Archive. 

Nattier, Jan. A few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). University of Hawai'i Press, 2003.

Extra Notes 

10 Oct 2010: In the Alagaddūpama Sutta, hīnaṃ 'rejected' is contrasted with paṇītaṃ 'exalted'.

3 Aug 2014. Dhammapada, Chapter 13, vs 167

hīnaṃ dhammaṃ na seveyya pamādena na saṃvase
micchādiṭṭhiṃ na seveyya na sīya lokavaddhano 

Don't associate with a defective teaching,
Don't dwell heedlessly,
Don't embrace wrong views,
Don't indulge the world.

hīnaṃ dhammaṃ - a defective teaching. 

24 Jan 2015. In Pāḷi there is a phrase hīnāya āvattati meaning "to go back to 'the low' [way of life]" (Vin I.17, MN I.460, SN II.231, IV.191) or in the past-tense hīnāyāvatta (MN I.460, SN II.50). The phrase is used to refer to someone who has abandoned being a bhikkhu and gone back to being a householder.

5 Jul 2015. See also Anālayo (2014) The Hīnayāna Fallacy. JOCBS. 6: 9-31.