Dilemma the Forty-SixthThe Mocking Of the Buddha

‘Venerable Nāgasena, it was said by the Blessed One of Six-tusks, the elephant king,

“When he sought to slay him, and had reached him with his trunk,
He perceived the yellow robe, the badge of a recluse,
Then, though smarting with the pain, the thought possessed his heart—
’He who wears the outward garb the Arahats wear
Must be scatheless held, and sacred, by the good.’”

‘But on the other hand it is said:
“When he was jotipāla, the young Brahman, he reviled and abused Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, with vile and bitter words, calling him a shaveling and a good-for-nothing monk.”
‘Now if, Nāgasena, the Bodisat, even when he was an animal, respected the yellow robe, Then the statement that as jotipāla, a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One of that time, must be false. But if as a Brahman, he reviled and abused the Blessed One, the statement that when he was Six-tusks, the elephant king, he respected the yellow robe, must be false. If when the Bodisat was an animal, though he was suffering severe and cruel and bitter pain, he respected the yellow robe which the hunter had put on, how was it that when he was a man, a man arrived at discretion, with all his knowledge mature, he did not pay reverence, on seeing him, to Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, one endowed with the ten powers, the leader of the world, the highest of the high, round whom effulgence spread a fathom on every side, and who was clad in most excellent and precious and delicate Benares cloth made into yellow robes? This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you, which you have to solve.’
‘The verse you have quoted, O king, was spoken by the Blessed One. And Kassapa the Blessed One, the Arahat, the Buddha supreme, was abused and reviled by Gotipāla the young Brahman with vile and bitter words, with the epithets of shaveling and good-for-nothing monk. But that was owing to his birth and family surroundings. For jotipāla, O king, was descended from a family of unbelievers, men void of faith. His mother and father, his sisters and brothers, the bondswomen and bondsmen, the hired servants and dependents in the house, were worshippers of Brahmā, reverers of Brahmā; and harbouring the idea that Brahmans were the highest and most honourable among men, they reviled and loathed those others who had renounced the world. It was through hearing what they said that jotipāla, when invited by Ghaṭīkāra the potter to visit the teacher, replied: “What’s the good to you of visiting that shaveling, that good-for-nothing monk?”
‘Just, O king, as even nectar when mixed with poison will turn sour, just as the coolest water in contact with fire will become warm, so was it that jotipāla, the young Brahman, having been born and brought up in a family of unbelievers, men void of faith, thus reviled and abused the Tathāgata after the manner of his kind. And just, O king, as a flaming and burning mighty fire, if, even when at the height of its glory, it should come into contact with water, would cool down, with its splendour and glory spoilt, and turn to cinders, black as rotten blighted fruits-just so, O king, jotipāla, full as he was of merit and faith, mighty as was the glory of his knowledge, yet when reborn into a family of unbelievers, of men void of faith, he became, as it were, blind, and reviled and abused the Tathāgata. But when he had gone to him, and had come to know the virtues of the Buddhas which he had, then did he become as his hired servant; and having renounced the world and entered the Order under the system of the Conqueror, he gained the fivefold power of insight, and the eightfold power of ecstatic meditation, and became assured of rebirth into the Brahmā heaven.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
Here ends the dilemma about Gotipāla.