Dilemma the FiftiethOn the Buddha’s After-Doubt

‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say:
“The Tathāgata gradually, through millions of years, through aeon after aeon, brought his omniscient wisdom to perfection for the sake of the salvation of the great masses of the people.”
‘But on the other hand (they say):
“Just after he had attained to omniscience his heart inclined, not to the proclamation of the Truth, but to rest in peace.”
‘So that, Nāgasena, just as if an archer, or an archer’s pupil, who had practised archery for many days with the object of fighting, should, when the day of the great battle had come, draw back—just so did the Tathāgata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth. just as if a wrestler who through many days had practised wrestling should, when the day of the wrestling match had come, draw back—just so did the Tathāgata, who through countless ages had gradually matured his omniscience for the sake of bringing safe to the shore (of salvation) the great masses of the people, turn back, on the day when that omniscience had been reached, from proclaiming the Truth.
‘Now was it from fear, Nāgasena, that the Tathāgata drew back, or was it from inability to preach, or was it from weakness, or was it because he had not, after all, attained to omniscience? What was the reason of this? Tell me, I pray, the reason, that my doubts may be removed. For if for so long a time he had perfected his wisdom with the object of saving the people, then the statement that he hesitated to announce the Truth must be wrong. But if that be true, then the other statement must be false. This too is a double-edged problem, now put to you—a problem profound, a knot hard to unravel—which you have to solve.’
‘The statements in both the passages you quote, O king, are correct. But that his heart inclined, not to the preaching of the truth, but to inaction, was because he saw, on the one hand, how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how hard to grasp and understand, how subtle, how difficult to penetrate into; and, on the other, how devoted beings are to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism. And so (he wavered) at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how can I teach him?"—his mind being directed to the idea of the powers of penetration which beings possessed.
‘Just, O king, as an able physician, when called in to a patient suffering from a complication of diseases, might reflect: “What can be the treatment, what the drug, by which this man’s sickness can be allayed?"—just so, O king, when the Tathāgata called to mind how afflicted were the people by all the kinds of malady which arise from sin, and how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, then at the thought: “Whom can I teach? And how shall I teach him?” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching— his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed.
‘And just, O king, as a king, of royal blood, an anointed monarch, when he calls to mind the many people who gain their livelihood in dependence on the king—the sentries and the body-guard, the retinue of courtiers, the trading folk, the soldiers and the royal messengers, the ministers and the nobles —might be exercised at the thought: “How now, in what way, shall I be able to conciliate them all?"—just so when the Tathāgata called to mind how profound and abstruse was the Doctrine, how subtle, and how difficult to grasp, and how devoted beings were to the satisfaction of their lusts, how firmly possessed by false notions of Individualism, then at the thought: “Whom shall I teach? And how shall I teach him?” did his heart incline rather to inaction than to preaching—his mind being directed to the powers of penetration which beings possessed.
‘And this, too, is an inherent necessity in all Tathāgatas that it should be on the request of Brahmā that they should proclaim the Dhamma. And what is the reason for that? All men in those times, with the ascetics and the monks, the wandering teachers and the Brahmans, were worshippers of Brahmā, reverers of Brahmā, placed their reliance on Brahmā. And therefore, at the thought: “When so powerful and glorious, so famous and renowned, so high and mighty a one has shown himself inclined (to the Dhamma), then will the whole world of gods and men become inclined to it, hold it fitting, have faith in it"—on this ground, O king, the Tathāgatas preached the Dhamma when requested to do so by Brahmā. For just, O king, as what a sovran or a minister of state shows homage to, or offers worship to, that will the rest of mankind, on The ground of the homage of so powerful a personage, show homage to and worship—just so, O king, when Brahmā had paid homage to the Tathāgatas, so would the whole world of gods and men. For the world, O king, is a reverer of what is revered. And that is why Brahmā asks of all Tathāgatas that they should make known the Doctrine, and why, on so being asked, they make it known.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena! the puzzle has been well unravelled, most able has been your exposition. That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
Here ends the problem as to the Buddha’s hesitation to make the Doctrine known.
Here ends the Fifth Chapter.

‘Then shall they preach to him the Truth,
The Truth dispelling every grief,
Which Truth when here a man perceives,
He’s freed from stains, and dies away.’