金剛針論

As the brahmins say, among all scriptures the four Vedas are primary. Within them, recitation is primary; within recitation, that which expresses and that which is expressed are primary; and among these, that which expresses is primary. This alone is supreme, and no dharma is higher. If this activity did not exist in the world, how could anything be done? From that which expresses, either love or anger arises. Just as the brahmin is supreme among all lineages, so too is verbal expression.

This reasoning is incorrect. Why is that? What is the lineage of that brahmin, and what is his life-principle? Furthermore, how does one know what actions he performs? How does he acquire the name “brahmin”?

Furthermore, why are these Vedas called primary? Why did Śakra Devānām Indra become an animal? After becoming an animal, how was he born as a deity in the Moon Heaven, the Sun Heaven, or as Indra, and then born again as an animal? How did he cycle back and forth among the gods of wind, fire, and water, and as Indra?

They also falsely maintain that one who dies in a heavenly realm is again born in a heavenly realm, one who dies in the human realm is again born in the human realm, and the same applies to animals.

What is said in the four Vedas in this manner is entirely contrary to right reasoning. What is this life-principle? For what reason is it called a life-principle? The same applies to the brahmin and the rest.

Furthermore, you brahmin outsiders say that, according to your authoritative scriptures, Mount Baladi produced seven kinds of birds and beasts, as did Mount Nabalada and Mount Bielu Jialingnali. On those mountains were parrots, herons, geese, deer, and other creatures. They were born among the human Kurukṣetra people; after dying there, they were born among the brahmins and explained the treatises of the four Vedas.

When those birds, beasts, deer, geese, and mandarin ducks were born among humans, were their animal life-principles brahmins or not brahmins? Why? If their life-principles were brahmins, then they were not birds or beasts. If their life-principles were not brahmins, yet they were subsequently born as brahmins, this is unreasonable.

Brahmins maintain that the treatises of the four Vedas are the root of the myriad dharmas and are also called suchness. They do not accept food among other lineages. Yet when they receive innumerable benefits from śūdras, they contradict their own doctrine. How can this be called purity? For this reason, they are not true brahmins.

Furthermore, the brahmin doctrine of the four Vedas falsely clings to the proper life-principle and proper Dharma of the brahmin caste. This too is unreasonable. How can it be called the proper Dharma?

If caste lineages are intermixed, how can they be called supreme? Why? What is not supreme is interrupted and mixed.

How is this so? For example, a father named Nālākṣa has a son named Piṅgala Ṛṣi. Again, a father named Agastya has a son also named Agastya.

A father named Puṣya-Tsa has a son named Kauśika. A father named Kuśaputra has a son named Saṃsattāṅga. A father named Kāśina has a son named Kāśina.

A father named Vātsyāyana has a son named Gautama. A father named Kālāśa has a son named Nālūnatsa. A father named Taittiri has a son named Taittirīyaka.

A father named Naikamuni has a son named Ṛṣyaśṛṅga. The son of a hunter, vegetable gatherer, or fisherman is called Vyāsa-Śṛṅga-Kṣatriya. A father of śūdra lineage has a son named Viśvāmitra.

A mother who is a caṇḍāla has a son named Vasiṣṭha. A mother named Urvaśī has a daughter born of a god, who is not a brahmin.

Given what has been said above, on what basis do they maintain that brahmins are supreme among human beings? Again, if they maintain that the Maitrī scripture is authoritative, this too is unreasonable. Therefore, the brahmin doctrine is also devoid of sound reasoning.

Furthermore, according to the brahmin doctrine, fresh meat, mineral pigment, salt, and similar things may be accepted only by śūdras. You brahmins should not accept them. Why, then, do you no longer behave accordingly?

Furthermore, they maintain that if a brahmin sells milk, he falls while walking through the sky and is no longer a brahmin. The claim that one who eats meat falls from the sky is equally unreasonable. Therefore, it should be understood that the buying and selling of milk and meat by brahmins is not the Dharma of purity.

From this it should be understood that if all who neither consume milk and meat nor buy or sell them were collectively called brahmins, this would be false. Therefore, it should be understood that those who plan to sell milk and meat are not brahmins. This is a false and unlawful assertion.

Furthermore, their worldly lineage, falsely claimed to be supreme, is not the true Dharma. If kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras each maintain that their own lineage is supreme, then all of them should likewise be collectively called members of the brahmin caste.

Furthermore, if they maintain that one who practices bodily austerities is called a brahmin, then everyone whose body suffers should be called a brahmin.

Furthermore, they falsely maintain that killing a brahmin incurs a grave offense and that harming his relatives incurs the same offense. They also maintain that brahmins were born from the mouth of the god, that the kṣatriya caste was born from the god’s pure body, and that vaiśyas and śūdras were born from his feet; therefore, killing them incurs a grave offense.

Their assertion is unreasonable. Why? It implies that one may kill people of other castes without committing an offense and may harm their relatives without committing an offense. Therefore, this is a false assertion that does not accord with right reasoning.

Furthermore, they falsely maintain that one who disrupts their practices, disrupts the places where they make offerings, or interferes with their reception of alms incurs a grave offense, whether through intellect or bodily action. This is incorrect. Why? Within the body and within the intellect, what is designated “brahmin”? Śūdras and others also have bodies and intellects and should therefore all be called brahmins.

Furthermore, they falsely maintain that one who completely and clearly comprehends the four divisions of the Vedas, the Mīmāṃsā, the Sāṃkhya treatises, the Vaiśeṣika, and all the other treatises is called a brahmin. This too is unreasonable. Śūdras and others also understand their treatises and comprehend their meanings and should therefore all be called brahmins.

If one who practices austerities is called a brahmin, then śūdras and others can also undertake those practices and should likewise be called brahmins.

If one who understands various arts of calculation is called a brahmin, then fishermen and pleasure-seekers, who understand all kinds of different arts and calculations, may also be called brahmins.

Therefore, it should be understood that conduct is not a brahmin, occupation is not a brahmin, and performing offerings, receiving food, and so forth are not brahmins. Kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras can also do such things and should therefore all be called brahmins.

Therefore, it should be understood that one is not called a brahmin by caste, occupation, conduct, birth, or even by possessing virtue.

On what basis do they establish that the kunda flower resembles the moon? One who is free from every defilement, skillfully cultivates excellent practices, is impeccable in deportment, and is perfect in moral conduct; who skillfully disciplines the faculties and eliminates the afflictions; who has no conception of self or person and is free from all attachment; and who has wholly abandoned greed, anger, and delusion—only such a one is called a true brahmin.

Furthermore, one who is free from defiling craving, who does not give rise to attachment even toward animals, and who practices purity is called a brahmin.

Therefore, understand what was said by the great seer Tốc-Cốt-Lô: A brahmin is defined neither by caste, occupation, virtue, conduct, nor craftsmanship. If a caṇḍāla masters the four Vedas, is skilled in occupations, and is perfect in virtuous conduct, he too may be called a brahmin.

Therefore, it should be understood that one is not called a brahmin by life-principle, lineage, knowledge, body, conduct, or occupation.

Furthermore, if a śūdra cultivates austerities, understands the four Vedas, and attains the five superknowledges of a seer, how can you brahmins point to him and declare that he belongs to an inferior caste?

Furthermore, the path of the seers may be attained by all four castes. How, then, can the other castes be called less than supreme?

Furthermore, as stated in the authoritative text of that scripture, Śakra was born as that god because he cultivated pure karma in the past, although he had originally belonged to an inferior caste. This Bhagavān and Śakra belonged to an inferior caste; all the evidence adduced in questioning this is as presented above.

Furthermore, that scripture says that Maheśvara and the Celestial Queen produced the god Śakra and the physical world from their mouths. The world did not produce Maheśvara and the Celestial Queen. The root may produce the branches, but the branches cannot produce the root. Therefore, this statement contradicts its own authoritative teaching. Since they were originally of an inferior caste, how can it be falsely maintained that they were born from those deities? It should be understood that this is unreasonable.

Furthermore, if a śūdra dies and is born as Maheśvara, how can you brahmins cite this as evidence that he belongs to an inferior caste?

Furthermore, according to your brahmin doctrine, one who replenishes the breath through medicinal treatment of the ears and practices austerities by abstaining from food is called a brahmin.

Śūdras and others can also do this, and thus they too should be called brahmins.

Furthermore, they maintain that if a brahmin receives food from the hand of a śūdra for one month, his present body will turn into the body of a śūdra, and in a subsequent retribution he will certainly be born as a dog. They also say that if a brahmin marries a śūdra woman, his parents, household, and servants will all abandon him, and after death he will fall into hell.

This assertion is unreasonable. What difference is there between the brahmin lineage and the śūdra? The great seer Kāśina was born from the womb of a doe, cultivated austerities, and thereby realized the path of a seer. Could this seer possibly have been born from a brahmin?

The great seer Vyāsabha was born from a fisherwoman, cultivated austerities, and accomplished the path of a seer. Could this seer have belonged to the brahmin caste?

Therefore, this is a false assertion that does not accord with right reasoning.

Furthermore, the great seer Vasiṣṭha was born from the woman Urvaśī and attained the path of a seer only after cultivating austerities. Could this seer have been born from a brahmin?

Furthermore, the great seer Ṛṣyaśṛṅga was born from the womb of a doe and accomplished the path of a seer by cultivating austerities. Could this seer have been a brahmin?

Furthermore, the great seer Viśvāmitra was born from a woman of a caṇḍāla household. Could this seer have been a brahmin?

Therefore, it should be understood that one who disciplines the faculties, does not cling to self or person, diligently cultivates pure conduct, remains far removed from sensual defilement, and forever brings all delusions to rest is thereby called a true brahmin. One is not a brahmin by birth into that caste. How can they falsely maintain that the brahmin caste is supreme in the world?

Therefore, it should be understood that one is not called a brahmin by caste, life-principle, lineage, occupation, or birth.

Furthermore, many people originally belonging to inferior castes uphold the precepts, cultivate merit, and are thereby born in the heavenly realms. How, then, could birth in heaven be caused by caste?

Furthermore, the great seer Kāśināṅga, the great seer Vyāsabha, the great seer Vasiṣṭha, the great seer Śṛṅgaśubha, the great seer Viśva, the great seer Mitra, the great seer Nārāyaṇa, and other such great seers were all born from inferior caste lineages. If they attained the path of a seer through cultivation, why maintain that an unmixed caste is supreme in the world? Therefore, such false words should not be believed or accepted.

Furthermore, they maintain that the brahmin caste was born from Brahmā’s mouth, the kṣatriya caste from his hands, the vaiśya caste from Brahmā’s thighs, and the śūdras from Brahmā’s feet. Thus, they falsely produce many attachments.

Furthermore, they maintain that one who practices austerities and firmly maintains his resolve is called a brahmin. If so, fishermen, teachers of śūdras, and others who resolutely practice austerities should all be called brahmins.

Furthermore, they maintain that one who adopts their appearance—braiding beard and hair, wearing a silk cord around the waist, holding a wooden staff, dressing in white, and eating little—is called a brahmin. Other śūdras can also practice these things and should therefore all be called brahmins.

Furthermore, they maintain that all four castes were born from Brahmā. If the father is one, how can his children belong to different castes? How could śūdras and the other castes be children born of one father yet belong to different castes? Since this is incorrect, how can their doctrine be correct?

Furthermore, brahmins were born from the mouth of a single Brahmā, and brothers and sisters then coupled with one another, an act condemned by the world. If you can do such a thing, how can you be pure? Thus, what is impure is falsely maintained to be pure. Four children born of the same father and mother cannot have different surnames. How, then, can it be falsely maintained: “This one is a brahmin, this one a kṣatriya, this one a vaiśya, and this one a śūdra”? How can children of one father each have a different surname? Thus, the claim that the four castes are different is false.

This is not like elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, camels, deer, lions, tigers, and wolves, whose feet differ in shape, so that one can distinguish a cow’s track from an elephant’s track and so forth.

Again, flowers and fruits produced by a single tree do not differ in kind. Different plants and flowers, arising from dissimilar places, cannot be made identical.

Your four castes are likewise. Whether brahmins, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, or śūdras, because they were all born from one father, how can it be falsely maintained that the four castes differ?

There was also a divine king named Yudhiṣṭhira. With reverence and joined palms, he went to the seer Vaivābali, bowed his head and face at the seer’s feet, and said: “What are called the virtues of a brahmin? What are called the characteristics of a brahmin? How many different kinds of characteristics are there? Please explain them so that I may understand clearly.”

The seer Vaivābali then told the king: “Patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajñā—these are called the virtues of a brahmin. Remaining far removed from greed and anger and from every act of killing sentient beings is called the first characteristic of a brahmin. Not greedily taking any possession belonging to another is called the second characteristic of a brahmin. Abandoning every violent disposition, behaving gently, being free from notions of self and person, and relinquishing bonds and sensual defilements is called the third characteristic of a brahmin. Remaining perpetually free from defiling attachment toward women, heavenly maidens, and even animals is called the fourth characteristic of a brahmin.

“Furthermore, bringing all sentient beings to maturity, continually arousing a compassionate heart, and supremely and purely disciplining the faculties is called the fifth characteristic of a brahmin.

“One who is fully endowed with all five of these is called a brahmin.

“One who clings to a self and lacks the five characteristics is called a śūdra.”

The seer further told Yudhiṣṭhira: “One does not become a brahmin through caste, surname, or the cultivation of austerities. If a caṇḍāla or another person possesses the five characteristics, he too is called a true brahmin.”

According to this reasoning, that brahmin may also be called a śūdra, and that śūdra may also be called a brahmin.

Yudhiṣṭhira said to the seer: “That brahmin practices non-killing and, through this practice, attains the fruit of purity. In this limited respect, he may be called a brahmin.”

The seer again told Yudhiṣṭhira: “The distinctions among these four castes are all due to the causes and conditions of past karma. When sentient beings in the world are first born, all emerge from impure organs. What difference is there among them? Therefore, one who practices morality and further cultivates virtuous karma is called a brahmin. Even a śūdra who cultivates virtuous conduct becomes a brahmin.

“If a brahmin does not cultivate virtuous karma, he too is called an inferior śūdra. Furthermore, the five faculties can give rise to evil karma and must continually be disciplined. Sentient beings are submerged as though in a great ocean; they must seek deliverance and be brought across to the further shore.”

At that time, King Yudhiṣṭhira heard the seer’s words, understood them clearly, and rejoiced with delight. He dedicated what he had heard to boundless sentient beings so that all might awaken and understand. He said: “I do not act for myself or out of attachment to my own life. Day and night, I shall now cultivate patience, remain far removed from partiality toward relatives and from every jealousy, and never again become attached to any object of desire. Aspiring toward liberation, I shall continually cultivate pure conduct.”

The seer again told King Yudhiṣṭhira: “Not killing sentient beings and remaining far removed from greed and anger constitute incomparable purity. This is called the practice of a brahmin. Disciplining the faculties, giving generously, practicing patience, engaging in truthful pure conduct, compassionately remembering, pitying, and protecting all sentient beings, and cultivating wisdom—this is called the practice of a brahmin. Abandon false austerities and understand the sufferings of sentient beings. This is called the practice of a brahmin.

“Furthermore, the mantra scripture of the brahmin Gāyatrī says that one who practices austerities free from attachment, disciplines the faculties, gives generously during the four periods, lovingly remembers sentient beings, abandons sleep, and continually cultivates pure conduct is called a true brahmin only after a thousand kalpas.”

The seer again told King Yudhiṣṭhira: “If one who clearly understands the treatises of the four Vedas is said to belong to the supreme caste, then members of the śūdra and other castes can also understand them clearly. Why, then, are they not called supreme?

“For example, when members of the four castes travel together to a sacred place, their footprints remain, yet one cannot distinguish: ‘This is one person’s footprint, not another’s.’ One caste and four castes are likewise merely conventional designations and are originally without difference.

“Furthermore, although the forms and characteristics of cattle and horses in the world differ, their male and female organs are of the same type and do not differ. The characteristics of brahmins, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras, whether regarded as one caste or four, are likewise.

“Furthermore, the blood, flesh, feces, urine, hands, feet, and faculties of one person are of the same kind as the blood, flesh, and so forth of other people.

“Furthermore, the light and color of lotuses, kṣatrī flowers, the moon, and conch shells can be distinguished. Yet the forms and colors of the four castes do not differ. How, then, are they distinct?

“Furthermore, cattle, horses, elephants, and deer engage in sexual activity, yet no distinction can be made in the manner of their coupling. Now brahmins, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras mingle and couple with one another in sexual activity, and all are born from wombs. What difference is there among them?

“Furthermore, if a woman is born among brahmins, how can she couple with her sisters or others of the same brahmin caste? The same applies to brothers and sisters becoming husband and wife. The śūdras of the world do not practice such a custom.

“Consider the udumbara tree in the world. Although its flowers, fruits, branches, and leaves are numerous, its root and trunk do not differ, and one cannot distinguish one flower from another. You brahmins are likewise. You cannot unite sexually with sisters of the same lineage, for this is condemned by the world and cannot be done.

“Furthermore, one who abandons impure bodily and verbal conduct and continually cultivates pure karma is called a brahmin. Vaiśyas and others can also practice this. Thus there was the great seer named Vasiṣṭha.

“Furthermore, fire in the world can burn wood without discrimination. In the same way, brahmins do not differ from the other castes.

“Furthermore, the great seer Vyāsa of your own tradition was originally born of a fisherman father and was not born from a brahmin.

“Furthermore, King Pāṇḍava and his four brothers were born of the same mother but had different fathers. This occurred because of past karma, which caused them to have the same mother but different fathers, not because caste was falsely imagined to distinguish them.

“Furthermore, in a place containing salt water, although its form may be concealed, its salty taste is not absent. Past karma likewise follows the body, sometimes hidden and sometimes manifest.”

Wise people should carefully examine such false assertions and never believe or rely upon them.