Introduction

The present chapter studies Buddhist notions of the praiseworthy qualities of a fully awakened one. These notions appear to have to some degree gone through a process of development that led to a shift of emphasis already manifesting in the early discourses.[n.1] Another aspect in the development of the arahant ideal is examined by Bond 1984: 228, who points out that "the arahant concept seems to have developed from an ideal readily attainable in this life ... into an ideal considered remote and impossible to achieve in one or even many lifetimes".

The beginnings of such a shift of emphasis can best be traced by examining the depiction of the arahant monk Bakkula, whose qualities and conduct are the topic of the Bakkula-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and its Madhyama-āgama parallel. Following a translation of the Madhyama-āgama version of this discourse and a comparative study, I continue studying the early Buddhist arahant ideal based on another discourse related to Bakkula, found in the Ekottarika-āgama, and based on a few selected passages related to the arahant monk Mahākassapa.

---

Translation

Discourse by Bakkula[n.2] The translated text is MĀ 34 at T I 475a11 to 475c14; for a comparative study cf. Anālayo 2011a: 711–716.

1. Thus have I heard. At one time, when the Buddha had recently passed away, the venerable Bakkula was dwelling at Rājagaha, staying in the Bamboo Grove at the Squirrel's Feeding Place.

2. At that time there was a heterodox wanderer, a close friend of the venerable Bakkula from the time before [Bakkula] had gone forth. While roaming around in the afternoon, he came to where the venerable Bakkula was staying, exchanged greetings and stepped back to sit to one side.

3-8. The heterodox wanderer said: "Venerable friend Bakkula, I would like to ask a question, will you listen to it?" The venerable Bakkula answered: "Heterodox wanderer, having heard what you are asking about, I will consider it."

The heterodox wanderer said: "Venerable friend Bakkula, how long have you been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline?" The venerable Bakkula answered: "Heterodox wanderer, I have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline for eighty years."

The heterodox wanderer said: "Venerable friend Bakkula, during the eighty years that you have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, how many times do you recall having engaged in sexual intercourse?" The venerable Bakkula said to the heterodox wanderer: "You should not ask such a question. Instead [you should] ask in another way: 'Venerable friend Bakkula, during the eighty years that you have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, how many times do you recall having aroused a sensual perception?' Heterodox wanderer, you should ask this question."

Then, the heterodox wanderer spoke like this: "Venerable friend Bakkula, I now ask again, during the eighty years that you have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, how many times do you recall having aroused a sensual perception?"

Then, in relation to this question by the heterodox wanderer, the venerable Bakkula addressed the monks: "Venerable friends, I have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline for eighty years, but you all should not think that on that account I would arouse conceit." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, during the eighty years that I have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, I never had a sensual perception." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

9–15. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, I have been wearing rag robes for eighty years, but you all should not think that on that account I would arouse conceit." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, during the eighty years that I have been wearing rag robes, I do not recall having ever accepted a robe given by householders, having ever cut up [robe material] and made a robe [by myself], having ever employed another monk to get a robe made [for me], having ever used a needle to sew a robe, or having ever taken a needle to sew a bag, not even a single stitch." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

16–19. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, I have been begging alms for eighty years, but you all should not think that on that account I would arouse conceit."

– That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, during the eighty years that I have been begging alms, I do not recall having ever accepted an invitation by householders, having ever skipped [a house when] begging for alms, or having ever begged alms from a great household so as to obtain pure, subtle, supremely excellent and rich food to bite, put into the mouth and digest.

20–25. I never looked at a woman's face, nor do I recall having ever entered a nunnery. I do not recall having ever exchanged greetings with a nun, not even speaking [to a nun when meeting her] on the road." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

26–29. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, during the eighty years that I have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, I do not recall having ever kept a novice as attendant, nor do I recall having ever taught the Dharma to lay people, even to the extent of speaking four phrases." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

30–37. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, during the eighty years that I have been practising the path in this right teaching and discipline, I have never been sick, not even to the extent of having a headache for a short moment. I do not recall having ever taken medicine, not even a single piece of gallnut." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, when sitting down cross legged, during these eighty years I never leaned against a wall or a tree."[n.3] Adopting the variant 倚 instead of 猗. – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

38. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, within three days and nights [after my ordination] I attained the threefold realization." – That the venerable Bakkula made such a declaration, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

40–41. Again, the venerable Bakkula declared: "Venerable friends, seated cross-legged I will attain final Nirvāṇa." The venerable Bakkula then attained final Nirvāṇa while seated cross-legged. – That the venerable Bakkula attained final Nirvāṇa while seated cross-legged, this we reckon a marvellous quality of the venerable Bakkula.

The venerable Bakkula made declarations like this. At that time the heterodox wanderer and the monks, having listened to these declarations, were delighted and received them respectfully.

---

Study

Although the main thrust of the Bakkula-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, translated above, is similar, in relation to details a number of differences can be found. One difference involves the narrative framework of the discourse. The Majjhima-nikāya version gives the name of Bakkula's visitor as Acela Kassapa and reports that Bakkula's declarations had such an impact on Acela Kassapa that he decided to go forth and eventually became an arahant.[n.4] MN 124 at MN III 127,13. The Madhyama-āgama discourse, in contrast, neither gives the visitor's name nor reports that he went forth and became an arahant.

The Pāli version's identification of Bakkula's visitor is to some extent problematic, as other Pāli discourses also report that Acela Kassapa went forth and eventually became an arahant, though according to them this happened after hearing quite a different discourse by another speaker.

The Kassapasīhanāda-sutta records that an exposition on asceticism by the Buddha inspired Acela Kassapa to go forth and become an arahant.[n.5] DN 8 at DN I 177,1. A discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya reports that Acela Kassapa ordained and became an arahant after finding out that his former friend, the householder Citta, had as a householder progressed further than Acela Kassapa had been able to do as a wanderer.[n.6] SN 41.9 at SN IV 302,10; cf. also von Hinüber 1997: 68. Another discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya records an exposition by the Buddha to Acela Kassapa on whether pleasure and pain are caused by oneself, others, both, or neither, an exposition that so inspired Acela Kassapa that he went forth and eventually became an arahant.[n.7] SN 12.17 at SN II 22,6.

Unless the same name Acela Kassapa refers to four different persons, the above Pāli passages contradict one another. The Chinese parallels to the above-mentioned discourses do not associate these different events with the same person. The Dīrgha-āgama parallel to the Kassapasīhanāda-sutta introduces its protagonist just as a Kassapa,[n.8] DĀ 25 at T I 104c12: 迦葉. while the Saṃyukta-āgama version of the meeting of the householder Citta with his former friend refers to the latter just as a naked ascetic (acela) and heterodox wanderer, without giving his name.[n.9] SĀ 573 at T II 152a24: 阿耆毘外道. Only the Chinese and Sanskrit fragment parallels to the discourse on the causation of pleasure and pain introduce the wanderer who heard this exposition as Acela Kassapa,[n.10] SĀ 302 at T II 86b3, T 499 at T XIV 768c20 and fragment S 474 folio 14 R2, Tripāṭhī 1962: 47; cf. also SHT V 1133 aA3, Sander 1985: 128. though according to them he became only a stream-enterer during the discourse and was afterwards killed by a cow. Since the Madhyama-āgama parallel to the Bakkula-sutta does not identify Bakkula's visitor (nor reports that he became an arahant), the presentations in these different Āgama discourses do not conflict with one another.

In addition to differing in the extent to which they identify Bakkula's visitor and describe his reaction, the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Bakkula-sutta also differ in regard to the qualities they ascribe to Bakkula.

The two versions report in similar terms how Bakkula reacts to his visitor's inquiry about sexual intercourse by reformulating the question. Once his former friend asks the more appropriate question about having sensual perceptions, according to the Madhyama-āgama version Bakkula first clarifies that he has no conceit about having been ordained for eighty years, and then points out that during this whole time he has never experienced a perception related to sensual desire.[n.11] MĀ 34 at T I 475b4.

In the Majjhima-nikāya version, Bakkula does not make any statement about conceit, but then takes up the issue of his perceptions and thoughts during the eighty years of his monkhood in additional detail by pointing out that he also never had a perception of ill will or harming, and also no thought related to sensuality, ill will or harming.[n.12] MN 124 at MN III 125,21. The reference to such thoughts seems to some degree redundant, given that he has already clarified that he has never even had any such perception, which the discourses reckon as the source of thoughts; cf., e.g., MN 78 at MN II 27,28 and its parallel MĀ 179 at T I 721a22 (translated above page 125).

With subsequent topics, the Madhyama-āgama version continues coming back to Bakkula's freedom from conceit, forestalling the possibility that his proclamation of several of his qualities that are no longer directly related to his former friend's inquiry about sexual intercourse could be misunderstood as an expression of pride.

The next two topics discussed in both versions relate to the requisites of a monk. In the Madhyama-āgama version Bakkula clarifies that he has no conceit in regard to his ascetic observance of wearing rag robes for eighty years. As a strict wearer of rag robes, according to both versions Bakkula never accepted a new robe given by householders. While according to the Madhyamaāgama account he never had a robe made by another and never sewed a bag, according to the Majjhima-nikāya version he never sewed a kaṭhina robe,[n.13] The kaṭhina robe is to be offered to a selected monk at the kaṭhina ceremony held after the conclusion of a rainy season retreat. and he never made robes for others.[n.14] The Ee edition at MN III 126,29 and Ce read sabrahmacārī cīvarakamme byāpāritā, while Be reads sabrahmacārīnaṃ cīvarakamme vicāritā and Se sabrahmacārīnaṃ cīvarakammaṃ vicāritā. The same discourse also reports that he never dyed a robe.

In regard to food, Bakkula is on record for having adopted another of the ascetic observances, which is to depend only on begging alms for one's sustenance and not to accept invitations. The Madhyama-āgama version again notes that Bakkula does not feel any conceit on account of his conduct, and then reports that Bakkula had undertaken the practice of continuous begging for food and never went to superior households in order to get exquisite food. The Majjhima-nikāya version instead highlights that he never desired to be invited, and never sat or ate inside a house.

The next theme is Bakkula's conduct towards women. The two versions agree that Bakkula did not look at women and never entered a nunnery. While the Madhyama-āgama version states that he would not even greet nuns, the Majjhima-nikāya version reports that he never taught any woman, not even a nun, a female probationer or a female novice.[n.15] A female probationer, sikkhamānā, is preparing herself during a two years period for taking the higher ordination as a bhikkhunī.

Bakkula also did not act as a teacher in regard to male monastics. According to the Madhyama-āgama account he never had a novice as his attendant, while according to the Majjhima-nikāya version he never gave the going forth or higher ordination and never gave dependence. [n.16] Dependence, nissaya, involves a tutelage relationship between a bhikkhu of at least ten years standing and a junior bhikkhu. The Madhyama-āgama version also notes that Bakkula never taught the Dharma to the laity.

Another aspect of Bakkula's conduct relates to his health and bodily care. Both versions state that he never got sick,[n.17] Bakkula's freedom from disease is also recorded in the Karmavibhaṅga, Lévi 1932: 76,11, in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1448 at T XXIV 82c25, and in T 199 at T IV 194c5. AN 1.14 at AN I 25,6 reckons Bakkula as foremost in health; cf. also the Aśokāvadāna, Cowell 1886: 396,5, SĀ 604 at T II 168a22 and T 2043 at T L 138c5. Other references to his health can be found in T 1544 at T XXVI 1018b11, T 1545 at T XXVII 121c5, T 2058 at T L 308a22, T 2122 at T LIII 615b27 and T 2123 at T LIV 44c13. The list of eminent disciples in EĀ 4.5 at T II 557c16 introduces him as foremost in longevity. and therefore never used medicine or carried it around.[n.18] The Ee edition at MN III 127,2, Ce and Se read besajjaṃ pariharitā, while Be reads besajjaṃ upaharitā. He also never allowed himself the comfort of leaning against a support. The Pāli version additionally records that he never bathed in a bathroom, never used bathing powder and never had a massage.[n.19] The Ee edition at MN III 126,29 reads sabrahmacārīgattaparikamme byāpajjitā, while Be reads sabrahmacārī gattaparikamme vicāritā, Ce sabrahmacārī gattaparikamme vyāpāritā and Se sabrahmacārigattaparikammaṃ sāditā. The Pāli discourse also notes that Bakkula never lay down and never spent a rainy season retreat in a village.

The final topic covered in both versions is Bakkula's declaration that he became an arahant soon after his ordination. While in the Madhyama-āgama account Bakkula proclaims that he attained the three higher knowledges within three days,[n.20] MĀ 34 at T I 475c7. His attainment of the three higher knowledges recurs in the Chinese, Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the verses attributed to him; cf. T 199 at T IV 194c1, Bechert 1961: 145,10, Dutt 1984: 193,12 and Hofinger 1954: 81,11. Such a reference is absent from a Pāli version of his verses at Th 225–227. in the Majjhima-nikāya discourse he declares that he became an arahant within a week. The two versions conclude by reporting that Bakkula passed away seated, after having announced his impending parinirvāṇa to his fellow monks.

Looking back on the two versions of the present discourse, it is particularly noteworthy that each of them follows its descriptions with repeated acclamations by the reciters of the discourse, praising the wonderful and marvellous character of the qualities of the arahant Bakkula. This form of presentation is rather unusual for discourses found in the Āgamas or Nikāyas. Usually the remarks by the reciters specify locations and identify speakers, or provide transitions from one event to another and background narrations, but do not make explicit proclamations of approval. These repeated acclamations reveal that, from the perspective of the reciters, Bakkula's mode of conduct was considered highly praiseworthy, that for them he was a model arahant.

Another noteworthy point is that this depiction of Bakkula as a model arahant does not belong to the earliest stages of the history of the Buddhist order. The two versions agree that by the time of meeting his former friend, Bakkula had been ordained for eighty years. Hence, even if he had taken ordination soon after the Buddha started to teach, the meeting described in the present discourse would nevertheless have to be placed several decades after the Buddha's passing away, at least thirty-five years later than the forty-five year period of the Buddha's teaching activities. Thus the remark at the beginning of the Madhyama-āgama discourse, according to which the meeting between Bakkula and his friend took place "when the Buddha had recently passed away", could be simply a case of applying a standard pericope.[n.21] MĀ 34 at T I 475a13: 佛般涅槃後不久.

From the circumstance that Bakkula had been a monk for eighty years by the time of the events described in both versions of the Bakkula-sutta, it would also follow that the present discourse could not have been part of the recital of discourses that according to the traditional account took place at the so-called first council (or better "communal recitation"), saṅgīti, held soon after the Buddha's demise.[n.22] This communal recitation is described in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 968b15, in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, T 1425 at XXII 491c2, in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 191a19, in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1451 at T XXIV 407a3, in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1435 at T XXIII 449a20, and in the Theravāda Vinaya, Vin II 287,12; for a comparative study of these and other accounts of this event cf. Przyluski 1926; for a translation of the relevant passages cf. Anuruddha 2008; on the significance of the term saṅgīti cf. Tilakaratne 2000 and Skilling 2009: 55–60. In fact, the commentary to the Bakkula-sutta explains that this discourse was included in the canonical collections only at the second council or communal recitation.[n.23] Ps IV 197,2: idaṃ pana suttaṃ dutiyasaṅgahe saṅgahītan ti.

In sum, then, the occurrence of the relatively unusual feature of repeated acclamation shows that, from the perspective of the reciters, the conduct and qualities of Bakkula represented an important ideal. At the same time, the lateness of the two versions indicates that this ideal stems from a time when the Buddha had already attained final Nirvāṇa several decades ago.

Revisiting the conduct and qualities of Bakkula from this perspective, it is noteworthy that according to both versions he never sewed robes with a needle. Even if he wore only rag robes, these would have needed to be mended from time to time. According to the Pāli version, he also never dyed his robe, a task that would similarly be difficult to avoid in the hot and humid climate of India, where the natural dye used for robes requires periodical renewal. From this it would follow that someone else must have undertaken this work on his behalf.

The Pāli commentary explains that Bakkula's relatives would get rag robes made and dyed for him, leaving them out for him when he went to bathe. Bakkula then dressed in those new robes and gave his old robes to other monks, so that a need to mend his robes never arose.[n.24] Ps IV 193,23. This would explain how he managed to wear robes without doing any mending or dying himself, although the commentarial account is to some extent difficult to reconcile with the explicit statement in the Bakkula-sutta that he never accepted a robe from a householder.[n.25] MN 124 at MN III 126,1: nābhijānāmi gahapaticīvaraṃ sāditā. Even though, according to the commentarial explanation, these were rag robes, they had nevertheless been prepared by householders and the fact that he put them on after bathing would mean that he accepted them. Be that as it may, in order to avail himself of dyed and stitched rag robes he evidently had to rely on the help of others, yet, according to both versions of the present discourse, he does not seem to have reciprocated in this respect.

Such lack of reciprocation was apparently not confined to robes. Although Bakkula himself must have received ordination and presumably also training as a novice, he did not train novices according to the Madhyama-āgama account, nor did he give the going forth, ordination or dependence according to the Majjhima-nikāya version. Judging from the Madhyama-āgama version, he never even gave any teachings to the laity.

Now, if this were just an isolated instance of a monk who is rather withdrawn and introverted, then this would perhaps not be worth further comment. Bakkula's behaviour could simply be seen as representing a peculiar instance out of a range of arahants of quite differing character portrayed in the discourse, some more introverted and others more outgoing.[n.26] An example, noted by Engelmajer 2003: 41–43, would be Sāriputta as someone frequently shown to be teaching and assisting others, in contrast to a group of monks described in MN 31 (and its parallels), who live a rather secluded and thus more self-contained life. What makes the case of Bakkula noteworthy, however, is the circumstance that the reciters consider his conduct as praiseworthy to the extent of acclaiming each aspect of his behaviour as wonderful and marvellous. Independent of whether the picture of Bakkula given in the two discourses is taken to be a historical record or just a product of the imagination of the reciters, the fact remains that they praise qualities that, had he not been considered an arahant, could even be mistaken for selfishness. In fact the Madhyama-āgama version's repeated reference to Bakkula having no conceit gives the impression that a critical attitude towards his claims was considered to be not only a remote possibility.

Another aspect of his conduct that the reciters consider worth extolling is his refraining from any interaction with nuns. This too is puzzling, since once Bakkula had become an arahant soon after his ordination, whether within three days (according to the Madhyama-āgama account) or within a week (according to the Majjhima-nikāya version), one might wonder why teaching nuns or greeting them should be considered as something better to be avoided. According to the Pāli commentary and a commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama preserved in Chinese, Bakkula had been eighty years old at the time of his going forth.[n.27] Ps IV 192,23 and T 1507 at T XXV 45c22; on T 1507 cf. Mori 1970. This makes it even more difficult to understand why it is praiseworthy when a monk who is an arahant and well over eighty shuns any contact with nuns.

According to the Nandakovāda-sutta and its parallel, the Buddha expected his monk disciples to take their turn at teaching nuns.[n.28] MN 146 at MN III 270,18 and its parallel SĀ 276 at T II 73c25, translated in Anālayo 2010a. The Theravāda Vinaya even considers it an offence if a monk does not teach the nuns when it is his turn.[n.29] Vin II 264,35. The same Vinaya also reports that the Buddha sent Ānanda to give teachings to the harem of King Pasenadi.[n.30] Vin IV 158,30. If even young Ānanda, who is reported to have become an arahant only after the Buddha had passed away, is shown to be teaching the charming wives of the king,[n.31] The attractiveness of the wives in King Pasenadi's harem is described in SN 55.6 at SN V 351,8. there seems little reason to consider it praiseworthy when an apparently considerably older monk who is an arahant would not even speak to nuns.

A description in the Aṅguttara-nikāya of seven qualities that prevent a monk from decline makes a point of combining each of these qualities with the need to encourage the development of the same qualities in others.[n.32] AN 7.34 at AN IV 30,12. In fact, according to the Mahāgopālaka-sutta and its parallels to teach others is an integral aspect of being a praiseworthy monk.[n.33] MN 33 at MN I 221,18, AN 11.8 at AN V 349,11, SĀ 1249 at T II 343a5 (translated in Anālayo 2010b), EĀ 49.1 at T II 794b8 and T 123 at T II 546b15. According to Katz 1982/1989: 196, "it is natural for an arahant to teach". Witanachchi 2005: 582 adds that "an ideal Buddhist monk would not be contented only with ... [his] own welfare. He is also expected to impart the knowledge of the Dhamma ... to others". These discourses present as a serious defect what the two versions of the Bakkula-sutta consider wonderful and marvellous.

A discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya compares those who are concerned only with their own welfare to those who are concerned with their own welfare and the welfare of others, making it clear that the latter are more praiseworthy.[n.34] AN 7.64 at AN IV 116,22; a comparative study of this discourse and its parallels can be found in Schmithausen 2004. The importance of concern for others can also be seen in the depiction of other arahant monks. The Rathavinīta-sutta and its parallels, for example, highlight that Puṇṇa Mantāṇiputta was praiseworthy not only because he possessed various good qualities himself, but also because he taught others how to develop the same qualities.[n.35] MN 24 at MN I 145,19 and its parallels MĀ 9 at T I 430a10 and EĀ 39.10 at T II 734a9; on the importance given to benefiting others among the early disciples cf. also Aronson 1980/1986: 11–23. Even a monk like Revata who, unlike Bakkula, in the early discourses exemplifies a secluded and solitary life style,[n.36] AN 1.14 at AN I 24,10 reckons Revata as foremost among those who live in forests; cf. also MN 32 at MN I 213,15 and its parallels MĀ 184 at T I 727b3, EĀ 37.3 at T II 710c24 and T 154 at T III 81a27, which record his praises in favour of living in seclusion. would still make a point of proclaiming that he feels himself a friend and comrade to all, being compassionate towards all beings.[n.37] Th 648: sabbamitto sabbasakho sabbabhūtānukampako. Johansson 1969: 122 explains that "as the arahants are completely without egotism ... they are friendly towards everybody".

Admittedly, not everyone is capable of teaching others, but at least some cooperation in monastic affairs would be possible for anyone. To assist other monks in their tasks is according to other discourses a praiseworthy quality and will lead to communal harmony and concord.[n.38] DN 33 at DN III 267,20 and AN 10.50 at AN V 90,17. An example of such praiseworthy conduct would be the case of Dabba Mallaputta. According to an account found in the Theravāda Vinaya, when Dabba had become an arahant at a young age, he reflected in what way he could render service to the monastic community. Eventually he decided to act as a distributor of lodgings and meals for his monk companions, a decision that met with the Buddha's explicit approval.[n.39] Vin III 158,11; cf. also the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 587a28, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 15a4 and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1442 at T XXIII 695b27; for references to the services he rendered to the community cf. also the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, T 1425 at T XXII 280a19 and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1435 at T XXIII 22a9.

Another Vinaya passage records that on one occasion the Buddha chanced upon a sick monk who had not been properly cared for. With Ānanda's help, the Buddha himself washed the monk and afterwards admonished the other monks, explaining that it was their duty to look after a sick fellow.[n.40] Vin I 302,3; for parallels cf., e.g., the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 861b23, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya T 1424 at T XXII 223b18, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, T 1425 at T XXII 455a28, and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1435 at T XXIII 205a26; cf. also EĀ 44.7 at T II 766b22. Regarding this episode, de Silva 1993: 29 comments that "the Buddha ... set a noble example by himself administering to the helplessly sick". For the Buddha to set an example in this way makes it unmistakeably clear that a lack of concern for other monks was considered inappropriate in early Buddhism, instead of which an attitude of mutual assistance and benevolence was encouraged.

In the light of the above passages, it seems that the image of the arahant Bakkula praised in the two versions of the present discourse differs considerably from the ideal conduct of an arahant, or even of a monk in general, depicted in other discourses. Whereas the ideal arahant monk in other discourses is one who helps others and is willing to teach and guide, the arahant eulogized in the Pāli and Chinese versions of the present discourse is concerned only with himself. Apart from his claim to having reached final liberation within a very short time after ordination, neither the Pāli nor the Chinese version devotes any space to Bakkula's meditative development or to his insight and wisdom. The emphasis in both versions is instead on a display of externally flawless and ascetic conduct.

As the Bakkula-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel are evidently later discourses, they might testify to a stage in the development of the conception of an arahant where the earlier more altruistic ideal was gradually being replaced by a growing emphasis on austere external conduct,[n.41] [47+48] Horner 1936/1979: 191 comments that "it seems that the seeds of altruism, planted with foresight by Gotama at the beginning of his ministry ... smothered during the passage of time". Katz 1979: 56 explains that in the early discourses "the detachment of the arahant ... is not a bland neutrality or indifference ... Buddhist detachment means the non-reference of feeling to self, not merely the cultivation of a hedonic or emotively banal neutrality". a shift of perspective during which the arahant's detachment becomes increasingly understood as a form of indifference.[n.42] In what follows, my study is based on extracts from the article "Once again on Bakkula", published 2010 in the Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 11: 1–28.

The arahant Bakkula occurs also in a discourse found in the Ekottarika-āgama,[n.43] EĀ 23.2 at T II 611c2 to 612a16, translated in Legittimo 2009; cf. also T 2122 at T LIII 470a1. For additional reference to tales related to Bakkula cf. Lamotte 1944/1970: 1386f note 1. where his unwillingness to teach others even motivates Sakka to visit Bakkula in order to find out why this monk, though being an arahant and endowed with deep insight into the true nature of reality, is nevertheless unwilling to share his insight with others.[n.44] The assumption by Legittimo 2009: 96 that Sakka even takes refuge in Bakkula appears to be based on a misunderstanding of EĀ 23.2 at T II 612a1: 釋 提桓因遙向世尊叉手, 便說此偈, 歸命十力尊, which Legittimo 2009: 98 translates as: "Śakra devānam Indra from a distance joined his hands [pointing] towards the honourable [Bakkula] and said in verses: ‘[I] take refuge in the honourable [Bakkula] [who possesses] the ten powers". The term 世尊, a standard epithet of the Buddha in Āgama discourses, makes it clear that the first part of the passage in question depicts Sakka holding his hands in reverence towards the direction where the Buddha was dwelling. Such acting with respect towards the direction in which the Buddha stays is a common occurrence in the thought world of the early discourses; cf., e.g., MN 89 at MN II 124,1 (with parallels in MĀ 213 at T I 797b2 and in T 1451 at T XXIV 238b4 and D 6 tha 85b4 or Q 1035 de 82a8), which reports that the two courtiers of King Pasenadi went to sleep with their heads pointing in the direction they had heard the Buddha was dwelling, even though this resulted in pointing their feet at the king, a highly disrespectful action according to ancient Indian customs. Besides, in early Buddhist thought the one in whom one takes refuge is invariably the Buddha, not his disciples. This can be seen in several discourses in the same Ekottarika-āgama, where disciples tell those wishing to take refuge in them to take refuge in the Buddha instead; cf. EĀ 19.9 at T II 595c18, EĀ 32.7 at T II 680b6, translated in Pāsādika 2006: 402, and EĀ 36.5 at T II 704b2. The same applies also to the present instance, since the one in whom Sakka takes refuge is qualified as endowed with the ten powers, 十力, obviously a reference to the ten powers of a Tathāgata. Similarly worded taking of refuge in the Buddha can be found elsewhere in the Ekottarika-āgama; cf. EĀ 23.2 at T II 612a3 and EĀ 30.3 at T II 664a16. Another discourse in the same collection even proclaims that the ten powers are outside of the domain of disciples; cf. EĀ 51.3 at T II 816c8. For a comparison of the ten powers with the abilities of an arahant cf. de Silva 1987: 40-42; on who can attain the ten powers cf. also Dessein 2009. On being asked by Sakka why he does not engage in teaching the Dharma, Bakkula explains that there are enough others, such as the Buddha or chief disciples like Sāriputta or Ānanda, who are able to do so. In reply, Sakka notes that there are many beings of various types, thereby indicating that there would still be scope for Bakkula to also deliver teachings. Faced by Sakka's insistence, Bakkula agrees that there are many different types of beings and then explains that his main motivation for remaining silent is that people are so attached.[n.45] EĀ 23.2 at T II 611c24. Extrapolating from the way he is depicted in this Ekottarika-āgama discourse, it seems that Bakkula simply can't be bothered teaching the Dharma to people who – precisely because they lack a proper understanding of the Dharma – are still under the influence of attachment.[n.46] His disinclination to teach is thus different from the recently awakened Buddha's hesitation to teach, which according to MN 26 at MN I 167,34 was due to his reflection that people would not be able to comprehend what he had discovered; cf. also above page 33. From Bakkula's perspective, people's ability to comprehend would no longer have been in question, in fact his own attainment of awakening would have been a living proof of the fact that people were able to understand what the Buddha had discovered.

Given that Bakkula's main motivation for not teaching appears to be that he cannot be bothered, the Ekottarika-āgama discourse concords with the picture drawn of Bakkula in the Bakkula-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, where he is praised as a saint who never taught or assisted others.[n.47] A similar perspective emerges also in T 1507 at T XXV 46a20, as part of its gloss on a reference to Bakkula in the listing of eminent disciples, EĀ 4.5 at T II 557c16. According to T 1507, Ānanda questions Bakkula why he does not teach even though he possesses the four analytical knowledges. Bakkula confirms that he possesses these four indeed, but enjoys being by himself and does not like to be in the hustle and bustle of the world, therefore he does not teach the Dharma. In fact the Ekottarika-āgama discourse in a way completes the picture, since the other two discourses do not explicitly indicate why Bakkula did not teach.[n.48] Legittimo 2009: 99, however, argues for the present discourse being a "deliberate effort to rehabilitate Bakkula", achieved by having Sakka come "down to earth to test him, to see whether it is true that he does not teach others". Yet, in the discourse itself the motivation of Sakka's visit is not to find out if it is true that Bakkula does not teach, but rather to find out if he does not teach because he is unable to do so; cf. the reflection at EĀ 23.2 at T II 611c9, translated by Legittimo 2009: 97 as "I am not sure whether this honourable one is able to teach the dharma to others or whether he is not able to. I shall now test him". Given that Bakkula's reply satisfies Sakka's curiosity, as it confirms that this monk is able to teach the Dharma, it becomes all the more plain that the arahant Bakkula shows no interest in assisting others and thereby in some way reciprocating the guidance and assistance he must have received when going forth and learning the Dharma himself. Had he been unable to teach, his not engaging in teaching activities would have been more easily understandable.

Had Bakkula been exemplifying a type of monk who remains a hermit for his whole life, such conduct could be understandable, since he would have lacked opportunities to teach. But this does not seem to be the case, as the Bakkula-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and its Madhyama-āgama parallel depict him as living amidst a monastic community. In both discourses he readily addresses other monks during his discussion with his visitor and also announces his impending passing away to other monks. Thus, at the moment of receiving a chance visit by a non-Buddhist wanderer, Bakkula is shown to be in the company of others monks, and at the time of his death, he is apparently also living together with other monks. That is, at least on the occasions described in these discourses, Bakkula is depicted as someone who lives as a member of a monastic community. He would thus have had ample opportunity to engage in those teaching activities which he proclaims to have never performed. [n.49] The part found in the original paper between pages 9 and 12 has been abbreviated.

The list of outstanding disciples in the Aṅguttara-nikāya presents Bakkula as foremost in health, while the corresponding listing in the Ekottarika-āgama reckons him as foremost in longevity.[n.50] Cf. above note 17. Though these are qualities that probably nobody would want to miss, it is not immediately evident why their possession is reckoned to be significant in the case of an arahant. Compared with other qualities mentioned in the listings of outstanding disciples, such as wisdom, meditative expertise, learnedness, or adherence to strict modes of conduct, etc., to be healthy and have a long lifespan does not stand in a direct relation to the circumstance that their bearer is an arahant or even a Buddhist monk. They could as well be in the possession of someone who is not even a follower of the Buddha.

That health and longevity of an arahant may not necessarily arouse inspiration in others is conveyed in the Aśokāvadāna of the Divyāvadāna. The work describes how King Asoka is taken for a tour of sacred spots, visiting the stūpas of different eminent disciples in turn. On being told of their respective qualities, the king makes a donation of a hundred-thousand pieces of gold to the stūpas of Sāriputta, Mahāmoggallāna and Mahākassapa respectively, and an even more substantial donation to the stūpa of Ānanda.

When he is informed that Bakkula was outstanding for his health and for never having taught even a two-line stanza to others, he donates just a small coin. To his surprised entourage the king explains his lack of inspiration to be because this monk, unlike others, did not benefit beings.[n.51] Cowell 1886: 396,5, where Upagupta informs the king about Vatkula (Bakkula) in the following terms: alpābādhānām agro nirdiṣṭo bhagavatā, api ca na tena kasyacid dvipadikā gāthā śrāvitā, whereupon the king decides: diyatām atra kākaṇiḥ, and then explains that he is not inspired because this monk: na kṛtaṃ hi tena yathā kṛtaṃ sattvahitaṃ tad anyaiḥ. As noted by Rotman 2009: 162, the king's lack of inspiration was because Bakkula "didn't teach".

What is significant about this tale – where the humour inherent in the depiction could be intentional[n.52] For examinations of humour in Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya literature cf. Clarke 2009, Schopen 2007 and Schopen 2009. – is not only the lack of enthusiasm that Bakkula arouses in the distinguished visitor to his stūpa. The very fact that Bakkula is mentioned at all is also remarkable. Whereas the other four monks are famous chief disciples of the Buddha, in the early discourses Bakkula is clearly a peripheral character and there would have been a fair number of other well-known arahant disciples that could have been mentioned in his stead. By being accorded a stūpa, the Aśokāvadāna concords with the other discourses discussed above in presenting Bakkula as worthy of worship.

What to make of his praiseworthiness, given that his outstanding qualities appear somewhat uninspiring, as exemplified in King Asoka's reaction? Since the interest in Bakkula evinced in the various texts surveyed so far would probably not be related to his longevity or health, even though the listings of eminent disciples emphasize these qualities, perhaps the coming into vogue of a more austere and to some degree self-centred arahant ideal may explain why Bakkula is reckoned as particularly praiseworthy.

To better appreciate the significance of Bakkula as representative of a particular type of arahant, in what follows I briefly examine another figure in the early Buddhist texts: the arahant Mahākassapa. In the early discourses, this rather famous disciple stands representative for austere conduct, exemplified in his recurrent association with the observance of the ascetic practices.[n.53] The listings of outstanding disciples in the Aṅguttara-nikāya and the Ekottarika-āgama agree on taking the observance of the ascetic practices as the hall-mark of Mahākassapa, AN 1.14 at AN I 23,18 and EĀ 4.2 at T II 557b8. His eminency in this respect is also recorded in the Divyāvadāna, Cowell 1886: 395,23, and in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1882: 64,14. On Mahākassapa in general cf., e.g., Przyluski 1914: 522–528, Przyluski 1923: 167–173 and 327– 340, Malalasekera 1938/1998: 476–483, Lamotte 1944/1981: 191f note 1 and 287 note 1, Lamotte 1944/1970: 1399 note 1, Waldschmidt 1948: 285–313, Tsukamoto 1963, Bareau 1971: 215–265, Ray 1994: 105–118, Ñāṇaponika 1997: 109–136, Deeg 1999: 154–168, Karaluvinna 2002, Silk 2003, Wilson 2003, Deeg 2004, Klimburg-Salter 2005: 541–547 and Lagirarde 2006.

A discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its parallels report that Mahākassapa's devotion to some of these observances was so firm that he was not willing to give up their practice even when recommended to do so by the Buddha.[n.54] SN 16.5 at SN II 202,11, SĀ 1141 at T II 301c10, SĀ2 116 at T II 416b11, EĀ 12.6 at T II 570b3 and EĀ 41.5 at T II 746a22. Tilakaratne 2005: 236 comments that "the behaviour of Mahā Kassapa in this context is not typical of a disciple of the Buddha. Usually ... the disciple would abide by the request of the Master". This episode throws into relief Mahākassapa as an advocate of the values of ancient Indian asceticism within early Buddhism,[n.55] Przyluski 1926: 296 explains that: "Mahākāśyapa ... c'est un homme des temps nouveaux ... il incarne les influences brahmaniques qui ont si fortement contribué à modifier le Bouddhisme primitif". where often tendencies towards a less austere spirit made their appearance.

Unlike Bakkula, however, Mahākassapa is shown to be engaging in teaching activities, in fact according to a discourse in the Kassapa-saṃyutta and its parallels he was exemplary for a pure way of teaching that is undertaken out of compassion.[n.56] SN 16.3 at SN II 200,3, SĀ 1136 at T II 300a15, SĀ2 111 at T II 414c10 and T 121 at T II 545a6.

Regarding his teaching activities, several discourses in the Kassapa-saṃyutta give the impression that the way he executed this task did not always meet with appreciation. Three Pāli discourses and their Chinese parallels report that the Buddha invited him to deliver instructions to other monks, which he declined, pointing out their lack of readiness to receive his teachings.[n.57] SN 16.6 at SN II 204,3, SĀ 1138 at T II 300b16, SĀ2 113 at T II 415a12 and T 212 at T IV 643a27. SN 16.7 at SN II 206,3, SĀ 1139 at T II 300c29 and SĀ2 114 at T II 415b29. SN 16.8 at SN II 208,20, SĀ 1140 at T II 301a26 and SĀ2 115 at T II 415c24. Notably, according to the last of these three instances, respect for ascetic practices had gone into decline among other monks.

Two more instances involve nuns. One of these begins with Ānanda convincing Mahākassapa to accompany him to a nunnery to give teachings. One of the nuns afterwards expresses her displeasure at having received teachings from Mahākassapa instead of being able to listen to Ānanda, whom she considers superior. Mahākassapa, who had come to know of the comment made by the nun, rebukes Ānanda and gets him to admit that the Buddha publicly certified Mahākassapa to be in the possession of a whole range of attainments.[n.58] According to SN 16.10 at SN II 216,11, before listing his attainments Mahākassapa also threatens to have this episode investigated by the community, a remark not found in the parallel versions SĀ 1143 at T II 302b24 and SĀ2 118 at T II 417b19. As noted by Karaluvinna 2002: 439, SN 16.10–11 give the impression that Mahākassapa "was not popular among the nuns".

On another occasion some young monks, who apparently had been under the guidance of Ānanda, disrobe. Mahākassapa censures Ānanda and calls him a youngster (or else compares him to a small child).[n.59] SN 16.11 at SN II 218,22 and a version of this event in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1897: 48,19, agree on reading kumārako; SĀ 1144 at T II 303a6 reads 童子 and SĀ2 119 at T II 418a6: 猶如小兒. This arouses criticism by a nun, who insinuates that Mahākassapa was formerly a follower of a heterodox tradition.[n.60] SN 16.11 at SN II 219,12, Senart 1897: 49,12, SĀ 1144 at T II 303a14 and SĀ2 119 at T II 418a16. When Mahākassapa comes to know of this criticism, in front of Ānanda he relates in detail his close relationship with the Buddha and again proclaims his various attainments, concluding that to overlook his qualities is like attempting to hide an elephant under a palm leaf.[n.61] SN 16.11 at SN II 222,9, Senart 1897: 55,4, SĀ 1144 at T II 303c9 and SĀ2 119 at T II 418c21.

When surveying these passages in his study of the personality of arahants, Johansson (1969: 130) comes to the conclusion that, since "from an absolute point of view these incidents must be seen as shortcomings", after all "the idea that arahantship was a superhuman degree of perfection is incorrect". This may be going a little too far. A passage in the Theravāda Vinaya points to a special type of relationship between these two monks,[n.62] According to Vin I 92,37, on being asked to assist Mahākassapa in an ordination, Ānanda says that he does not dare to pronounce Mahākassapa's name (which he would need to do during the motion) because: garu me thero, where garu according to Horner 1951/1982: 119 note 3 is "probably equivalent to guru, spiritual teacher. Cf. garunissaya at Vin. ii. 303"; on the inappropriateness of pronouncing the name of a superior person, evident in this passage, cf. von Hinüber 1991: 124. which would make it natural for Mahākassapa to admonish Ānanda after the Buddha had passed away, perhaps on the assumption that the favouritism shown by the nuns could best be redressed by Ānanda himself. This would also set the context for Mahākassapa's listing of his attainments, which highlight that whereas the nuns preferred Ānanda to Mahākassapa, the Buddha considered Mahākassapa superior to Ānanda, as far as spiritual development was concerned.

Nevertheless, the somewhat rough tone he adopts according to these passages, considered together with the references to monks not ready for his teachings, does convey the impression that Mahākassapa represents a particular current within the early Buddhist Saṅgha that faced criticism from other monks and nuns. Thus von Hinüber (2008: 26), after surveying these episodes and the account of the so-called first council, where Mahākassapa again in quite strong terms rebukes Ānanda,[n.63] The canonical accounts report that Ānanda had to face a whole set of reproaches from Mahākassapa (for a comparative survey cf. Tsukamoto 1963: 820), one of them being that Ānanda acted as the spokesman for the founding of the order of nuns, cf. the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 967b27, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 191b14, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1451 at T XXIV 404c23, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1435 at T XXIII 449c8, and the Theravāda Vinaya, Vin II 289,25. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, T 1425 at T XXII 492a22, however, the criticism is voiced by Upāli. Frauwallner 1956: 161 comments that "Ānanda... is much lowered in status and is deeply humbled by Mahākāśyapa ... [which stands] in contrast with the rest of the early tradition. In the tradition of the Sūtrapiṭaka Mahākāśyapa is a prominent disciple, but does not specially stand out and is not often mentioned, with the exception of the Kāśyapasaṃyukta of the Saṃyuktāgama. On the contrary Ānanda is the closest attendant of the Buddha ... the account of the council ... [shows] a deep reaching modification and revaluation of the tradition concerning the position of Ānanda and Mahākāśyapa"; cf. also Przyluski 1926: 376f, Bareau 1971: 140 and Migot 1952: 539f. concludes that "Ānanda as the favourite of the Buddha ... and Mahākassapa as the most venerable monk immediately after the nirvāṇa and heir to the Buddha, may be considered as the heads of two conflicting currents within the saṃgha of monks", representative of "a deeply rooted dissent, perhaps as bad as the earlier conflict with Devadatta".

In his study of the opposition between these two disciples, Tilakaratne (2005) sees this tension between Mahākassapa and Ānanda as setting trends that have been of major significance in the development of the Theravāda tradition, where especially the austere example provided by Mahākassapa appears to have been rather influential.[n.64] In fact, even just comparing the similar expositions given to certain topics in the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga, a tendency to shift from mental qualities to externals of conduct clearly makes itself felt; cf. in more detail Anālayo 2009c: 6–12.

Yet, in the above surveyed instances Mahākassapa does take an active interest in community matters and also acts as a teacher. In fact, he even goes to a nunnery to teach the nuns, even though he does so only at the instigation of Ānanda. That is, in contrast to Bakkula, Mahākassapa would not have been able to proclaim that he never entered a nunnery, that he never greeted a nun or that he never taught a nun.

The Mahāgosiṅga-sutta indicates that Mahākassapa not only undertook several ascetic practices himself, but also encouraged others to do the same.[n.65] MN 32 at MN I 214,2 and its parallels MĀ 184 at T I 727c2, EĀ 37.3 at T II 711a7 and T 154 at T III 81b16, which, in spite of varying in their listings of his qualities, agree on the basic pattern that he not only possessed these qualities himself, but also encouraged others to develop the same. Thus, in spite of all austerity and sternness, Mahākassapa does represent an arahant who shows concern for others. This, however, is not the case with Bakkula, whose not assisting others in any way is so prominent.

A withdrawal from involvement with others would perhaps only be natural in view of the lack of appreciation and receptivity among other monastics, depicted in the above surveyed discourses from the Kassapa-saṃyutta. This pattern can be seen in its incipient stage with Mahākassapa, exemplified in his repeatedly declining the Buddha's invitation to teach the monks and in the problems that arise from his being persuaded to teach the nuns.

In a way, the description given of Bakkula could be seen as representative of the outcome of this pattern: the austere arahant no longer teaches. Once he no longer acts as a teacher, to command respect and be considered worthy of support this type of arahant needs to display an externally flawless and ascetic conduct. This is precisely what is depicted in the Bakkula-sutta and its parallel.

Given that the depiction of Bakkula must stem from a period at some distance after the Buddha's decease, it seems reasonable to assume that the praises bestowed on him in the Bakkula-sutta and its parallel testify to a development in the conception of an arahant subsequent to the arahant ideal reflected in other early discourses.[n.66] Another instance relevant to the present discussion would be the Saṅgāmaji-sutta in the Udāna, where a monk (who according to Ud-a 71,24 was an arahant), on being asked by his wife to support her and their little child, Ud 1.8 at Ud 5,20, reacts by simply ignoring her. The Buddha thereupon praises him for his detached attitude and freedom from bondage. Notably, the prose that accompanies the corresponding verse in the Chinese Udāna collection, T 212 at T IV 771a2, does not mention this tale at all. Several scholars have pointed out that prose narrations in the Udāna tend to be later than the verses on which they comment; cf. Seidenstücker 1913: 87, Seidenstücker 1920: xvi, Winternitz 1920/1968: 67, Woodward 1935: v, Pande 1957: 72, Lamotte 1968: 465, Nakamura 1980/1999: 43, Norman 1983: 61, Abeynayake 1984: 66, Ireland 1990: 7, von Hinüber 1996/1997: 46 and Anālayo 2009a. Several other Udāna collections do not have any prose at all, but consist entirely of verse. Hence this particular tale could belong to a similar textual stratum as tales found in the commentaries on the Jātaka and the Dhammapada, even though, unlike these, in the case of the Udāna such tales have become 'canonical' and in the present instance counterparts to this tale can be found in SĀ 1072 at T II 278b11 and SĀ2 11 at T II 376b21. The Saṅgāmaji-sutta could thus be another instance reflecting a development of the arahant ideal in line with the example provided by Bakkula. In fact, as the above comparison with Mahākassapa shows, in other early discourses austerity and ascetic conduct do not require refraining from teaching activities. In the case of Mahākassapa, probably the example par excellence for asceticism among the early disciples, teaching activities and a vivid concern for the welfare of the Saṅgha (evinced in the role he takes after the Buddha's demise) show that – from an early Buddhist viewpoint – austerity can co-exist with concern for others.

In sum, it seems that the arahant ideal evident in the depiction of Bakkula reflects tendencies whose incipient stage can already be discerned in some discourses related to Mahākassapa, probably standing representative of an attitude held among a faction of the early Buddhist community. The way Bakkula is presented in the Ekottarika-āgama does not seem to differ substantially from the Bakkula-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, in that these discourses agree – albeit in different ways – in extolling an arahant who simply can't be bothered with others. Had Bakkula's fellow monks adopted a type of conduct similar to what these discourses consider as highly praiseworthy, the Buddhist monastic order would not have stood much chance of survival.