‘Venerable Nāgasena, your people say thus: “The Tathāgata was in the constant receipt of the things necessary for a recluse-robes, food, lodging, and the requisites for the sick.” And again they say: “When the Tathāgata entered the Brahman village called the Five Sāla trees he received nothing, and had to return with his bowl as clean as before.” If the first passage is true the second is false, and if the second passage is true The first is false. This too is a double-headed problem, a mighty crux hard to unravel. It is now put to you. It is for you to solve it.’

‘Both statements are true, but when he received nothing that day, that was the work of Māra, the evil one.’

‘Then, Nāgasena, how was it that the merit laid up by the Blessed One through countless aeons of time came to end that day? How was it that Māra, who had only just been produced, could overcome the strength and influence of that merit? In that case, Nāgasena, the blame must fall in one of two ways—either demerit must be more powerful than merit, or the power of Māra be greater than that of the Buddha. The root of the tree must be heavier than the top of it, or the sinner stronger than he who has heaped up virtue.’

‘Great king, that is not enough to prove either the one or the other of your alternatives. Still a reason is certainly desirable in this matter.

Suppose, O king, a man were to bring a complimentary present to a king of kings—honey or honeycomb or something of that kind. And the king’s doorkeeper were to say to him: “This is the wrong time for visiting the king. So, my good fellow, take your present as quickly as ever you can, and go back before the king inflicts a fine upon you.” And then that man, in dread and awe, should pick up his present, and return in great haste. Now would the king of kings, merely from the fact that the man brought his gift at the wrong time, be less powerful than the doorkeeper, or never receive a complimentary present any more?’

‘No, Sir. The doorkeeper turned back the giver of that present out of the surliness of his nature, and one a hundred thousand times as valuable might be brought in by some other device.’

‘Just so, O king, it was out of the jealousy of his nature that Māra, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees. And hundreds of thousands of other deities came up to offer the Buddha the strength-giving ambrosia from heaven, and stood reverencing him with clasped hands and thinking to themselves that they would thus imbue him with vigour.’

‘That may be so, Nāgasena. The Blessed One found it easy to get the four requisites of a recluse—he, the best in the world—and at the request of gods and men he enjoyed all the requisites. But still Māra’s intention to stop the supply of food to the Blessed One was so far carried out. Herein, Sir, my doubt is not removed. I am still in perplexity and hesitation about this. My mind is not clear how the Tathāgata, the Arahat, the supreme Buddha, the best of all the best in the world of gods and men, he who had so glorious a treasure of the merit of virtue, the unequalled one, unrivalled and peerless—how so vile, mean, insignificant, sinful, and ignoble a being as Māra could put any obstacle in the way of gifts to Him.’

‘There are four kinds, O king, of obstacles—the obstacle to a gift not intended for any particular person, to a gift set apart for some one, to the gift got ready, and to the enjoyment of a gift. And the first is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the actual gift of a thing put ready to be given away, but not with a view to or having seen any particular donee—an obstacle raised, for instance, by saying: “What is the good of giving it away to any one else?” the second is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the actual gift of food intended to be prepared to be given to a person specified. The third is when any one puts an obstacle in the way when such a gift has been got ready, but not yet accepted. And the fourth is when any one puts an obstacle in the way of the enjoyment of a gift already given (and so the property of the donee).’

‘Now when Māra, the evil one, possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees, the food in that case was neither the property of, nor got ready for, nor intended to be prepared specially for the Blessed One. The obstacle was put in the way of some one who was yet to come, who had not arrived, and for whom no gift was intended. That was not against the Blessed One alone. But all who had gone out that day, and were coming to the village, failed to receive an alms. I know no one, O king, in the world of men and gods, no one among Māras or Brahmas, no one of the class of Brahmans or recluses, who could put any obstacle in the way of an alms intended for, or got ready for, or already given to the Blessed One. And if any one, out of jealousy, were to raise up any obstacle in that case, then would his head split into a hundred or into a thousand pieces.’

‘There are four things, O king, connected with the Tathāgatas, to which no one can do any harm. And what are the four? To the alms intended for, and got ready for the Blessed One—to the halo of a fathom’s length when it has once spread out from him-to the treasure of the knowledge of his omniscience—and to his life. All these things, O king, are one in essence—they are free from defect, immovable, unassailable by other beings, unchangeable by other circumstances. And Māra, the evil one, lay in ambush, out of sight, when he possessed the Brahmans and householders at the Five Sāla trees. It was as when robbers, O king, hiding out of sight in the inaccessible country over the border, beset the highways. But if the king caught sight of them, do you think those robbers would be safe?’

‘No, Sir, he might have them cut into a hundred or a thousand pieces with an axe.’

‘Well, just so it was, hiding out of sight, that Māra possessed them. It was as when a married woman, in ambush, and out of sight, frequents the company of her paramour. But if, O king, she were to carry on her intrigues in her husband’s presence, do you think she would be safe?’

‘No, Sir, he might slay her, or wound her, or put her in bonds, or reduce her to slavery.’

‘Well. It was like that, hiding out of sight, that Māra possessed them. But if, O king, he had raised any obstacle in the case of an alms intended for, got ready for, or in possession of the Blessed One, then his head would have split into a hundred or a thousand pieces.’

‘That is so, Nāgasena. Māra, the evil one, acted after the manner of robbers, he lay in ambush, possessing the Brahmans and householders of the Five Sāla trees. But if the same Māra, the evil one, had interfered with any alms intended for, or made ready for the Blessed One, or with his partaking thereof, then would his head have been split into a hundred or a thousand pieces, or his bodily frame have been dissipated like a handful of chaff.’

‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’

Here ends the dilemma as to Māra’s interference with alms.]