Was it simply an intelligence test?:

Mango Puzzle of Arahant Mahinda

Professor Chandima Wijebandara (Former Vice Chancellor of Sri Jayewardenepure University)

The most significant event in the history of Buddhist Civilization of Sri Lanka is the introduction of Buddhism by the Great Arahant Mahinda Thera in the middle of the third century BC. It marked a new era in our history. Even though we were very close to India physically and culturally we were not blessed with the presence of Buddhist monks who would enrich our national life with Buddhist values until Emperor Asoka sent his own son Mahinda to introduce Buddhism to Sri Lanka. We, therefore, respectfully venerate Mahinda Thera as ‘anubuddha’ (second Buddha) and feel ever grateful to Emperor Asoka.

The long overdue introduction of Buddhism took place as a consequence to Emperor Asoka’s adoption of Dhamma Vijaya policy. Having changed his mindset after saddeningly shocking experience of Kalinga war he had given up conquering of land (Dig Vijaya) and hunting expeditions (Vihala yata). He had studied the Buddhist Scripture to the extent of being able to design a course of scriptural studies for Buddhist monks. And he wanted to actively engage in expanding the message of the Buddha to the rulers of neighbouring provinces and countries too.

He was probably inspired by the Chakkavatti Sihanada Sutta where an emperor’s portrait is painted as spiritually conquering the world by a programme of moral education based on five precepts. Educating friendly kings in Buddhism by correspondence is not unusual in the history of India. As a matter of fact the first correspondence of Buddhism was offered by king Bimbisara.

He sent correspondence lessons to the King of Gandhara and the king of Roruka. Both of them were converted to Buddhism. Emperor Asoka followed suite when he wrote to the king of Sri Lanka, Devanampiya Tissa. They were, as recorded, unseen friends. Asoka is reported to have written to Devanampiya Tissa “I have taken refuge in the Buddha, his doctrine, and the Order of Sangha.

I have proclaimed myself a lay follower of the religion of the son of Sakya clan. Seek then, O the best of men, refuge in these holy Gems, converting your mind with believing heart.” This indicates that the king of Sri Lanka was pre-educated by the Emperor of India before the arrival of Mahinda, none other than his own son.

The first encounter between the Sri Lankan king and the missionaries of Asoka was also an interesting event. That day the king of Sri Lanka was on a hunting expedition, one of the cruel practices Emperor Asoka gave up after converting to Buddhism.

As the king of Sri Lanka most probably had pre-knowledge of it, he might have felt rather embarrassed being caught in the unethical act. It is reported he immediately dropped the bow and arrows, symbolizing a change in behaviour the moment Mahinda introduced himself and the retinue as ‘Dhammarajassa savaka’.

Then Arahant Mahinda asked two set of questions from the king. Those questions are known as mango question and relations question. E F C Ludowyk has stated that it had ‘something of Socratic guile’, while the erudite Buddhist scholar Ven Walpola Rahula Thera has said it was the first ‘intelligence test’ on record.

As Professor Walpola Rahula writes: “During their first conversation, Mahinda, in order to gauge the king’s intelligence and capacity to understand, put to him some questions. This test, which can be regarded as the first intelligence test recorded in history and, though simple and easy at first glance, required a clear and acute mind to answer it.”

The mango question and answers were as follows:

“What name does this tree bear, O King?”

“The tree is called mango.”

“Is there another mango tree besides this?”

“There are many mango trees.”

“Are there any trees other than this mango tree and other mango trees?”

“There are many trees, Sir, but those are not mango trees.”

“And are there, besides other mango trees and those trees which are not mango trees, yet other trees?”

“There is this mango tree, Sir”

“Thou hast a shrewd wit, O ruler of men.”

Then Arhant Mahinda asked another set of questions which formed in the same format. Arahant Mahinda asked the king:

“Do you have relations, O king?”

The king answered: “Yes Venerable Sir, I have.”

“Do you have people who are not related you?”

“Yes Venerable Sir, there are many unrelated people.”

“Except those who are related and unrelated, are there any others?”

This would have been a tricky question, as any one would think when the society is divided into related and non-related the entire population is virtually exhausted. Yet the king’s mind was already fine tuned with the previous question to analyze it carefully and give the correct answer. He replied: “Yes Venerable, Sir, there is one. That is me.”

What would have happened if the mango questions were not asked before the second question, and the king gave a wrong answer to the second question on relations? This is very important since Arahant Mahinda would not have asked a second intelligence question of the same format if his aim was just testing King’s intelligence.

On the other hand we cannot expect a king of a country to tolerate a missionary to keep on ‘bullying’ him with similar set of questions like this. Rahula has hinted the questions were to test the king’s intelligence and capacity to understand. ‘Capacity to understand’ what? He has not explained.

The second question appears to be the most important. Mahinda definitely wanted to get the right answer to it. As we have already mentioned the nature of the second question is such that it is likely that some one might answer it in a hurry taking the division implied in the question exhaustive as in the most of general dualistic divisions.

One may think that no one is left out when we divide the world into our relations and those who are not related. To avoid this pitfall Mahinda orientated the thought process of the king to see that he would answer analytically by asking the less complicated first question.

The point we have to focus on, then, is the reason why Mahinda wanted the king to be analytical and why he wanted the king to end up singling out himself. In other words what significance is there in the concepts of ‘analysis’ and ‘self’ in the message Arahant Mahinda had to offer the king? This brings us to the very important crisis the Theravada Buddhism in India had undergone that time.

Emperor Asoka and Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa had to face the difficult task of filtering of Buddha’s message from ‘impurities’ of eternalist interpretations that had crept into Buddhism in the guise of Sabbathivada (All exist theory that confused past and future with the present).

In original Buddhism of Gotama Buddha, time is analyzed into past, present and future and three verbs ‘was, is and will be’ were used respectively to keep these three times apart from each other. But a group of monks who had developed a wrong Abhidhamma claimed that the term ‘is’ applicable to all three times and everything exists all three times.

In other words everything eternally exists in their nature (svabhava). Traditional Theras maintained that this interpretation amounts to smuggle in Eternalism (sassatavada) back into Buddhism and emphasized that the Buddha was an analyst (vibhajjavadi) in relation to this problem and maintained that there is no such ‘substance’ to be called svabhava or atta (Self).

This indicates that to obtain a correct understanding of the Buddha’s teachings one has to be analytical in approach and also to start with an analytical understanding of self to avoid the wrong notion of Self. In Buddhist ethics we have to realize the existence of conventional self and non existence of any absolute Self.

This was still more important for Theravada since, by this time, Mahasanghika schools (proto-Mahayanists) were developing their criticisms against the goal of Arahanthood calling it is selfish and developing the Bodhisattva ideal. But for Theravada, conventional self is an important concept both ethically and ontologically.

Buddhist ethics begins with self and the criterion of good is based on our concept of happiness. It is epitomized in Attupanayika Dhamma pariyaya which is equivalent to the golden rule in Greek and Chinese philosophies. Theravadins being their loving kindness meditation also with the idea of ‘let I be happy, healthy, loving and hate-free person’. And at the level of ontology they will analytically meditate on anatta which brings them to the understanding of Self-less-ness (Anatta).