[300] On this story, see the translator’s “Buddhism,” pp. 196-198. [301] On this story, see below, Jātaka No. 35. [302] This verse is quoted by the Dhammapada Commentator, Fausböll, p. 147. [303] The Commentator on the “Scripture Verses” (p. 331), says that it was at the end of this story that the Buddha uttered the 162nd verse of that Collection--“He who exceeds in wickedness makes himself such as his enemy might desire, (dragging himself down) as the creeper the tree which it has covered.” [304] Literally, of the Agatis (things of which a judge, and especially a king, sitting as judge, ought not to be guilty); they are four in number, partiality, ill-will, ignorance, and fear. [305] See the last Introductory Story. [306] A title of honour given to Sāriputta. [307] This is verse No. 285 of the ‘Scripture Verses,’ _àpropos_ of which the commentator tells the same story as is told here. [308] This Introductory Story is also told as the introduction to Jātakas Nos. 141 and 184. [309] A “Rogue elephant” is a well-known technical term for a male who has been driven out of the herd, and away from the females, by a stronger than himself; or for a male, who, in the rutting season, has lost his self-command. Such elephants, however gentle before, become exceedingly vicious and wanton. [310] Literally Samaṇa-Brāhmans, the Samaṇas, or Self-conquering Ones, being those who have given up the world, and devoted themselves to lives of self-renunciation and of peace. Real superiority of caste--true Brāmanship--is the result, not of birth, but of self-culture and self-control. The Samaṇas are therefore the true Brāhmans, ‘Brāhmans by saintliness of life.’ The Samaṇas were not necessarily Buddhists, though they disregarded the rites and ceremonies inculcated by the Brāhmans. It would not have answered the king’s purpose to send Brāhmans: who are distinguished throughout the Jātakas, not by holiness of life, but by birth; and who would be represented as likely to talk, not of righteousness, but of ritual. I cannot render the compound, therefore, by ‘Samaṇas AND Brāhmans,’ and I very much doubt whether it ever has that meaning (but see Childers _contra_, under _Samaṇa_). It certainly never has the sense of ‘Samaṇas OR Brāhmans.’ It was an early Buddhist idea that the only true Samaṇas were those members of the Order who had entered the Noble Path, and the only true Brāhmans those who had reached to the goal of the Noble Path, that is, to Nirvāna. See Mahā Parinibbana Sutta, p. 58. [311] Perhaps ‘Woman-face’ would be a more literal rendering of the word _Mahilā-mukha_. But as the allusion is evidently to the elephant’s naturally gentle character, I have rendered the expression by ‘Girly-face.’ The exaggeration in this story is somewhat too absurd for Western tastes.