The Life Stories of the Monks – 1889
Elaboration: When Ven. Sāriputta went on alms round, he stood at the
door and engaged in loving-kindness meditation for sometime until the
supporter came out bringing the food. Only when the supporter came out
did he emerge from his meditation and receive the food. Ven. Subhūti,
however, engaged in meditation on loving-kindness and only when the
supporter reached him, did he emerge from his meditation and receive the
food.
276
The exposition of the Analysis of Non-Conflict (
Araṇa-vibhaṅga-sutta
,
MN 139) in the commentary may be noticed in particular. Also the
sermons with reference to Ven. Subhūti should be noted from the
Traditions (
Apādāna
, Tha-ap 23) and commentary, etc.
14. Ven. Khadiravaniya Revata
Aspiration in the Past
The original name of this great elder was Revata. He was a younger
brother of Ven. Sāriputta. As he dwelt in an acacia forest which was
uneven and full of stones, he was thus known as Khadiravaniya Revata,
“Revata of the acacia forest.” In giving his account only the name Revata
will be used for convenience sake.
The great elder Revata was a citizen of Haṁsavatī and a virtuous person during
the lifetime of the Buddha Padumuttara, 100,000 aeons ago. He was operating a
ferry at the port of Payāga, on the river Ganges. Buddha Padumuttara, in the
company of 100,000 monks, arrived at Payāga port to cross over the river.
On seeing the Buddha, it occurred to the virtuous Revata thus: “It is impossible
for me to see the Buddha always. Now that the Buddha has come, it is a good
chance for me to do a meritorious deed.” So he made a huge barge with a white
canopy and he hung fragrant flowers on it. On the barge floor were spread
exquisite coverings made of fibre of excellent quality. Then he ferried the
Buddha and his 100,000 monastics to the other shore on that barge.
At that time, the Buddha declared a certain monk as the foremost forest-dweller
(
araññaka
). Seeing this, the boatman thought: “I too should become like this
276
[In the original translation the same way of receiving is stated for both venerables,
which must be a mistake].