Two Ministers' Speech Against Matricide
With the king's sword already raised, two ministers — Candraprabha, and Jīvaka, the king's own half-brother — step directly into the path of a matricide already underway. Their speech is a piece of legal and historical argument as much as an appeal to feeling: an exhaustive search of recorded precedent finds patricide committed for a throne many times over, but never, in the entire history anyone present can recall, a king who killed his own mother.
Two Ministers Risk the King's Displeasure
四、從時有一臣名曰月光下，至却行而退已來，正明二臣切諫不聽。此明二臣，乃是國之輔相，立政之綱紀，望得萬國揚名，八方昉習。忽見闍王起於勃逆，執劍欲殺其母。不忍見斯惡事，遂與耆婆犯顏設諫也。言時者，當闍王欲殺母時也。言有一大臣者，彰其位也。言月光者，彰其名也。言聰明多智者，彰其德也。言及與耆婆者，耆婆亦是父王之子，柰女之兒。忽見家兄於母起逆，遂與月光同諫。言為王作禮者，凡欲諮諫大人之法，要須設拜以表身敬。
今此二臣亦爾，先設身敬覺動王心，斂手曲躬方陳本意也。又白言大王者，此明月光正欲陳辭，望得闍王開心聽攬。為此因緣故，須先白言：臣聞《毘陀論經》說者，此明廣引古今書史歷帝之文記。
Fourth, from "at that time there was a great minister named Candraprabha" down through "he withdrew, walking backward," this makes plain the two ministers' own urgent remonstrance, which the king would not heed. This makes plain that these two ministers were the very pillars supporting the kingdom's own governance, the very framework by which its rule was established, hoping that its renown might spread to every nation, and its own example be studied throughout the eight directions. Suddenly seeing Ajātaśatru give rise to this violent rebellion, sword raised to kill his own mother, they could not bear to witness such an evil act, and so, together with Jīvaka, dared to risk the king's own displeasure in order to remonstrate with him. "At that time" refers to the very moment Ajātaśatru was about to kill his mother. "There was a great minister" marks out his rank. "Candraprabha" marks out his own name. "Wise and possessed of great intelligence" marks out his own virtue. As for "together with Jīvaka": Jīvaka was likewise a son of the king, his father, born of the courtesan Āmrapālī. Suddenly seeing his own elder half-brother rise up in rebellion against their mother, he joined Candraprabha in remonstrating with him together. As for "bowing before the king": whenever one wishes to counsel and remonstrate with a person of great rank, it is essential first to make a formal bow, so as to show respect with one's own body.
These two ministers did exactly this: first showing bodily respect, to stir and move the king's own heart, folding their hands and bowing their bodies low, before finally stating their own true intent. And as for "he addressed the great king": this makes plain that Candraprabha, about to state his own case, hoped to open the king's own heart, that he might listen and take it in. It was for this very reason that he first addressed him formally. As for "your servant has heard it said in the Vedic treatises": this makes plain that he drew broadly on ancient and modern texts alike, on the recorded histories of past rulers.
A History of Patricide, But No Precedent for This
古人云，言不關典，君子所慚。今既諫事不輕，豈可虛言妄說。言劫初已來者，彰其時也。言有諸惡王者，此明總標非禮暴逆之人也。言貪國位故者，此明非意所貪奪父坐處也。言殺害其父者，此明既於父起惡不可久留，故須斷命也。言一萬八千者，此明王今殺父與彼類同也。言未曾聞有無道害母者，此明自古至今，害父取位史籍良談，貪國殺母都無記處。若論劫初已來，惡王貪國但殺其父不加慈母，此則引古異今。大王今者貪國殺父，父則有位可貪，可使類同於古；母即無位可求，橫加逆害，是以將今異昔也。
As the ancients said, "words that do not draw on established authority are what a noble person is ashamed to speak." Now, since this matter of remonstrance was no small one, how could he possibly rely on empty, baseless words? As for "since the very beginning of this kalpa": this marks out the timeframe in question. As for "there have been evil kings": this makes a general reference to those who act with violent rebellion against all propriety. As for "out of greed for the throne": this makes plain that their own intent was to seize by force the very seat their fathers occupied. As for "and killed their own fathers": this makes plain that, having already given rise to evil against their own fathers, they could not let them live on any longer, and so had to end their lives. As for "eighteen thousand such kings": this makes plain that Ajātaśatru's own killing of his father now belongs to this same category.
As for "yet we have never heard of any so lawless as to harm his own mother": this makes plain that, from ancient times down to the present, the histories speak readily enough of killing one's father to seize the throne — but of killing one's mother out of greed for the kingdom, there is no record at all. Considering matters since the very beginning of this kalpa, evil kings, out of greed for their kingdoms, have killed only their fathers, never laying a hand upon their own loving mothers — and this is precisely how the ancient precedent differs from the present case. The great king now, out of greed for the kingdom, has killed his father — his father, at least, held a throne worth coveting, and so this can be classed together with the ancient precedent. But his mother holds no throne at all worth seeking — to do her such violent harm regardless is exactly what sets the present case apart from every precedent of the past.
The ministers' own case is built almost entirely on precedent rather than pure moral appeal — eighteen thousand recorded kings, across the whole of this kalpa, who killed their own fathers for the throne, and not a single one who ever touched his own mother. Shandao's own gloss draws out the exact logic behind this asymmetry: a father held something worth killing for, "a throne worth coveting," which places even his murder within a comprehensible, if evil, category of ambition; a mother held nothing at all that her son could gain by her death, which is precisely what makes Ajātaśatru's own intent unprecedented rather than merely repeated. The argument is less an appeal to Ajātaśatru's own conscience than an attempt to make him see the act itself as literally without category — a crime history has no name for, because no one has ever had a motive to commit it before.
Lower Than the Lowest Caste
言王今為此殺母者，污剎利種也。言剎利者，乃是四姓高元，王者之種，代代相承，豈同凡碎。言臣不忍聞者，見王起惡，損辱宗親惡聲流布，我之性望恥慚無地。言是旃陀羅者，乃是四姓之下流也。此乃性懷匈惡不閑仁義，雖著人皮行同禽獸。王居上族押臨萬基之主，今既起惡加恩，與彼下流何異也。言不宜住此者，即有二義：一者王今造惡不存風禮，京邑神州豈遣旃陀羅為主也。此即擯出宮城意也。二者王雖在國損我宗親，不如遠擯他方，永絕無聞之地，故云不宜住此也。言時二大臣說此語已下，此明二臣直諫切語極麁，廣引古今望得王心開悟。言以手按劍者，臣自按手中劍也。
問曰：「諫辭麁惡，不避犯顏，君臣之義既乖，何以不迴身直去，乃言却行而退也？」答曰：「麁言雖逆王，望息害母之心，又恐瞋毒未除繫劍危己，是以按劍自防，却行而退。」
As for "should the king now kill his own mother, this would defile the very kṣatriya lineage": the kṣatriya are the very highest and foremost of the four castes, the lineage of kings, handed down from generation to generation — how could this possibly be classed together with the common and the base? As for "your servant cannot bear to hear of such a thing": seeing the king give rise to such evil, bringing shame and dishonor upon his own clan, this evil report spreading far and wide, my own reputation is left with nowhere to hide its shame. As for "you would become a caṇḍāla": this refers to the very lowest of the four castes, those whose nature harbors savage cruelty, unversed in benevolence and righteousness, who, though wearing the skin of a human being, act exactly like beasts. The king, dwelling among the highest of all castes, ruling as sovereign over an entire kingdom, now, by giving rise to such evil in place of kindness, how does he differ at all from those of that lowest caste?
As for "it is not fitting that you remain here": this carries two meanings. First, the king, now committing such evil, has abandoned all proper conduct entirely — how could this sacred capital possibly be ruled by a caṇḍāla? This carries the sense of driving him out from the royal city itself. Second, though the king remains within the kingdom, harming his own clan and kin, it would be better to banish him far away to some other land, cutting him off forever from any place where his own deeds might be heard of at all — hence it is said, "it is not fitting that you remain here." As for "having spoken these words, the two great ministers" onward, this makes plain that these two ministers' own direct remonstrance was couched in extremely blunt and forceful language, drawing broadly on ancient and modern precedent alike, hoping thereby to open the king's own heart and bring him to awakening. As for "placing their hands upon their own swords": this refers to the ministers themselves placing their own hands upon the swords at their own sides.
Question: "Their words of remonstrance were harsh and forceful, sparing nothing in defying the king's own displeasure — the proper relation between ruler and minister having already been so thoroughly violated, why did they not simply turn and walk directly away? Why does the text say instead that they withdrew, walking backward?"
Answer: "Though their harsh words defied the king, their hope was still to bring an end to his intent to harm his mother — and they feared, too, that his own poisonous rage had not yet subsided, and that the sword still hanging at his side might yet endanger them. It was for this reason that they kept their own hands upon their swords, in self-defense, and withdrew from his presence walking backward, never once turning their own backs to him."
The ministers' final, physical gesture matters as much as anything they said: hands still resting on their own sword-hilts, they retreat from a king they have just publicly humiliated by walking backward, never once presenting him an unguarded back to strike. Shandao reads this not as continued defiance but as the clear-eyed calculation of two men who know exactly how dangerous the moment they have just created still is — they have said what needed saying, at real risk to themselves, and now they protect their own lives with the same discipline they brought to the speech itself. Nothing in this scene suggests the king's own rage has actually cooled; what has changed is only that two men were willing to stand between him and an act he has not yet been talked out of.
Part 15 Complete
This closes Part 15: the ministers' full speech, and their careful, defensive withdrawal from a king still armed and still furious. Part 16 completes "the condition of the mother's imprisonment" with its final four points — Ajātaśatru's own sudden fear, the ministers' renewed appeal, his reluctant decision to spare his mother's life, and the lingering resentment that still confines her, even once the sword has finally been set down.
Continue to Part 16 — A Life Spared, and a Mother Still Confined →