After his Enlightenment Shakyamuni Buddha thought about who he would first share his experience with. The five ascetics who were with him until just before he settled down beneath the Bodhi Tree were not his first choice. The two people he first considered had died recently, he then decided to find the five ascetics. On his way he met Upaka, an ascetic that the sutras describe as “a follower of a heretical path that espoused an evil way of life”. Upaka sensed something special about Shakyamuni and stopped to talk with him. Shakyamuni said he was fully enlightened. Upaka considered what Shakyamuni had to say, then set off on another path.
Maybe its just me, but I find it extremely fascinating that the first person Shakyamuni talks to after his enlightenment, is not particularly impressed. Upaka is not just an ordinary person, but is described as someone who “espouses an evil path”. Upaka is apparently someone who supports a particular perspective and therefore might actively influence others. Regardless, however, of whether others believed or were caused to believe as Upaka, Upaka alone was someone who’s action probably resulted in difficulties for many. Yet apparently, Shakyamuni did not have much of an influence on him.
I don’t know what happened to Upaka. Maybe he appears in another sutra but as far as this portion of this sutra, Upaka is unaffected by Shakyamuni. Perhaps Upaka goes on with a life filled with difficulties or perhaps as he crosses over the next rise, reconsiders and seeks out the Buddha.
Shakyamuni is fully awakened, yet Upaka is unimpressed. What happened? Shakyamuni did not insist that Upaka listen or change his ways. Shakyamuni did not judge Upaka’s behavior. Shakyamuni simply stated he was fully enlightened and that he was now on his way to set in motion the wheel of dharma. In today’s world, his words sound uncomfortably naive. Like the newly converted out to change the world. But Shakyamuni was newly converted, newly transformed, and he was out to change the way we see the world.
In this exchange between Shakyamuni and Upaka we might conclude that because Upaka was a heretic he did not recognize a Buddha. But that would imply that a Buddha’s effectiveness is limited. Whether from a moral perspective of good and bad, or from an enlightenment piercing un-enlightenment perspective, there was a gap between Shakyamuni and Upaka that appears to not have been bridged. In Zen there is a saying; “If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha.” A seemingly completely opposite but equally perplexing situation. I have to put a disclaimer here, although it diminishes the statement’s effect which is to shake us upside down. If you see the Buddha don’t kill the Buddha, just say hi.
Our expectations shape our view of the world. Our likes, dislikes, what we think should or should not be, each influences how we engage the world. Perhaps Upaka already saw clearly the influences of his life. He did not debate Shakyamuni, but nodded in agreement. Perhaps Upaka understood full well, but unlike the Buddha was unable to disengage from currents that bore him along. Perhaps Upaka is me.
