Other Translations: Deutsch , ру́сский язы́к , Srpski
From: ,
Dīgha Nikāya 1 Long Discourses 1
Brahmajālasutta The Divine Net
1. Paribbājakakathā 1. Talk on Wanderers
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—So I have heard. Tradition holds that these were the words spoken by Ānanda when reciting the Suttapiṭaka at the First Council following the Buddha’s death. In fact it is a tag signifying that the text has been passed down through oral tradition and the speaker was not present at the events (DN 5:21.10, MN 127:17.4). | This sutta with its commentary was translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi in his The All-Embracing Net of Views.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā antarā ca rājagahaṁ antarā ca nāḷandaṁ addhānamaggappaṭipanno hoti mahatā bhikkhusaṅghena saddhiṁ pañcamattehi bhikkhusatehi. At one time the Buddha was traveling along the road between Rājagaha and Nāḷandā together with a large Saṅgha of five hundred mendicants. By convention, suttas do not specify the date, so we have scant internal chronology. | Walk about fifteen kilometers north from Rājagaha (modern Rajgir) to reach Nāḷandā. | “Mendicant” is a literal translation of bhikkhu, one who goes for alms.
Suppiyopi kho paribbājako antarā ca rājagahaṁ antarā ca nāḷandaṁ addhānamaggappaṭipanno hoti saddhiṁ antevāsinā brahmadattena māṇavena. The wanderer Suppiya was also traveling along the same road, together with his resident pupil, the student Brahmadatta. A “wanderer” (paribbājaka) was a homeless religious renunciate—male or female—who wandered seeking alms. Kauṭilya describes their lifestyle as “mastery of the senses, abstaining from ritual activities, living without possessions, abandoning attachments, practicing mendicancy, residing in the wilderness but not in a single place, and purifying himself internally and externally” (Arthaśāstra 1.3.12, Olivelle’s translation). | “Resident pupil” (or elsewhere just “pupil”) is antevāsi, a live-in apprentice of a master. | “Student” (māṇava) is a young man who was learning the Vedas from a master.
Tatra sudaṁ suppiyo paribbājako anekapariyāyena buddhassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati; Meanwhile, Suppiya criticized the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways, Today these are called the Triple Gem that makes up the Buddhist religion; however they are not known by that term in the early texts.
suppiyassa pana paribbājakassa antevāsī brahmadatto māṇavo anekapariyāyena buddhassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati. but his pupil Brahmadatta praised them in many ways. While the disagreement of student and teacher signifies their confusion, it also represents the diversity of views within the brahmanical caste and the openness with which a student could disagree with their teacher.
Itiha te ubho ācariyantevāsī aññamaññassa ujuvipaccanīkavādā bhagavantaṁ piṭṭhito piṭṭhito anubandhā honti bhikkhusaṅghañca. And so both tutor and pupil followed behind the Buddha and the Saṅgha of mendicants directly contradicting each other.
Atha kho bhagavā ambalaṭṭhikāyaṁ rājāgārake ekarattivāsaṁ upagacchi saddhiṁ bhikkhusaṅghena. Then the Buddha took up residence for the night in the royal rest-house in Ambalaṭṭhikā together with the Saṅgha of mendicants. Ambalaṭṭhikā means “place of mango saplings”. It was a rest-house set up by the king of Rājagaha about a day’s journey from the capital. It must have been sizable.
Suppiyopi kho paribbājako ambalaṭṭhikāyaṁ rājāgārake ekarattivāsaṁ upagacchi antevāsinā brahmadattena māṇavena. And Suppiya and Brahmadatta did likewise.
Tatrapi sudaṁ suppiyo paribbājako anekapariyāyena buddhassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati; There too, Suppiya criticized the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways,
suppiyassa pana paribbājakassa antevāsī brahmadatto māṇavo anekapariyāyena buddhassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati. but his pupil Brahmadatta praised them in many ways.
Itiha te ubho ācariyantevāsī aññamaññassa ujuvipaccanīkavādā viharanti. And so both tutor and pupil kept on directly contradicting each other.
Atha kho sambahulānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ rattiyā paccūsasamayaṁ paccuṭṭhitānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayaṁ saṅkhiyadhammo udapādi: Then several mendicants rose at the crack of dawn and sat together in the pavilion, where the topic of judgmentalism came up: Saṅkhiyadhamma is a unique term. The commentary glosses it as kathādhamma, following which it has been translated as “conversation” or “trend of conversation”. But saṅkhā means “appraisal, assessment, evaluation, measuring, calculating”, and here the subject of discussion is the different ways the two parties assess or judge the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha. Compare the “appraisal” of the Buddha at DN 19:19.2.
“acchariyaṁ, āvuso, abbhutaṁ, āvuso, yāvañcidaṁ tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena sattānaṁ nānādhimuttikatā suppaṭividitā. “It’s incredible, reverends, it’s amazing how the diverse convictions of sentient beings have been well deciphered by the Blessed One, who knows and sees, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. Adhimutti is something that has been decided, a conviction or belief.
Ayañhi suppiyo paribbājako anekapariyāyena buddhassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati; For this Suppiya criticizes the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways,
suppiyassa pana paribbājakassa antevāsī brahmadatto māṇavo anekapariyāyena buddhassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati. while his pupil Brahmadatta praises them in many ways.
Itihame ubho ācariyantevāsī aññamaññassa ujuvipaccanīkavādā bhagavantaṁ piṭṭhito piṭṭhito anubandhā honti bhikkhusaṅghañcā”ti. And so both tutor and pupil followed behind the Buddha and the Saṅgha of mendicants directly contradicting each other.”
Atha kho bhagavā tesaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ imaṁ saṅkhiyadhammaṁ viditvā yena maṇḍalamāḷo tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā paññatte āsane nisīdi. Nisajja kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: When the Buddha found out about this discussion on judgmentalism among the mendicants, he went to the pavilion, where he sat on the seat spread out and addressed the mendicants: This would have been an open air pavilion in the rest-house. By convention, when a teacher or other respected person is to sit, a sitting mat is spread out or made ready for them.
“kāya nuttha, bhikkhave, etarahi kathāya sannisinnā sannipatitā, kā ca pana vo antarākathā vippakatā”ti? “Mendicants, what were you sitting talking about just now? What conversation was left unfinished?” The very first words of the Buddha in the Suttapiṭaka: he asks to hear what others are saying.
Evaṁ vutte, te bhikkhū bhagavantaṁ etadavocuṁ: The mendicants told him what had happened, adding, Here and in similar passages the Pali repeats all and I abbreviate.
“idha, bhante, amhākaṁ rattiyā paccūsasamayaṁ paccuṭṭhitānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayaṁ saṅkhiyadhammo udapādi:
‘acchariyaṁ, āvuso, abbhutaṁ, āvuso, yāvañcidaṁ tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena sattānaṁ nānādhimuttikatā suppaṭividitā.
Ayañhi suppiyo paribbājako anekapariyāyena buddhassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati;
suppiyassa pana paribbājakassa antevāsī brahmadatto māṇavo anekapariyāyena buddhassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, dhammassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati, saṅghassa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati.
Itihame ubho ācariyantevāsī aññamaññassa ujuvipaccanīkavādā bhagavantaṁ piṭṭhito piṭṭhito anubandhā honti bhikkhusaṅghañcā’ti.
Ayaṁ kho no, bhante, antarākathā vippakatā, atha bhagavā anuppatto”ti. “This was our conversation that was unfinished when the Buddha arrived.”
“Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra tumhehi na āghāto na appaccayo na cetaso anabhiraddhi karaṇīyā. “Mendicants, if others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and exasperated. The phrasing here is somewhat unusual and specific. They “should not do” what creates bitterness (i.e. judging others). Compare MN 22, where the same phrases are used. In the Buddha’s case, it has the neutral hoti, while for the mendicants it uses karaṇīya, as here.
Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra ce tumhe assatha kupitā vā anattamanā vā, tumhaṁ yevassa tena antarāyo. You’ll get angry and upset, which would be an obstacle for you alone. Complaining about others does not hurt them, only the one who gets upset.
Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra ce tumhe assatha kupitā vā anattamanā vā, api nu tumhe paresaṁ subhāsitaṁ dubbhāsitaṁ ājāneyyāthā”ti? If others were to criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, and you got angry and upset, would you be able to understand whether they spoke well or poorly?” Equanimity is a prerequisite for evaluating facts.
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.”
“Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā avaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra tumhehi abhūtaṁ abhūtato nibbeṭhetabbaṁ: “If others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should explain that what is untrue is in fact untrue:
‘itipetaṁ abhūtaṁ, itipetaṁ atacchaṁ, natthi cetaṁ amhesu, na ca panetaṁ amhesu saṁvijjatī’ti. ‘This is why that’s untrue, this is why that’s false. There’s no such thing in us, it’s not found among us.’
Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra tumhehi na ānando na somanassaṁ na cetaso uppilāvitattaṁ karaṇīyaṁ. If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and excited.
Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra ce tumhe assatha ānandino sumanā uppilāvitā tumhaṁ yevassa tena antarāyo. You’ll get thrilled, elated, and excited, which would be an obstacle for you alone.
Mamaṁ vā, bhikkhave, pare vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, dhammassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, saṅghassa vā vaṇṇaṁ bhāseyyuṁ, tatra tumhehi bhūtaṁ bhūtato paṭijānitabbaṁ: If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should admit that what is true is in fact true:
‘itipetaṁ bhūtaṁ, itipetaṁ tacchaṁ, atthi cetaṁ amhesu, saṁvijjati ca panetaṁ amhesū’ti. ‘This is why that’s true, this is why that’s correct. There is such a thing in us, it is found among us.’
2. Sīla 2. Ethics
2.1. Cūḷasīla 2.1. The Shorter Section on Ethics
Appamattakaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, oramattakaṁ sīlamattakaṁ, yena puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. When an ordinary person speaks praise of the Realized One, they speak only of trivial, trifling details of mere ethics. Ethics (or morality or virtue, sīla) is important, but it pales in comparison with the higher dimensions of the Buddha’s path. For an example of this kind of praise see MN 77:8.1. | The Buddha often referred to himself as “the Realized One” (tathāgata).
Katamañca taṁ, bhikkhave, appamattakaṁ oramattakaṁ sīlamattakaṁ, yena puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya? And what are the trivial, trifling details of mere ethics that an ordinary person speaks of? Here the Buddha lays out in detail the ethical conduct for mendicant followers.
‘Pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo nihitadaṇḍo, nihitasattho, lajjī, dayāpanno, sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharatī’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up killing living creatures. He has renounced the rod and the sword. He’s scrupulous and kind, living full of sympathy for all living beings.’ The first and most important precept. It is not just the negative injunction to avoid killing, but also the positive injunction to have compassion for all creatures. | The Buddha is called “the ascetic Gotama” by non-Buddhists.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. An “ordinary person” (puthujjana) is anyone who has not, at minimum, entered the path to stream-entry.
‘Adinnādānaṁ pahāya adinnādānā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo dinnādāyī dinnapāṭikaṅkhī, athenena sucibhūtena attanā viharatī’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up stealing. He takes only what’s given, and expects only what’s given. He keeps himself clean by not thieving.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Abrahmacariyaṁ pahāya brahmacārī samaṇo gotamo ārācārī virato methunā gāmadhammā’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up unchastity. He is chaste, set apart, refraining from the vulgar act of sex.’ “Chastity” is brahmacariya, literally “divine conduct”. Here it is used in the narrow sense of refraining from sex, but more commonly it has a broader sense of “spiritual life” (SN 42.7:2.6).
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Musāvādaṁ pahāya musāvādā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo saccavādī saccasandho theto paccayiko avisaṁvādako lokassā’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up lying. He speaks the truth and sticks to the truth. He’s honest and dependable, and doesn’t trick the world with his words.’ This is the first of the four kinds of right speech. Just as the precept of not killing implies the positive injunction to live with compassion, the precepts on speech enjoin a positive and constructive use of speech.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Pisuṇaṁ vācaṁ pahāya pisuṇāya vācāya paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo, ito sutvā na amutra akkhātā imesaṁ bhedāya, amutra vā sutvā na imesaṁ akkhātā amūsaṁ bhedāya. Iti bhinnānaṁ vā sandhātā, sahitānaṁ vā anuppadātā samaggārāmo samaggarato samagganandī samaggakaraṇiṁ vācaṁ bhāsitā’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up backbiting. He doesn’t repeat in one place what he heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, he reconciles those who are divided and support those who are united, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony.’ “Harmony” (or “unanimity”, samagga) does not excuse untrue, bigoted, or otherwise harmful speech. True harmony is only achieved in the presence of the Dhamma.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Pharusaṁ vācaṁ pahāya pharusāya vācāya paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo, yā sā vācā nelā kaṇṇasukhā pemanīyā hadayaṅgamā porī bahujanakantā bahujanamanāpā tathārūpiṁ vācaṁ bhāsitā’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up harsh speech. He speaks in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, polite, and likable and agreeable to the people.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Samphappalāpaṁ pahāya samphappalāpā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo kālavādī bhūtavādī atthavādī dhammavādī vinayavādī, nidhānavatiṁ vācaṁ bhāsitā kālena sāpadesaṁ pariyantavatiṁ atthasaṁhitan’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama has given up talking nonsense. His words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. He says things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.’ Attha is a polyvalent term, here taking the senses “meaningful” and “beneficial”. Elsewhere it means “goal”, “need”, “purpose”, “lawsuit”, or “ending”, and the senses are not always easy to untangle.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Bījagāmabhūtagāmasamārambhā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—‘The ascetic Gotama refrains from injuring plants and seeds.’ Buddhists generally do not regard plants as sentient, but value them as part of the ecosystem that supports all life.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave …pe….
‘Ekabhattiko samaṇo gotamo rattūparato virato vikālabhojanā …. ‘He eats in one part of the day, abstaining from eating at night and food at the wrong time.’ From MN 66:6.4 and MN 70:4.8 we can see that “at night” means after dark, while “at the wrong time” means in the afternoon. More explicitly, these are the “wrong time at night” and the “wrong time in the day”, in which case they are both the “wrong time”.
Naccagītavāditavisūkadassanā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. ‘He refrains from seeing shows of dancing, singing, and music.’ Such sensual entertainments distract and excite the mind. This and the next three precepts encourage peace of mind for meditation.
Mālāgandhavilepanadhāraṇamaṇḍanavibhūsanaṭṭhānā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. ‘He refrains from attiring and adorning himself with garlands, fragrance, and makeup.’ This was ignored by the Buddha’s cousin, Nanda (SN 21.8:1.2).
Uccāsayanamahāsayanā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. ‘He refrains from high and luxurious beds.’ To avoid sleeping too much.
Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. ‘He refrains from receiving gold and currency, Literally “gold and silver” (jātarūparajata), but rajata is explained in Bu NP 18:2.8 as currency of any kind.
Āmakadhaññapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. raw grains, Mendicants receive only the day’s meal and do not store or cook food.
Āmakamaṁsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. raw meat,
Itthikumārikapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. women and girls,
Dāsidāsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. male and female bondservants, According to ancient Indian law (Arthaśāstra 3.13), a person in a time of trouble may bind themselves in service for a fee. Such bondservants were protected against cruelty, sexual abuse, and unfair work. After earning back the fee of their indenture they were freed, retaining their original inheritance and status.
Ajeḷakapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. goats and sheep, These are animals raised for food.
Kukkuṭasūkarapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. chickens and pigs,
Hatthigavassavaḷavapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. elephants, cows, horses, and mares,
Khettavatthupaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. and fields and land.’ Land for a monastery may be accepted by the Saṅgha as a community, but not by individual mendicants.
Dūteyyapahiṇagamanānuyogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. ‘He refrains from running errands and messages; These items are discussed in detail below. | Acting as a go-between for lay business was tempting due to the mendicants’ wandering lifestyle. However, it exposes them to risk if the message is not delivered or if it is bad news.
Kayavikkayā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. buying and selling; For example, trading in monastery property.
Tulākūṭakaṁsakūṭamānakūṭā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. falsifying weights, metals, or measures;
Ukkoṭanavañcananikatisāciyogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo …. bribery, fraud, cheating, and duplicity;
Chedanavadhabandhanaviparāmosaālopasahasākārā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, and violence.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
Cūḷasīlaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ. The shorter section on ethics is complete.
2.2. Majjhimasīla 2.2. The Middle Section on Ethics
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ bījagāmabhūtagāmasamārambhaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in injuring plants and seeds. This section expands some of the former section in further detail. | The “middle” and “large” sections on ethics are not found in briefer presentations such as MN 27:14.1.
seyyathidaṁ—mūlabījaṁ khandhabījaṁ phaḷubījaṁ aggabījaṁ bījabījameva pañcamaṁ; These include plants propagated from roots, trunks, cuttings, or joints; and those from regular seeds as the fifth. That these are not five “kinds of seeds” but five kinds of “plants grown from seeds” is clear from the Vinaya and its commentary (Bu Pc 11: Bhūtagāmo nāma pañca bījajātāni).
iti evarūpā bījagāmabhūtagāmasamārambhā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such injury to plants and seeds.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ sannidhikāraparibhogaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in storing up goods for their own use. For storing up food as a sign of decline, see DN 27:17.5.
seyyathidaṁ—annasannidhiṁ pānasannidhiṁ vatthasannidhiṁ yānasannidhiṁ sayanasannidhiṁ gandhasannidhiṁ āmisasannidhiṁ This includes such things as food, drink, clothes, vehicles, bedding, fragrance, and things of the flesh.
iti vā iti evarūpā sannidhikāraparibhogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from storing up such goods.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ visūkadassanaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in seeing shows.
seyyathidaṁ—naccaṁ gītaṁ vāditaṁ pekkhaṁ akkhānaṁ pāṇissaraṁ vetāḷaṁ kumbhathūṇaṁ sobhanakaṁ caṇḍālaṁ vaṁsaṁ dhovanaṁ hatthiyuddhaṁ assayuddhaṁ mahiṁsayuddhaṁ usabhayuddhaṁ ajayuddhaṁ meṇḍayuddhaṁ kukkuṭayuddhaṁ vaṭṭakayuddhaṁ daṇḍayuddhaṁ muṭṭhiyuddhaṁ nibbuddhaṁ uyyodhikaṁ balaggaṁ senābyūhaṁ anīkadassanaṁ This includes such things as dancing, singing, music, performances, and storytelling; clapping, gongs, and kettledrums; beauty pageants; pole-acrobatics and bone-washing displays of the corpse-workers; battles of elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, chickens, and quails; staff-fights, boxing, and wrestling; combat, roll calls of the armed forces, battle-formations, and regimental reviews. Sobhanaka (“beauty pageant”) is explained by the commentary as the movement (or “sprinkling”) of dancers, or their beautification and painting. The PTS reading sobha-nagarakaṁ, supported by an unrelated reference to a gandhabba city of that name, is spurious. | Caṇḍālaṁ vaṁsaṁ dhovanaṁ should be a compound, as shown by the prose to Ja 498, where it is a performance by corpse-workers (caṇḍāla) in Ujjenī. Vaṁsa is the bamboo used by caṇḍāla acrobats (SN 47.19). Dhovana is referred by the commentary to AN 10.107, where it is a southern ceremony accompanied by drink and dance. The commentaries to AN and DN say it was the ritual washing of the bones of the buried dead after the decomposition of the flesh. Such “second funeral” rites have been observed world-wide. From the Jātaka it appears that the tradition had declined to a mere display for passers-by, perhaps featuring naked tribal girls. | Uyodhika is sometimes said to be “sham fights”, but at AN 10.30 it is not a sham. And the definition at Bu Pc 50 says “where strife is seen”.
iti vā iti evarūpā visūkadassanā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such shows.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ jūtappamādaṭṭhānānuyogaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in gambling that causes negligence. See too DN 31:11.1.
seyyathidaṁ—aṭṭhapadaṁ dasapadaṁ ākāsaṁ parihārapathaṁ santikaṁ khalikaṁ ghaṭikaṁ salākahatthaṁ akkhaṁ paṅgacīraṁ vaṅkakaṁ mokkhacikaṁ ciṅgulikaṁ pattāḷhakaṁ rathakaṁ dhanukaṁ akkharikaṁ manesikaṁ yathāvajjaṁ This includes such things as checkers with eight or ten rows, checkers in the air, hopscotch, spillikins, board-games, tip-cat, drawing straws, dice, leaf-flutes, toy plows, somersaults, pinwheels, toy measures, toy carts, toy bows, guessing words from syllables, guessing another’s thoughts, and imitating musical instruments. “Checkers” (aṭṭhapada) was presumably the ancestor of the Gupta period caturaṅga and hence modern chess. | Yathāvajja is explained in the commentary as “mimicking deformities”, but I cannot find support elsewhere in Pali or Sanskrit for vajja in this sense. More likely it refers to musical instruments (Sanskrit vādya).
iti vā iti evarūpā jūtappamādaṭṭhānānuyogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such gambling.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ uccāsayanamahāsayanaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still make use of high and luxurious bedding.
seyyathidaṁ—āsandiṁ pallaṅkaṁ gonakaṁ cittakaṁ paṭikaṁ paṭalikaṁ tūlikaṁ vikatikaṁ uddalomiṁ ekantalomiṁ kaṭṭissaṁ koseyyaṁ kuttakaṁ hatthattharaṁ assattharaṁ rathattharaṁ ajinappaveṇiṁ kadalimigapavarapaccattharaṇaṁ sauttaracchadaṁ ubhatolohitakūpadhānaṁ This includes such things as sofas, couches, woolen covers—shag-piled, colorful, white, embroidered with flowers, quilted, embroidered with animals, double or single fringed—and silk covers studded with gems, as well as silken sheets, woollen carpets, rugs for elephants, horses, or chariots, black antelope hides and woven rugs, and spreads of fine deer hide, with a canopy above and red cushions at both ends. In Pali, ajinappaveṇi appears as a compound, but it is hard to see how antelope hide could be a “weave”. In Sanskrit sources they are separate, and regarded as fit offerings for a brahmin (Mahābhārata 15.34.13a, Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa 2.16.33).
iti vā iti evarūpā uccāsayanamahāsayanā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such bedding.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ maṇḍanavibhūsanaṭṭhānānuyogaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, seyyathidaṁ—‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in attiring and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup.
ucchādanaṁ parimaddanaṁ nhāpanaṁ sambāhanaṁ ādāsaṁ añjanaṁ mālāgandhavilepanaṁ mukhacuṇṇaṁ mukhalepanaṁ hatthabandhaṁ sikhābandhaṁ daṇḍaṁ nāḷikaṁ asiṁ chattaṁ citrupāhanaṁ uṇhīsaṁ maṇiṁ vālabījaniṁ odātāni vatthāni dīghadasāni This includes such things as applying beauty products by anointing, massaging, bathing, and rubbing; mirrors, ointments, garlands, fragrances, and makeup; face-powder, foundation, bracelets, headbands, fancy walking-sticks or containers, rapiers, parasols, fancy sandals, turbans, jewelry, chowries, and long-fringed white robes.
iti vā iti evarūpā maṇḍanavibhūsanaṭṭhānānuyogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such beautification and adornment.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ tiracchānakathaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in low talk. This includes such topics as Tiracchānakathā literally means “animal talk”. The Pali word for animal, tiracchāna has the sense of “moving horizontally”, and “low talk” is that which does not elevate.
seyyathidaṁ—rājakathaṁ corakathaṁ mahāmattakathaṁ senākathaṁ bhayakathaṁ yuddhakathaṁ annakathaṁ pānakathaṁ vatthakathaṁ sayanakathaṁ mālākathaṁ gandhakathaṁ ñātikathaṁ yānakathaṁ gāmakathaṁ nigamakathaṁ nagarakathaṁ janapadakathaṁ itthikathaṁ sūrakathaṁ visikhākathaṁ kumbhaṭṭhānakathaṁ pubbapetakathaṁ nānattakathaṁ lokakkhāyikaṁ samuddakkhāyikaṁ itibhavābhavakathaṁ talk about kings, bandits, and chief ministers; talk about armies, threats, and wars; talk about food, drink, clothes, and beds; talk about garlands and fragrances; talk about family, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and heroes; talk at the street market and the place for water pots; talk about the departed; motley talk; tales of land and sea; and talk about being reborn in this or that place. Bhavābhava does not mean “existence and non-existence” but is a distributive compound, “this or that state of existence”. Indian religious texts are full of discussions about different heavens and hells. | The visikhā was a street where gold was exchanged and diversions were to be found, i.e. a “street market” (DN 31:9.1, Arthaśāstra 1.1.4c, 2.13.2). | The kumbhaṭṭhāna was a place where water pots were set up for public drinking water.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānakathāya paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low talk.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ viggāhikakathaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in arguments.
seyyathidaṁ—na tvaṁ imaṁ dhammavinayaṁ ājānāsi, ahaṁ imaṁ dhammavinayaṁ ājānāmi, kiṁ tvaṁ imaṁ dhammavinayaṁ ājānissasi, micchā paṭipanno tvamasi, ahamasmi sammā paṭipanno, sahitaṁ me, asahitaṁ te, purevacanīyaṁ pacchā avaca, pacchāvacanīyaṁ pure avaca, adhiciṇṇaṁ te viparāvattaṁ, āropito te vādo, niggahito tvamasi, cara vādappamokkhāya, nibbeṭhehi vā sace pahosīti They say such things as: “You don’t understand this teaching and training. I understand this teaching and training. What, you understand this teaching and training? You’re practicing wrong. I’m practicing right. I stay on topic, you don’t. You said last what you should have said first. You said first what you should have said last. What you’ve thought so much about has been disproved. Your doctrine is refuted. Go on, save your doctrine! You’re trapped; get yourself out of this—if you can!” The folly of disputatiousness is a consistent theme in the suttas, but is a special focus of the Aṭṭhakavagga of the Suttanipāta.
iti vā iti evarūpāya viggāhikakathāya paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such argumentative talk.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpaṁ dūteyyapahiṇagamanānuyogaṁ anuyuttā viharanti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in running errands and messages.
seyyathidaṁ—raññaṁ, rājamahāmattānaṁ, khattiyānaṁ, brāhmaṇānaṁ, gahapatikānaṁ, kumārānaṁ “idha gaccha, amutrāgaccha, idaṁ hara, amutra idaṁ āharā”ti This includes running errands for rulers, ministers, aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or princes who say: “Go here, go there. Take this, bring that from there.” “Rulers” (raññaṁ, genitive plural) include hereditary kings as well as the elected joint leaders of republican states such as the Sakyans or Vajjis.
iti vā iti evarūpā dūteyyapahiṇagamanānuyogā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such errands.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te kuhakā ca honti, lapakā ca nemittikā ca nippesikā ca, lābhena lābhaṁ nijigīsitāro ca ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material things to chase after other material things. Some renunciants like to butter up potential donors, or make ostentatious displays to prompt further donations. | “Using material possessions to chase after other material possessions” includes trading monastery property for profit.
iti evarūpā kuhanalapanā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such fawning and flattery.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
Majjhimasīlaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ. The middle section on ethics is complete.
2.3. Mahāsīla 2.3. The Large Section on Ethics
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This section focuses on practices that are wrong livelihood for a mendicant, though not for lay people. The Vinaya explains “low lore” as whatever is non-Buddhist or useless (Bi Pc 49), while the commentary says it leads not to emancipation but to heaven. Most of the items in this and the following sections are detailed in later astrological texts such as Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṁhitā. There are too many correspondences to cite, so I’ll only mention those that impact the translation.
seyyathidaṁ—aṅgaṁ nimittaṁ uppātaṁ supinaṁ lakkhaṇaṁ mūsikacchinnaṁ aggihomaṁ dabbihomaṁ thusahomaṁ kaṇahomaṁ taṇḍulahomaṁ sappihomaṁ telahomaṁ mukhahomaṁ lohitahomaṁ aṅgavijjā vatthuvijjā khattavijjā sivavijjā bhūtavijjā bhūrivijjā ahivijjā visavijjā vicchikavijjā mūsikavijjā sakuṇavijjā vāyasavijjā pakkajjhānaṁ saraparittāṇaṁ migacakkaṁ This includes such fields as augury, omenology, divining portents, interpreting dreams, divining features of men and women, divining holes in cloth gnawed by mice, fire offerings, ladle offerings, offerings of husks, rice powder, rice, ghee, or oil; offerings from the mouth, blood sacrifices, limb-reading; geomancy for building sites, fields, and cemeteries; exorcisms, earth magic, snake charming, poisons; the lore of the scorpion, the rat, the bird, and the crow; prophesying lifespan, chanting for protection, and divining omens from wild animals. The list has both aṅga and aṅgavijjā, and it’s hard to disambiguate them; the commentary tries, unpersuasively. Bṛhatsaṁhitā 50 has aṅgavidyā, which is various kinds of “limb-reading” (compare modern “palmistry”) but no equivalent to aṅga. Perhaps it is a misspelling of the less-familiar aṅka, “mark, sign”, hence “augury”. | “Portents” (uppāta are discussed at Bṛhatsaṁhitā 45. | Lakkhaṇa is detailed at Bṛhatsaṁhitā 67–69 as a thorough assessment of the features of men and women, including physical marks, character, voice, gait, and so on. | Read khattavijjā (“political science”) per variant as khettavijjā (“geomancy”). | Sara in saraparitta means “sound” not “arrow”; compare with sarabhañña “chanting”. | Migacakka is explained in the commentary, supported by Bṛhatsaṁhitā, as interpretation of the cries and behaviors of wild animals. Here the suffix -cakka refers to the field of study. See also Mil 5.3.7:6.1: sācakkaṁ migacakkaṁ antaracakkaṁ (“divining omens from dogs, wild animals, and the directions around”), terms which are also found at Bṛhatsaṁhitā 2.17.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—maṇilakkhaṇaṁ vatthalakkhaṇaṁ daṇḍalakkhaṇaṁ satthalakkhaṇaṁ asilakkhaṇaṁ usulakkhaṇaṁ dhanulakkhaṇaṁ āvudhalakkhaṇaṁ itthilakkhaṇaṁ purisalakkhaṇaṁ kumāralakkhaṇaṁ kumārilakkhaṇaṁ dāsalakkhaṇaṁ dāsilakkhaṇaṁ hatthilakkhaṇaṁ assalakkhaṇaṁ mahiṁsalakkhaṇaṁ usabhalakkhaṇaṁ golakkhaṇaṁ ajalakkhaṇaṁ meṇḍalakkhaṇaṁ kukkuṭalakkhaṇaṁ vaṭṭakalakkhaṇaṁ godhālakkhaṇaṁ kaṇṇikālakkhaṇaṁ kacchapalakkhaṇaṁ migalakkhaṇaṁ This includes reading the marks of gems, cloth, clubs, swords, spears, arrows, bows, weapons, women, men, boys, girls, male and female bondservants, elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams, chickens, quails, monitor lizards, rabbits, tortoises, or deer. The commentary oddly has “earrings or house-gables” for kaṇṇika (“eared one”), but it must be “rabbit”, for which see sasakaṇṇikā at Ja 535:76.6.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—raññaṁ niyyānaṁ bhavissati, raññaṁ aniyyānaṁ bhavissati, abbhantarānaṁ raññaṁ upayānaṁ bhavissati, bāhirānaṁ raññaṁ apayānaṁ bhavissati, bāhirānaṁ raññaṁ upayānaṁ bhavissati, abbhantarānaṁ raññaṁ apayānaṁ bhavissati, abbhantarānaṁ raññaṁ jayo bhavissati, bāhirānaṁ raññaṁ parājayo bhavissati, bāhirānaṁ raññaṁ jayo bhavissati, abbhantarānaṁ raññaṁ parājayo bhavissati, iti imassa jayo bhavissati, imassa parājayo bhavissati This includes making predictions that the king will march forth or march back; or that our king will attack and the enemy king will retreat, or vice versa; or that our king will triumph and the enemy king will be defeated, or vice versa; and so there will be victory for one and defeat for the other.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—candaggāho bhavissati, sūriyaggāho bhavissati, nakkhattaggāho bhavissati, candimasūriyānaṁ pathagamanaṁ bhavissati, candimasūriyānaṁ uppathagamanaṁ bhavissati, nakkhattānaṁ pathagamanaṁ bhavissati, nakkhattānaṁ uppathagamanaṁ bhavissati, ukkāpāto bhavissati, disāḍāho bhavissati, bhūmicālo bhavissati, devadudrabhi bhavissati, candimasūriyanakkhattānaṁ uggamanaṁ ogamanaṁ saṅkilesaṁ vodānaṁ bhavissati, evaṁvipāko candaggāho bhavissati, evaṁvipāko sūriyaggāho bhavissati, evaṁvipāko nakkhattaggāho bhavissati, evaṁvipākaṁ candimasūriyānaṁ pathagamanaṁ bhavissati, evaṁvipākaṁ candimasūriyānaṁ uppathagamanaṁ bhavissati, evaṁvipākaṁ nakkhattānaṁ pathagamanaṁ bhavissati, evaṁvipākaṁ nakkhattānaṁ uppathagamanaṁ bhavissati, evaṁvipāko ukkāpāto bhavissati, evaṁvipāko disāḍāho bhavissati, evaṁvipāko bhūmicālo bhavissati, evaṁvipāko devadudrabhi bhavissati, evaṁvipākaṁ candimasūriyanakkhattānaṁ uggamanaṁ ogamanaṁ saṅkilesaṁ vodānaṁ bhavissati This includes making predictions that there will be an eclipse of the moon, or sun, or stars; that the sun, moon, and stars will be in conjunction or in opposition; that there will be a meteor shower, a fiery horizon, an earthquake, or thunder in the heavens; that there will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the moon, sun, and stars. And it also includes making predictions about the results of all such phenomena. Despite this, astrology is commonly practiced today among Buddhist mendicants. | (Up)pathagamana can hardly mean that the sun, moon, and stars will “go astray”. Rather, patha here has the sense of “range”, so it means “come within range”, which describes an astrological conjunction. | For “fiery sky” (disāḍāha), i.e. a glow on the horizon, as an omen, see diśāṁ dāhe at Manusmṛti 4.115 and digdāha in Bṛhatsaṁhitā 31.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—suvuṭṭhikā bhavissati, dubbuṭṭhikā bhavissati, subhikkhaṁ bhavissati, dubbhikkhaṁ bhavissati, khemaṁ bhavissati, bhayaṁ bhavissati, rogo bhavissati, ārogyaṁ bhavissati, muddā, gaṇanā, saṅkhānaṁ, kāveyyaṁ, lokāyataṁ This includes predicting whether there will be plenty of rain or drought; plenty to eat or famine; an abundant harvest or a bad harvest; security or peril; sickness or health. It also includes such occupations as arithmetic, accounting, calculating, poetry, and cosmology. “Cosmology” (lokāyata) in early Buddhist texts is not, as it later became known, the heterodox school of materialism. Rather, it was a branch of worldly knowledge within regular Vedic studies concerned with the nature and extent of the world and how this may be known (AN 9.38, SN 12.48; cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.3.1).
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—āvāhanaṁ vivāhanaṁ saṁvaraṇaṁ vivaraṇaṁ saṅkiraṇaṁ vikiraṇaṁ subhagakaraṇaṁ dubbhagakaraṇaṁ viruddhagabbhakaraṇaṁ jivhānibandhanaṁ hanusaṁhananaṁ hatthābhijappanaṁ hanujappanaṁ kaṇṇajappanaṁ ādāsapañhaṁ kumārikapañhaṁ devapañhaṁ ādiccupaṭṭhānaṁ mahatupaṭṭhānaṁ abbhujjalanaṁ sirivhāyanaṁ This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, treating impacted fetuses, binding the tongue, or locking the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck. The commentary has saṅkiraṇa and vikiraṇa as “saving and spending” (cp. Snp 1.6:23.1), but it seems unlikely. Vikiraṇa means “scattering” food or sand, while Sanskrit vikira is the ritual scattering of rice. Given the context, I think it refers to the custom of scattering rice at a wedding. | For viruddhagabbhakaraṇa, viruddha means “obstructed”. The commentary here, in general agreement with the Niddesa on gabbhakaraṇa at Snp 4.14, explains as giving treatments for the survival of the fetus. | I omit hanujappana as it is absent from the commentary and seems to have just arisen by confusion.
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
‘Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti, ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
seyyathidaṁ—santikammaṁ paṇidhikammaṁ bhūtakammaṁ bhūrikammaṁ vassakammaṁ vossakammaṁ vatthukammaṁ vatthuparikammaṁ ācamanaṁ nhāpanaṁ juhanaṁ vamanaṁ virecanaṁ uddhaṁvirecanaṁ adhovirecanaṁ sīsavirecanaṁ kaṇṇatelaṁ nettatappanaṁ natthukammaṁ añjanaṁ paccañjanaṁ sālākiyaṁ sallakattiyaṁ dārakatikicchā mūlabhesajjānaṁ anuppadānaṁ osadhīnaṁ paṭimokkho This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving sipping water and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and herbal bandages. Medicine is right livelihood, but a mendicant should not make a living from it. They may treat fellow mendicants, family members, or those close to the monastery. | Santikamma is the Sanskrit śāntikakarman, a rite for averting evil. | For vassakamma and vossakamma, the commentary has “fertile and infertile men” (vassoti puriso, vossoti paṇḍako), taking “rain” as a metaphor for semen. Such usages do have precedent elsewhere. But in context I take vassa simply as “rain” and vossa as equivalent to Sanskrit vyavasya in the sense of making a settlement for land. | I take paṭimokkho in the sense of “binding”; see pratimuñcate at Rig Veda 4.53.2, 5.81.2; paṭimokka at Ja 524:10.2; paṭimukka at MN 38:41.11, Ja 513:6.2 etc., rather than the commentary’s “release” (from the effects of caustic medicines; cf. Tha Ap 25:5.4).
iti vā iti evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo’ti—The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
Idaṁ kho, bhikkhave, appamattakaṁ oramattakaṁ sīlamattakaṁ, yena puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya. These are the trivial, trifling details of mere ethics that an ordinary person speaks of when they speak praise of the Realized One.
Mahāsīlaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ. The longer section on ethics is complete.
3. Diṭṭhi 3. Views
3.1. Pubbantakappika 3.1. Theories About the First Beginning
Atthi, bhikkhave, aññeva dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. There are other principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. Those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. One meaning of dhamma is “principle” in the sense of a natural law as well as a moral value. | Here begins the famous exposition of the sixty-two views. The subtlety of the analysis lies in how, rather than refuting the details of the views, the Buddha traces them all back to their fundamental psychology. | Pubbanta and aparanta (literally “prior end” and “posterior end”) are technical terms found exclusively in Buddhism and only used in the context of speculative views. It seems the Buddha had a contextual reason to avoid the generic words for “past” (atīta) and “future” (anāgata), and I reflect that in my translation. Pubbanta is semantically identical with pubbakoti, the “first point” of existence or transmigration (SN 48.50:5.3). This is emphasized by Nāgarjuna, who introduces the terms pubbanta and aparanta immediately after discussing the “first point” of transmigration, and associates them with the “extremes” (anta) of eternalism and annihilationism (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25.20–23). Thus such talk is not merely about the past as in what happened yesterday, or the future as in what I’ll do next week, but unmoored speculations about the “first beginning” and the “final end”.
Katame ca te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ? And what are these principles?
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino, pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning, and propose various hypotheses concerning the first beginning on eighteen grounds. “Hypothesis” is adhimuttipada, literally “statement of conviction”. We sometimes find adhivuttipada, which appears to be a variant spelling (MN 102:2.1, AN 10.22:2.1).
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi? And what are the eighteen grounds on which they rely?
3.1.1. Sassatavāda 3.1.1. Eternalism
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā, sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds. In such contexts, the “self” (attā) is a postulated metaphysical entity rather than a simple psychological sense of personal identity. The nature of this “self” or “soul” was endlessly debated. The Buddha rejected all theories of a “self”, and elsewhere it is said that “identity view” underlies all sixty-two views of the Brahmajāla (SN 41.3:4.13). | The “cosmos” is the loka, otherwise translated as “world”. This sometimes refers to the simple physical realm, sometimes to the world of experience, or else, as here, the vast universe as conceived in ancient Indian thought.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi? And what are the four grounds on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte (…) anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives. “Immersion” (samādhi) is deep meditative stillness. The word conveys the sense of “gathered”, “collected”, with a secondary sense of “ignited”, “illuminated”. The practice of samādhi (or jhāna, “absorption”) has never been regarded as uniquely Buddhist. However, right meditation begins with right view. Since these meditators begin with wrong view, their samādhi is “wrong” because it merely reinforces their error. | These are those who rely on the “known” (viññāta) in the epistemic tetrad (MN 1:19.1).
Seyyathidaṁ—ekampi jātiṁ dvepi jātiyo tissopi jātiyo catassopi jātiyo pañcapi jātiyo dasapi jātiyo vīsampi jātiyo tiṁsampi jātiyo cattālīsampi jātiyo paññāsampi jātiyo jātisatampi jātisahassampi jātisatasahassampi anekānipi jātisatāni anekānipi jātisahassāni anekānipi jātisatasahassāni: ‘amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno’ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. The recollection of past lives is specific, detailed, and confident as it is based on the clear mind of deep immersion.
So evamāha: They say:
‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. This is the Upaniṣadic view of the eternal ātman that is the immanent soul of the world or cosmos, loka. Elsewhere in the suttas such theorists assert that the self and the cosmos are identical (SN 24.3:1.3: so attā so loko).
te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisamaṁ. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise. The eternal “self” is contrasted with the ephemeral lives of beings. | The famous word saṁsara is often understood as a “cycle” of rebirths, but the meaning is, rather, to “wander on” or “transmigrate”. | For the phrase sassatisamaṁ (“lasting forever and ever”), compare Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.10.1: “He reaches that world free of sorrow and snow, where he lives forever and ever” (sa lokam āgacchaty aśokam ahimam | tasmin vasati śāśvatīḥ samāḥ).
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi, yathāsamāhite citte anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives,
Seyyathidaṁ—ekampi jātiṁ dvepi jātiyo tissopi jātiyo catassopi jātiyo pañcapi jātiyo dasapi jātiyo vīsampi jātiyo tiṁsampi jātiyo cattālīsampi jātiyo paññāsampi jātiyo jātisatampi jātisahassampi jātisatasahassampi anekānipi jātisatāni anekānipi jātisahassāni anekānipi jātisatasahassāni: “amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno”ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. with features and details.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know: Their meditative experience revealed a process of transient and changing lives, yet from that they infer that there must be an eternal self.
“yathā sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisaman”’ti. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
Dutiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the second ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives.
Seyyathidaṁ—ekampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭaṁ dvepi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni tīṇipi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni cattāripi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni pañcapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni dasapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni: ‘amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno’ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. That is: one eon of the cosmos contracting and expanding; two, three, four, five, or ten eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. This differs only in the length of time, which is now up to ten eons. A single eon (kappa) lasts longer than it would take to wear away a huge mountain by stroking it with a cloth once a century SN 15.5, while the number of eons is greater than the sands in the Ganges River SN 15.8. The vast time periods envisaged in early Buddhist texts are comparable with those of modern cosmology in physics.
So evamāha: They say:
‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisamaṁ. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi yathāsamāhite citte anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives,
Seyyathidaṁ—ekampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭaṁ dvepi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni tīṇipi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni cattāripi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni pañcapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni dasapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni: “amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno”ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. with features and details.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know:
“yathā sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito, te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisaman”’ti. “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
Tatiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the third ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives.
Seyyathidaṁ—dasapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni vīsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni tiṁsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni cattālīsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni: ‘amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno’ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati. That is: ten eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding; twenty, thirty, or forty eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details.
So evamāha: They say:
‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisamaṁ. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi, yathāsamāhite citte anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives,
Seyyathidaṁ—dasapi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni vīsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni tiṁsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni cattālīsampi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭāni: “amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno”ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi. with features and details.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know:
“yathā sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito, te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisaman”’ti. “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, tatiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
Catutthe ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the fourth ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā takkī hoti vīmaṁsī, so takkapariyāhataṁ vīmaṁsānucaritaṁ sayaṁ paṭibhānaṁ evamāha: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: These theorists used a process of logic (takka) and inquiry (vīmaṁsā), otherwise called “thought” (muta) in the epistemic tetrad (MN 1:19.1). They arrive at the same conclusion as the meditators. Different groups of ascetic philosophers emphasized contemplation or rational inquiry as the means to the truth. The Buddha acknowledged that both are useful but limited because, as here, they can sometimes lead to mistaken conclusions.
‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisaman’ti. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, catutthaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva catūhi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena; natthi ito bahiddhā. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. I have my doubts about this phrase. Everywhere else, ito bahiddhā means “outside of the Buddhist community”, not “outside of the cases just considered”. Still, the commentary and the Chinese parallel at T 21 agree on this sense.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti, ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such a destiny in the next life.’ A “view” (diṭṭhi) is a relatively fixed framework for understanding the world; a “theory”. The “grounds for views” (diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) are the bases from which the views are derived. In this case these are the meditative experiences or the logical reasoning.
tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself. The word parāmasati means “to take hold” and is often used in the sense “to misapprehend”.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato. Having truly understood the origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed by not grasping. Yathābhūtaṁ is often translated as “as it really is”, while I usually render it simply as “truly”. It often has a technical sense of seeing “how things came to be (bhuta)” as a process of conditionality (SN 12.31:7.1). Such direct vision of the truth is an attribute of the stream-enterer, who has realized the first of the four stages of awakening, in contrast with those on the path who still rely on faith or inference (SN 25.1). Here it refers to the understanding of feelings from a fivefold perspective. Feelings underlie intellectual theories and arguments, which serve to sate cravings and fears.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Paṭhamabhāṇavāro. The first recitation section. Long texts are sometimes marked by their “recitation sections” (bhāṇavāra), which was the length that would be recited in one session.
3.1.2. Ekaccasassatavāda 3.1.2. Partial Eternalism
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who are partial eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal on four grounds. Despite being views of the “self and the cosmos”, the main focus in the next four views is the self.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi? And what are the four grounds on which they rely?
Hoti kho so, bhikkhave, samayo, yaṁ kadāci karahaci dīghassa addhuno accayena ayaṁ loko saṁvaṭṭati. There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this cosmos contracts. This is the end of an eon. It might be compared with what the physicists call the “big crunch”.
Saṁvaṭṭamāne loke yebhuyyena sattā ābhassarasaṁvattanikā honti. As the cosmos contracts, sentient beings are mostly headed for the realm of sublime luminosity. The human and similar realms are destroyed in the conflagration at the end of the universe, but sentient beings are sustained by the power of their past kamma. | The “realm of sublime radiance” is a Brahmā heaven corresponding to the second jhāna. The Sanskrit spelling ₋ābhāsvara suggests the derivation ābhā + vara, “sublime radiance”. The commentary derives this (and related forms bhassara and pabhassara) from sara (“stream”), but this is ruled out by the Sanskrit, which has vara in all cases, whereas “stream” is sara_.
Te tattha honti manomayā pītibhakkhā sayaṁpabhā antalikkhacarā subhaṭṭhāyino, ciraṁ dīghamaddhānaṁ tiṭṭhanti. There they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, wandering in midair, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time. “Mind-made” (manomaya) beings are spontaneously born due to past kamma, not by sex. | “Rapture” (pīti) is a joyous emotional response to pleasure, usually a spiritual sense of elevation or uplift in meditation. | “Self-lumious” (sayaṁpabhā) as an external representation of the light of absorption through which they attained their exalted status. In the Rig Veda it is used of the divine light of the sun (1.52.9 svaścandram; 6.64.4 svabhāna) or the lightning (5.87.5 svarociṣa; 1.82.2 svabhāna).
Hoti kho so, bhikkhave, samayo, yaṁ kadāci karahaci dīghassa addhuno accayena ayaṁ loko vivaṭṭati. There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this cosmos expands. This might be compared with the “big bang” of a cyclic universe.
Vivaṭṭamāne loke suññaṁ brahmavimānaṁ pātubhavati. As it expands an empty mansion of divinity appears. The realms into which beings are reborn exist interdependently with the beings themselves. The different dimensions correspond with different kinds of kamma.
Atha kho aññataro satto āyukkhayā vā puññakkhayā vā ābhassarakāyā cavitvā suññaṁ brahmavimānaṁ upapajjati. Then a certain sentient being—due to the running out of their life-span or merit—passes away from that host of luminous deities and is reborn in that empty mansion of divinity. That is, they pass from a world corresponding to the second jhāna to one corresponding to the first jhāna.
So tattha hoti manomayo pītibhakkho sayampabho antalikkhacaro subhaṭṭhāyī, ciraṁ dīghamaddhānaṁ tiṭṭhati. There they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, wandering in midair, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time.
Tassa tattha ekakassa dīgharattaṁ nivusitattā anabhirati paritassanā uppajjati: But after staying there all alone for a long time, they become dissatisfied and anxious: This passage echoes the creation myth in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4. At 1.4.2, the self-created Divinity feels fearful and alone, and at 1.4.3 and 1.4.17 wishes for a partner. From a Buddhist point of view, this simply shows how even God is trapped by emotional attachments in the cycle of transmigration.
‘aho vata aññepi sattā itthattaṁ āgaccheyyun’ti. ‘Oh, if only other beings would come to this place.’
Atha aññepi sattā āyukkhayā vā puññakkhayā vā ābhassarakāyā cavitvā brahmavimānaṁ upapajjanti tassa sattassa sahabyataṁ. Then other sentient beings—due to the running out of their life-span or merit—pass away from that host of luminous deities and are reborn in that mansion of divinity in company with that being. These beings are reborn according to their own kamma, and it is just a coincidence that they appear after the first being made their wish.
Tepi tattha honti manomayā pītibhakkhā sayaṁpabhā antalikkhacarā subhaṭṭhāyino, ciraṁ dīghamaddhānaṁ tiṭṭhanti. There they too are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, wandering in midair, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time.
Tatra, bhikkhave, yo so satto paṭhamaṁ upapanno tassa evaṁ hoti: Now, the being who was reborn there first thinks:
‘ahamasmi brahmā mahābrahmā abhibhū anabhibhūto aññadatthudaso vasavattī issaro kattā nimmātā seṭṭho sajitā vasī pitā bhūtabhabyānaṁ. ‘I am the Divinity, the Great Divinity, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. His first words ahamasmi brahmā (“I am Brahmā”) are equivalent to aham brahmāsmīti at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10.
Mayā ime sattā nimmitā. These beings were created by me! At Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.5 the Divinity thinks, “I created all this”.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Mamañhi pubbe etadahosi: Because first I thought:
“aho vata aññepi sattā itthattaṁ āgaccheyyun”ti. “Oh, if only other beings would come to this place.”
Iti mama ca manopaṇidhi, ime ca sattā itthattaṁ āgatā’ti. Such was my heart’s wish, and then these creatures came to this place.’ The other creatures appeared after his wish, not because of it. God confuses correlation with causation, a mistake perpetuated by no small number of his followers.
Yepi te sattā pacchā upapannā, tesampi evaṁ hoti: And the beings who were reborn there later also think:
‘ayaṁ kho bhavaṁ brahmā mahābrahmā abhibhū anabhibhūto aññadatthudaso vasavattī issaro kattā nimmātā seṭṭho sajitā vasī pitā bhūtabhabyānaṁ. ‘This must be the Divinity, the Great Divinity, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born.
Iminā mayaṁ bhotā brahmunā nimmitā. And we were created by him.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Imañhi mayaṁ addasāma idha paṭhamaṁ upapannaṁ, mayaṁ panamha pacchā upapannā’ti. Because we see that he was reborn here first, and we arrived later.’ At Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.9–10 the created humans also think first about the Divinity who preceded them, from whose knowledge of self all was created.
Tatra, bhikkhave, yo so satto paṭhamaṁ upapanno, so dīghāyukataro ca hoti vaṇṇavantataro ca mahesakkhataro ca. And the being who was reborn first is more long-lived, beautiful, and illustrious than those who arrived later.
Ye pana te sattā pacchā upapannā, te appāyukatarā ca honti dubbaṇṇatarā ca appesakkhatarā ca.
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati, yaṁ aññataro satto tamhā kāyā cavitvā itthattaṁ āgacchati. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this place.
Itthattaṁ āgato samāno agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajati. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito samāno ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte taṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati, tato paraṁ nānussarati. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further. Again, their meditation experience is genuine, but what they infer from it goes beyond the facts.
So evamāha: They say:
‘yo kho so bhavaṁ brahmā mahābrahmā abhibhū anabhibhūto aññadatthudaso vasavattī issaro kattā nimmātā seṭṭho sajitā vasī pitā bhūtabhabyānaṁ, yena mayaṁ bhotā brahmunā nimmitā, so nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassati. ‘He who is the Divinity—the Great Divinity, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born—by he we were created. He is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.
Ye pana mayaṁ ahumhā tena bhotā brahmunā nimmitā, te mayaṁ aniccā addhuvā appāyukā cavanadhammā itthattaṁ āgatā’ti. We who were created by that divinity are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, liable to pass away, and have come to this place.’ The surviving forms of Indic religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism) typically hold that all creatures ultimately share the same nature and hence can find liberation. Here we see this was not always the case, for these theorists believed that there are inherently different orders of beings in the cosmos. This is not due to their conduct but to the circumstances of their creation.
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
Dutiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the second ground on which they rely?
Santi, bhikkhave, khiḍḍāpadosikā nāma devā, te ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannā viharanti. Tesaṁ ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannānaṁ viharataṁ sati sammussati. Satiyā sammosā te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti. There are gods named ‘depraved by play.’ They spend too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. And in doing so, they lose their mindfulness, and they pass away from that host of gods. Delightful as the life of the gods is, even they are supposed to retain a sense of moderation (MN 37:11.2), a lesson forgotten by those “depraved by play” (khiḍḍāpadosikā). | Note that mindfulness (sati) is not held to be a specifically Buddhist virtue. Here it refers to a sense of moral compass and self-awareness, rather than a meditation practice.
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṁ aññataro satto tamhā kāyā cavitvā itthattaṁ āgacchati. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this place.
Itthattaṁ āgato samāno agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajati. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito samāno ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte taṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati, tato paraṁ nānussarati. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further.
So evamāha: They say:
‘ye kho te bhonto devā na khiḍḍāpadosikā, te na ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannā viharanti. Tesaṁ na ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannānaṁ viharataṁ sati na sammussati. Satiyā asammosā te devā tamhā kāyā na cavanti; ‘The gods not depraved by play don’t spend too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. So they don’t lose their mindfulness, and don’t pass away from that host of gods.
niccā dhuvā sassatā avipariṇāmadhammā sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassanti. They are permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.
Ye pana mayaṁ ahumhā khiḍḍāpadosikā, te mayaṁ ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannā viharimhā. Tesaṁ no ativelaṁ hassakhiḍḍāratidhammasamāpannānaṁ viharataṁ sati sammussati. Satiyā sammosā evaṁ mayaṁ tamhā kāyā cutā But we who were depraved by play spent too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. In doing so, we lost our mindfulness, and passed away from that host of gods.
aniccā addhuvā appāyukā cavanadhammā itthattaṁ āgatā’ti. We are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, liable to pass away, and have come to this place.’ Here the difference in beings is attributed not to the circumstances of their creation but to their behavior.
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
Tatiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the third ground on which they rely?
Santi, bhikkhave, manopadosikā nāma devā, te ativelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyanti. Te ativelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyantā aññamaññamhi cittāni padūsenti. Te aññamaññaṁ paduṭṭhacittā kilantakāyā kilantacittā. Te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti. There are gods named ‘malevolent’. They spend too much time gazing at each other, so they grow angry with each other, and their bodies and minds get tired. They pass away from that host of gods. The parallel between manopadosika (“malevolent”) and khiddapadosika (“depraved by play”) suggests a rendering “depraved in mind” for manopadosika. However, elsewhere in the suttas manopadosa consistently means “malicious intent” (MN 56:13.15, MN 93:18.30, DN 26:20.3. Also see mano padūseyya at MN 21:20.1 and MN 28:9.6. Thus the contrast is between greed and hate. | Here, as usual, mano and citta are synonyms for “mind”.
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṁ aññataro satto tamhā kāyā cavitvā itthattaṁ āgacchati. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this place.
Itthattaṁ āgato samāno agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajati. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito samāno ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte taṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati, tato paraṁ nānussarati. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further.
So evamāha: They say:
‘ye kho te bhonto devā na manopadosikā, te nātivelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyanti. Te nātivelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyantā aññamaññamhi cittāni nappadūsenti. Te aññamaññaṁ appaduṭṭhacittā akilantakāyā akilantacittā. Te devā tamhā kāyā na cavanti, ‘The gods who are not malevolent don’t spend too much time gazing at each other, so they don’t grow angry with each other, their bodies and minds don’t get tired, and they don’t pass away from that host of gods.
niccā dhuvā sassatā avipariṇāmadhammā sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassanti. They are permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.
Ye pana mayaṁ ahumhā manopadosikā, te mayaṁ ativelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyimhā. Te mayaṁ ativelaṁ aññamaññaṁ upanijjhāyantā aññamaññamhi cittāni padūsimhā, te mayaṁ aññamaññaṁ paduṭṭhacittā kilantakāyā kilantacittā. Evaṁ mayaṁ tamhā kāyā cutā But we who were malevolent spent too much time gazing at each other, we grew angry with each other, our bodies and minds got tired, and we passed away from that host of gods.
aniccā addhuvā appāyukā cavanadhammā itthattaṁ āgatā’ti. We are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, liable to pass away, and have come to this place.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, tatiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
Catutthe ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the fourth ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā takkī hoti vīmaṁsī. So takkapariyāhataṁ vīmaṁsānucaritaṁ sayampaṭibhānaṁ evamāha: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:
‘yaṁ kho idaṁ vuccati cakkhuṁ itipi sotaṁ itipi ghānaṁ itipi jivhā itipi kāyo itipi, ayaṁ attā anicco addhuvo asassato vipariṇāmadhammo. ‘That which is called “the eye”, “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and also “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable. The Buddha critiqued this view at SN 12.61, arguing that the body is, in fact, longer lasting than the mind.
Yañca kho idaṁ vuccati cittanti vā manoti vā viññāṇanti vā ayaṁ attā nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassatī’ti. That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’ The terms “mind” (citta), “sentience” (mano), and “consciousness” (viññāṇa) are broadly synonymous and in many cases may be substituted for one another. Nonetheless, they each have a particular context in which they predominate. Citta is to be developed, in which respect it pertains to the fourth noble truth, the path. Mano, which I translate here as “sentience” for the sake of disambiguation, is often used in the active sense of the deeds done by the mind, pertaining to the second noble truth, the origin of suffering. Viññāṇa is the key factor in the experince of suffering, pertaining to the first noble truth.
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, catutthaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva catūhi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena; natthi ito bahiddhā. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti. ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such a destiny in the next life.’
Tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti, tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato. Having truly understood the origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed by not grasping.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.1.3. Antānantavāda 3.1.3. The Cosmos is Finite or Infinite
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about size, and assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite on four grounds. Here we move from views that conceive of both the self and the cosmos together to those that focus only on the physical extent of the cosmos. It is not clear why these are classified as “views of the past”.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi? And what are the four grounds on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte antasaññī lokasmiṁ viharati. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite. Once again the view is inferred from meditation, showing that meditative experience was regarded by some as revealing genuine truths about the physical realm.
So evamāha: They say:
‘antavā ayaṁ loko parivaṭumo. ‘The cosmos is finite and restricted.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi, yathāsamāhite citte antasaññī lokasmiṁ viharāmi. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite. The nature of their meditation is assumed to be the nature of the world itself.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know:
“yathā antavā ayaṁ loko parivaṭumo”’ti. “The cosmos is finite and restricted.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti. This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite.
Dutiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti? And what is the second ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte anantasaññī lokasmiṁ viharati. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as infinite. In each of the two previous sets of four views, the views themselves were the same, only the means of knowing them differed. Here the views themselves differ. The differences take the form of a tetralemma: A, not-A, both A and not-A, neither A nor not-A. This pattern is commonly found in early Buddhism, as well as Indian thought more generally. The final two items are not meant to be obscure or mysterious, but to express genuine possibilities that cannot be captured by a simple duality.
So evamāha: They say:
‘ananto ayaṁ loko apariyanto. ‘The cosmos is infinite and unbounded.
Ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: The ascetics and brahmins who say that
“antavā ayaṁ loko parivaṭumo”ti, tesaṁ musā. the cosmos is finite are wrong. It is common today to say that one’s own experience is valid for oneself. Clearly that is not how these philosophers thought.
Ananto ayaṁ loko apariyanto. The cosmos is infinite and unbounded.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi, yathāsamāhite citte anantasaññī lokasmiṁ viharāmi. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as infinite.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know:
“yathā ananto ayaṁ loko apariyanto”’ti. “The cosmos is infinite and unbounded.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti. This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite.
Tatiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti? And what is the third ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte uddhamadho antasaññī lokasmiṁ viharati, tiriyaṁ anantasaññī. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite vertically but infinite horizontally. They perceive the universe as spread out like a disc. One might call it a “discworld”.
So evamāha: They say:
‘antavā ca ayaṁ loko ananto ca. ‘The cosmos is both finite and infinite.
Ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: The ascetics and brahmins who say that
“antavā ayaṁ loko parivaṭumo”ti, tesaṁ musā. the cosmos is finite are wrong,
Yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: and so are those who say that
“ananto ayaṁ loko apariyanto”ti, tesampi musā. the cosmos is infinite.
Antavā ca ayaṁ loko ananto ca. The cosmos is both finite and infinite.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusāmi, yathāsamāhite citte uddhamadho antasaññī lokasmiṁ viharāmi, tiriyaṁ anantasaññī. Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite vertically but infinite horizontally.
Imināmahaṁ etaṁ jānāmi: Because of this I know:
“yathā antavā ca ayaṁ loko ananto cā”’ti. “The cosmos is both finite and infinite.”’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, tatiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti. This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite.
Catutthe ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti? And what is the fourth ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā takkī hoti vīmaṁsī. So takkapariyāhataṁ vīmaṁsānucaritaṁ sayampaṭibhānaṁ evamāha: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:
‘nevāyaṁ loko antavā, na panānanto. ‘The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite. The text doesn’t specify what this is, but it might include the view that the ideas “finite” and “infinite” are inadequate to describe the universe. Consider a universe expanding at the speed of light. At any point in time it is not infinite, but as it is impossible to reach its end it is not finite either.
Ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: The ascetics and brahmins who say that
“antavā ayaṁ loko parivaṭumo”ti, tesaṁ musā. the cosmos is finite are wrong,
Yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: as are those who say that
“ananto ayaṁ loko apariyanto”ti, tesampi musā. the cosmos is infinite,
Yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evamāhaṁsu: and also those who say that
“antavā ca ayaṁ loko ananto cā”ti, tesampi musā. the cosmos is both finite and infinite.
Nevāyaṁ loko antavā, na panānanto’ti. The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, catutthaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti. This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva catūhi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena; natthi ito bahiddhā. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti. ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such a destiny in the next life.’
Tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti, tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato. Having truly understood the origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed by not grasping.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.1.4. Amarāvikkhepavāda 3.1.4. Endless Flip-floppers
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā, tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who are endless flip-floppers. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops on four grounds. Vikkhepa is “flip-flopping”. | Amarā is explained in the commentary as either “undying” or “eel-like”. However, amarā in the sense of “eel” is found only in the commentary to this term so is probably spurious. The feminine form amarā is attested in Sanskrit (eg. Manu 2.148). See also note to SN 4.1:5.2.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi? And what are the four grounds on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ‘idaṁ kusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti, ‘idaṁ akusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. This is a basic requirement for any spiritual teacher.
Tassa evaṁ hoti: They think:
‘ahaṁ kho “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi, “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi. ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful.
Ahañce kho pana “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto, “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto, “idaṁ kusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ, “idaṁ akusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ, taṁ mamassa musā. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might be wrong.
Yaṁ mamassa musā, so mamassa vighāto. That would be stressful for me,
Yo mamassa vighāto so mamassa antarāyo’ti. and that stress would be an obstacle.’
Iti so musāvādabhayā musāvādaparijegucchā nevidaṁ kusalanti byākaroti, na panidaṁ akusalanti byākaroti, tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjati amarāvikkhepaṁ: So from fear and disgust with false speech they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops: Despite their dullness, they have a genuine sense of conscience and wish to avoid breaking precepts.
‘evantipi me no; tathātipi me no; aññathātipi me no; notipi me no; no notipi me no’ti. ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ A wise teacher avoids making pronouncements about what they do not understand, but these teachers use this as a cover to hide the fact that they do not understand anything.
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ. This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops.
Dutiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ? And what is the second ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ‘idaṁ kusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti, ‘idaṁ akusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful.
Tassa evaṁ hoti: They think:
‘ahaṁ kho “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi, “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi. ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful.
Ahañce kho pana “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto, “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto, “idaṁ kusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ, “idaṁ akusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ, tattha me assa chando vā rāgo vā doso vā paṭigho vā. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might feel desire or greed or hate or aversion. Here too they show a certain sincerity to avoid giving rise to unwholesome qualities.
Yattha me assa chando vā rāgo vā doso vā paṭigho vā, taṁ mamassa upādānaṁ. That would be grasping on my part.
Yaṁ mamassa upādānaṁ, so mamassa vighāto. That would be stressful for me,
Yo mamassa vighāto, so mamassa antarāyo’ti. and that stress would be an obstacle.’
Iti so upādānabhayā upādānaparijegucchā nevidaṁ kusalanti byākaroti, na panidaṁ akusalanti byākaroti, tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjati amarāvikkhepaṁ: So from fear and disgust with grasping they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops:
‘evantipi me no; tathātipi me no; aññathātipi me no; notipi me no; no notipi me no’ti. ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ. This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops.
Tatiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ? And what is the third ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ‘idaṁ kusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti, ‘idaṁ akusalan’ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful.
Tassa evaṁ hoti: They think:
‘ahaṁ kho “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi, “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāmi. ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful.
Ahañce kho pana “idaṁ kusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto “idaṁ akusalan”ti yathābhūtaṁ appajānanto “idaṁ kusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ, “idaṁ akusalan”ti vā byākareyyaṁ; Suppose I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful.
santi hi kho samaṇabrāhmaṇā paṇḍitā nipuṇā kataparappavādā vālavedhirūpā, te bhindantā maññe caranti paññāgatena diṭṭhigatāni, There are astute ascetics and brahmins who are subtle, accomplished in the doctrines of others, hair-splitters. You’d think they live to demolish convictions with their intellect. They avoid making statements, not from a sense of conscience, but for fear of public shaming.
te maṁ tattha samanuyuñjeyyuṁ samanugāheyyuṁ samanubhāseyyuṁ. They might pursue, press, and grill me about that.
Ye maṁ tattha samanuyuñjeyyuṁ samanugāheyyuṁ samanubhāseyyuṁ, tesāhaṁ na sampāyeyyaṁ. I’d be stumped by such a grilling.
Yesāhaṁ na sampāyeyyaṁ, so mamassa vighāto. That would be stressful for me,
Yo mamassa vighāto, so mamassa antarāyo’ti. and that stress would be an obstacle.’
Iti so anuyogabhayā anuyogaparijegucchā nevidaṁ kusalanti byākaroti, na panidaṁ akusalanti byākaroti, tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjati amarāvikkhepaṁ: So from fear and disgust with examination they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops:
‘evantipi me no; tathātipi me no; aññathātipi me no; notipi me no; no notipi me no’ti. ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, tatiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ. This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops.
Catutthe ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ? And what is the fourth ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā mando hoti momūho. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin is dull and stupid. Also at MN 76:30.2.
So mandattā momūhattā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjati amarāvikkhepaṁ: Because of that, whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops:
‘atthi paro loko’ti iti ce maṁ pucchasi, ‘atthi paro loko’ti iti ce me assa, ‘atthi paro loko’ti iti te naṁ byākareyyaṁ, ‘Suppose you were to ask me whether there is another world. If I believed that to be the case, I would say so. Here begins a series of four tetrads that are commonly encountered in the suttas. The first is the belief in an afterlife.
‘evantipi me no, tathātipi me no, aññathātipi me no, notipi me no, no notipi me no’ti. But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.
‘Natthi paro loko …pe… Suppose you were to ask me whether there is no other world … The denial of an afterlife.
‘atthi ca natthi ca paro loko …pe… whether there both is and is not another world … This could include a belief that eternal life is offered only to adherents of a certain religion.
‘nevatthi na natthi paro loko …pe… whether there neither is nor is not another world … This could include the idea that our intrinsic nature is one with the cosmos, and our separation from that infinitude in this life is only a veil of delusion. Thus there is no other world, because all worlds are this world, but it is also not the case that there is nothing after death.
‘atthi sattā opapātikā …pe… whether there are beings who are reborn spontaneously … This is beings such as the gods or various ghosts and spirits, which are not born organically.
‘natthi sattā opapātikā …pe… whether there are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … This denies the existence of such beings. Not everyone in ancient India believed in the various orders of beings.
‘atthi ca natthi ca sattā opapātikā …pe… whether there both are and are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … The belief that beings are both spontaneously born and organically born. Perhaps this denies that such a distinction can be made clearly, because both kinds of birth take place within the same order of beings.
‘nevatthi na natthi sattā opapātikā …pe… whether there neither are nor are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … Beings are reborn in other ways.
‘atthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko …pe… whether there is fruit and result of good and bad deeds … This is the standard Buddhist view of kamma, shared with some, but not all, of the other Indian religions of the time.
‘natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko …pe… whether there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds … Doing good or bad has no result; moral nihilism.
‘atthi ca natthi ca sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko …pe… whether there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … Sometimes good and bad deeds have results, other times not.
‘nevatthi na natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko …pe… whether there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … The results of actions are too subtle to be described as good or bad.
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …pe… whether a realized one still exists after death … An awakened one, whether the Buddha or anyone else, exists after death, for example in an eternal state of Nirvana.
‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …pe… whether a realized one no longer exists after death … A sage ceases to exist at the time of death. This assumes there is an enduring “self” that is done away with.
‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …pe… whether a realized one both still exists and no longer exists after death … For example, their body does not exist but their mind does.
‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti iti ce maṁ pucchasi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti iti ce me assa, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti iti te naṁ byākareyyaṁ, whether a realized one neither still exists nor no longer exists after death. If I believed that to be the case, I would say so. A sage persists in a subtle state that cannot be characterized in terms of existence or non-existence.
‘evantipi me no, tathātipi me no, aññathātipi me no, notipi me no, no notipi me no’ti. But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, catutthaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ. This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who are flip-floppers resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops whenever they’re asked a question.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ, sabbe te imeheva catūhi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena, natthi ito bahiddhā … Any ascetics and brahmins who resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.1.5. Adhiccasamuppannavāda 3.1.5. Doctrines of Anomalous Origination
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about anomalous origination. They assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously on two grounds. Adhicca is usually translated in this context as “chance”. The root meaning refers to something that has been “lifted out”, making it a “special exception” or “anomaly”. It isn’t used in Sanskrit for a philosophical theory of chance, for which we find instead yadṛcchā (“arbitrariness”, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.2). The theory proposed here is not that the universe in general operates by chance, but that the happenstance of creation is an “anomaly” in the general scheme of things. At SN 12.24:3.4 and SN 12.25:2.4 we learn that some philosophers who believed in the doctrine of kamma nonetheless argued that suffering arose anomalously.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi? And what are the two grounds on which they rely?
Santi, bhikkhave, asaññasattā nāma devā. There are gods named ‘non-percipient beings’. This is an obscure realm of existence where the operations of consciousness are suspended.
Saññuppādā ca pana te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti. When perception arises they pass away from that host of gods.
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati, yaṁ aññataro satto tamhā kāyā cavitvā itthattaṁ āgacchati. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this place.
Itthattaṁ āgato samāno agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajati. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito samāno ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte saññuppādaṁ anussarati, tato paraṁ nānussarati. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect the arising of perception, but no further.
So evamāha: They say:
‘adhiccasamuppanno attā ca loko ca. ‘The self and the cosmos arose anomalously.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Ahañhi pubbe nāhosiṁ, somhi etarahi ahutvā santatāya pariṇato’ti. Because formerly I didn’t exist, whereas now, having not existed, I’ve transformed into the state of existing.’ The idea of creation from nothingness is discussed at Rig Veda 10.129, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously.
Dutiye ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti? And what is the second ground on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā takkī hoti vīmaṁsī. It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry.
So takkapariyāhataṁ vīmaṁsānucaritaṁ sayampaṭibhānaṁ evamāha: They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:
‘adhiccasamuppanno attā ca loko cā’ti. ‘The self and the cosmos arose anomalously.’
Idaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyaṁ ṭhānaṁ, yaṁ āgamma yaṁ ārabbha eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti. This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi. These are the two grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about anomalous origination assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva dvīhi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena, natthi ito bahiddhā … Any ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about anomalous origination do so on one or other of these two grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi. These are the eighteen grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning propose various hypotheses concerning the first beginning. First each section is concluded, then the whole first part is concluded. This formalism is a characteristic of oral tradition. It creates a nested hierarchy of content, clarifying the structure and helping to preserve the text in memory.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantamārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imeheva aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena, natthi ito bahiddhā. Any ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning do so on one or other of these eighteen grounds. Outside of this there is none.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti. ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such a destiny in the next life.’
Tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti, tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato. Having truly understood the origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed by not grasping.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Dutiyabhāṇavāro. The second recitation section.
3.2. Aparantakappika 3.2. Theories About the Final End
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino, aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the final end, and propose various hypotheses concerning the final end on forty-four grounds. This section introduces more tetralemmas. Many of the views describe the self in terms of the five aggregates—form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi? And what are the forty-four grounds on which they rely?
3.2.1. Saññīvāda 3.2.1. Percipient Life After Death
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds. “Percipient beings” are mentioned in the Jain Tattvārthasūtra 2.24.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi? And what are the sixteen grounds on which they rely?
‘Rūpī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā saññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. They assert: ‘The self is healthy and percipient after death, and it is formed … Usually a self is conceived of as percipient, so that the subject experiences a continuity. | The term aroga (“healthy”) is explained by the commentary as “permanent” (nicca), drawing on the root sense of the word, “unbroken”. However, aroga is always used in the sense “free of disease, well, healthy” (eg. MN 97:2.4), and this applies to the Brahmanical tradition as well as the Buddhist. Chandogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2 says that one who sees (the self) does not see death, they have no disease or pain. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.12 similarly says that one who sees the self will not suffer in the wake of the body, which Śaṅkāra explains, “Struggling with desires for himself, for his son, for his wife, and so on, he is born and dies again and again, and is diseased when his body is diseased.”
‘Arūpī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā saññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. formless …
‘Rūpī ca arūpī ca attā hoti …pe…. both formed and formless …
‘Nevarūpī nārūpī attā hoti …. neither formed nor formless …
‘Antavā attā hoti …. finite …
‘Anantavā attā hoti …. infinite …
‘Antavā ca anantavā ca attā hoti …. both finite and infinite …
‘Nevantavā nānantavā attā hoti …. neither finite nor infinite …
‘Ekattasaññī attā hoti …. of unified perception …
‘Nānattasaññī attā hoti …. of diverse perception …
‘Parittasaññī attā hoti …. of limited perception …
‘Appamāṇasaññī attā hoti …. of limitless perception …
‘Ekantasukhī attā hoti …. experiences nothing but happiness …
‘Ekantadukkhī attā hoti …. experiences absolute suffering …
‘Sukhadukkhī attā hoti …. experiences both happiness and suffering …
‘Adukkhamasukhī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā saññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. experiences neither happiness nor suffering.’
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi. These are the sixteen grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva soḷasahi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena, natthi ito bahiddhā … Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form do so on one or other of these sixteen grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.2.2. Asaññīvāda 3.2.2. Non-Percipient Life After Death
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi? And what are the eight grounds on which they rely?
‘Rūpī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā asaññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. They assert: ‘The self is healthy and non-percipient after death, and it is formed … Here the self has a physical dimension but no perception. This might include rebirth as a plant or inanimate object.
‘Arūpī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā asaññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. formless …
‘Rūpī ca arūpī ca attā hoti …pe…. both formed and formless …
‘Nevarūpī nārūpī attā hoti …. neither formed nor formless …
‘Antavā attā hoti …. finite …
‘Anantavā attā hoti …. infinite …
‘Antavā ca anantavā ca attā hoti …. both finite and infinite …
‘Nevantavā nānantavā attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā asaññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. neither finite nor infinite.’
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi. These are the eight grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena, natthi ito bahiddhā … Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form do so on one or other of these eight grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.2.3. Nevasaññīnāsaññīvāda 3.2.3. Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Life After Death
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā, uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds. Buddhism acknowledges a formless realm of neither perception nor non-perception, which is attained through advanced meditation.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi? And what are the eight grounds on which they rely?
‘Rūpī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā nevasaññīnāsaññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. They assert: ‘The self is healthy and neither percipient nor non-percipient after death, and it is formed …
‘Arūpī attā hoti …pe…. formless …
‘Rūpī ca arūpī ca attā hoti …. both formed and formless …
‘Nevarūpī nārūpī attā hoti …. neither formed nor formless …
‘Antavā attā hoti …. finite …
‘Anantavā attā hoti …. infinite …
‘Antavā ca anantavā ca attā hoti …. both finite and infinite …
‘Nevantavā nānantavā attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā nevasaññīnāsaññī’ti naṁ paññapenti. neither finite nor infinite.’
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi. These are the eight grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva aṭṭhahi vatthūhi … Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form do so on one or other of these eight grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.2.4. Ucchedavāda 3.2.4. Annihilationism
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being on seven grounds. These theorists assert the true existence of a being, thus falling into the fallacy of identity view. For the Buddha, the words “being” or a “self” describe an ongoing process that is conditioned and impermanent, and do not correspond to a genuine metaphysical reality. The distinction between contingent, empirical reality and metaphysical, absolute existence is essential to understanding early Buddhism.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi? And what are the seven grounds on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī hoti evaṁdiṭṭhi: There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
‘yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. ‘This self is formed, made up of the four principal states, and produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ This is the materialist view, which accepts only the coarse physical realm. This view is common today, but was also well known in the Buddha’s time. | The “four principal states” are earth, water, fire, and air, i.e. the states of matter: solid, liquid, plasma, and gas.
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. The theorist accepts multiple selves. As self theories evolve, they typically move from more coarse materialist theories toward more subtle conceptions. Sometimes the former view is rejected as being false. Sometimes, as here, the former view is seen not as false, but as incomplete and shallow.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā dibbo rūpī kāmāvacaro kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkho. There is another self that is heavenly, formed, sensual, consuming edible food. “Form” (rūpa) includes not just the physical realm of the elements, but various kinds of subtle form (sukhumarūpa). These include the energetic or mind-made bodies of beings in various dimensions. Rūpa ultimately refers to the appearance or manifestation of physical properties, and can even include the perception of colors, lights, and shapes in the mind. Here the bodies of the divine beings are not very distant from our own, as they still consume solid food. This probably refers to various nature deities or entities that were believed to consume the food offered to them by humans.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ Whereas the eternalists believe that their heavenly rebirth will last forever, annihilationists believe that even heaven is limited, and it ends in final annihilation.
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā dibbo rūpī manomayo sabbaṅgapaccaṅgī ahīnindriyo. There is another self that is heavenly, formed, mind-made, whole in its major and minor limbs, not deficient in any faculty. This is a more subtle kind of divine rebirth, no longer dependent on physical food. The subtle body still takes on a humanoid form, however, appearing complete in all its limbs. It includes realms produced through the practice of the four jhānas. | Sabbaṅga has the sense “whole and healthy of limb” (Rig Veda 10.161.5c, Atharva Veda 8.2.8c, 11.3.32 ff.). One is reborn with “whole body” (sarvatanu, Atharva Veda 5.6.11c, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11.1.8.60, 12.8.3.31). | Paccaṅga means “minor limb”, for example the fingers or internal organs.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā sabbaso rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṁ atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṁ amanasikārā “ananto ākāso”ti ākāsānañcāyatanūpago. There is another self which has gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the disappearance of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite space. Such a rebirth has left even the subtle body behind, becoming sheer consciousness. | The word āyatana is from a root meaning “expanse”. It is prominently used in this context, where it refers to a realm or “dimension” of rebirth, and in the analysis of sense experience, where it refers to a “field” of sense experience.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ This phrase appears incongruous as formless beings do not have a body. However the Chinese parallel at DA 21 does not mention kāya here, so it is likely to have arisen as an error in transmission where an earlier phrase was mistakenly copied.
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā sabbaso ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma “anantaṁ viññāṇan”ti viññāṇañcāyatanūpago. There is another self which has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that “consciousness is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, so attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā sabbaso viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma “natthi kiñcī”ti ākiñcaññāyatanūpago. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that “there is nothing at all”, it’s been reborn in the dimension of nothingness.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
Atthi kho, bho, añño attā sabbaso ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ samatikkamma “santametaṁ paṇītametan”ti nevasaññānāsaññāyatanūpago. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. Aware that “this is peaceful, this is sublime”, it passes on to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. The extension of the normal description of this state with the phrase “this is peaceful, this is sublime” is found only here and at AN 10.99:35.1.
Taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi. You don’t know or see that.
Tamahaṁ jānāmi passāmi. But I know it and see it.
So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi. These are the seven grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva sattahi vatthūhi … Any ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being do so on one or other of these seven grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
3.2.5. Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda 3.2.5. Extinguishment of Suffering in This Life
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi. There are some ascetics and brahmins who speak of extinguishment in this life. They assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life on five grounds. These five theories argue for the extinguishment of suffering through the experience of pleasure in the present life. The Buddha taught extinguishment (nibbāna) in this very life, but not “of an existing being” (sato sattassa) or “self” (attā). The Buddha denied that there is such a thing, pointing out that we are a stream of ever-changing conditions, fueled by desire and attachment, and liable to suffering. With the end of craving there is no fuel to sustain the stream, so suffering comes to an end. | It is unclear why these views of the “present life” (diṭṭhadhamma) are classified under views of the future; see MN 102:2.8.
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi? And what are the five grounds on which they rely?
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī hoti evaṁdiṭṭhi: There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
‘yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricāreti, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hotī’ti. ‘When this self amuses itself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, that’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.’ The hedonist.
Ittheke sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hoti. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Kāmā hi, bho, aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā, tesaṁ vipariṇāmaññathābhāvā uppajjanti sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā. Because sensual pleasures are impermanent, suffering, and perishable. Their decay and perishing give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. Here we see the philosophical reasoning that prompts the evolution of more refined conceptions of self.
Yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hotī’ti. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, this self enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.’ The “absorptions” (jhāna) are central to Buddhist meditation. The Buddha did say that they can be considered “extinguishment in the present life” in a qualified sense (AN 9.51). As we have seen above, however, if they are undertaken with wrong view, the experience itself will tend to reinforce the attachment to a self.
Ittheke sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hoti. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life. The theorist has an experience of a deeper state of meditation, so they know that the first jhāna cannot be the ultimate.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Yadeva tattha vitakkitaṁ vicāritaṁ, etenetaṁ oḷārikaṁ akkhāyati. Because the placing of the mind and the keeping it connected there are coarse. Jhānas are subtle states of refined consciousness in which nothing is coarse when compared to ordinary consciousness. Within each state, however, certain mental factors are coarse relative to others. A meditator proceeds through the jhānas with the successive stilling of the relatively coarser factors in each state.
Yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāvaṁ avitakkaṁ avicāraṁ samādhijaṁ pītisukhaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hotī’ti. But when the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, this self enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.’
Ittheke sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hoti. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Yadeva tattha pītigataṁ cetaso uppilāvitattaṁ, etenetaṁ oḷārikaṁ akkhāyati. Because the rapture and emotional elation there are coarse.
Yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca viharati, sato ca sampajāno, sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṁvedeti, yaṁ taṁ ariyā ācikkhanti “upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī”ti, tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hotī’ti. But with the fading away of rapture, this self enters and remains in the third absorption, where it meditates with equanimity, mindful and aware, experiencing for themselves the bliss of which the noble ones declare, “Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss”. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.’
Ittheke sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Tamañño evamāha: But someone else says to them:
‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṁ tvaṁ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
no ca kho, bho, ayaṁ attā ettāvatā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hoti. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Yadeva tattha sukhamiti cetaso ābhogo, etenetaṁ oḷārikaṁ akkhāyati. Because mentally partaking in that as ‘blissful’ is said to be coarse. Ābhoga (“partaking”) is unique in the early texts in this sense. The commentary says that after emerging from jhāna, one repeatedly partakes and attends to that bliss. Compare Patañjalī’s commentary on Yogasūtra 1.17: “vitarka is the gross partaking in the mental object, vicāra is subtle” (vitarkaś cittasyālambane sthūla ābhogaḥ, sūkṣmo vicāraḥ). For ābhoga with manasikāra, see vātassa ābhogo vā manasikāro vā at Mil 5.1.1:8.3; manaskāraścetasa ābhogaḥ at Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 054|23), and cittābhogo manaskāraścarcā saṁkhyā vicāraṇā at Amarasiṁha’s Amarakośa 1.5.321.
Yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṁ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṁ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṁ catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ patto hotī’ti. But with the giving up of pleasure and pain and the disappearance of former happiness and sadness, this self enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in this life.’
Ittheke sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti. That is how some assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi. These are the five grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti, sabbe te imeheva pañcahi vatthūhi … Any ascetics and brahmins who assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life do so on one or other of these five grounds. Outside of this there is none. It is not clear why the still more subtle states of the formless attainments are not included here.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi. These are the forty-four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the final end propose various hypotheses concerning the final end.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imeheva catucattārīsāya vatthūhi … Any ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the final end do so on one or other of these forty-four grounds. Outside of this there is none.
pe… The Realized One understands this …
yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Imehi kho te, bhikkhave, samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi. These are the sixty-two grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning and the final end propose various hypotheses concerning the first beginning and the final end.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā pubbantakappikā vā aparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imeheva dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi, etesaṁ vā aññatarena; natthi ito bahiddhā. Any ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning or the final end do so on one or other of these sixty-two grounds. Outside of this there is none.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti. ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such a destiny in the next life.’ Even the views of annihilation or extinguishment lead to rebirth, contrary to the beliefs of those who hold them.
Tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti, tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato. Having truly understood the origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed by not grasping.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
4. Attālokapaññattivatthu 4. The Grounds For Assertions About the Self and the Cosmos
4.1. Paritassitavipphanditavāra 4.1. Anxiety and Evasiveness
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. Now, these things are only the feeling of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds … Here the Buddha brings to the fore the notion of feelings which has been briefly mentioned throughout the text. Views are not objective descriptions of the world, but responses to our innermost needs. The word paritassita (“anxiety”) conveys both fear and desire, while vipphandita (“evasiveness”) captures how attachment to theorizing serves as an avoidance strategy.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. partially eternal on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. finite or infinite on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or they resort to flip-flops on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or they assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously on two grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. they speculate and theorize about the first beginning on these eighteen grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or they assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or they assert the annihilation of an existing being on seven grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. or they assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life on five grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. they speculate and theorize about the final end on these forty-four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva. When those ascetics and brahmins speculate and theorize about the first beginning and the final end on these sixty-two grounds, these things are only the feeling of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving.
4.2. Phassapaccayāvāra 4.2. Dependent On contact
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. Now, these things are dependent on contact. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds … The analysis is introducing more elements of dependent origination. The famous twelve links say that contact is the condition for feeling, which in turn causes craving.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. partially eternal on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. finite or infinite on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or they resort to flip-flops on four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or they assert that the self and the cosmos arose anomalously on two grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. they speculate and theorize about the first beginning on these eighteen grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or they assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or they assert the annihilation of an existing being on seven grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. or they assert ultimate extinguishment for an existing being in this life on five grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. they speculate and theorize about the final end on these forty-four grounds …
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi, tadapi phassapaccayā. When those ascetics and brahmins speculate and theorize about the first beginning and the final end on these sixty-two grounds, that too is dependent on contact.
4.3. Netaṁṭhānaṁvijjativāra 4.3. Not Possible
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā antānantaṁ lokassa paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā adhiccasamuppannaṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti dvīhi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti soḷasahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā, uddhamāghātanaṁ asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā uddhamāghātanaṁ nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti aṭṭhahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā sato sattassa paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapenti pañcahi vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi, te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṁvedissantīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati. Now, when those ascetics and brahmins speculate and theorize about the first beginning and the final end on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact. The text repeats all, but I abbreviate for legibility. In the oral tradition, extensive repetitions serve to reinforce the learning and ensure reliability of transmission. More subtly, they also help deepen understanding and contemplation. After reciting the extensive and complex treatment of the sixty-two views, the reciter takes the time to go over them again and again, letting them settle and consolidate. True learning takes time, but the repetitions that are reflective and reassuring in recitation become irksome and ponderous in reading.
4.4. Diṭṭhigatikādhiṭṭhānavaṭṭakathā 4.4. Dependent Origination
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā …pe…
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā antānantikā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā adhiccasamuppannikā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā saññīvādā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā asaññīvādā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhamāghātanikā nevasaññīnāsaññīvādā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā …
yepi te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi, sabbe te chahi phassāyatanehi phussa phussa paṭisaṁvedenti tesaṁ vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti. Now, when those ascetics and brahmins speculate and theorize about the first beginning and the final end on these sixty-two grounds, all of them experience this by repeated contact through the six fields of contact. Their feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. Finally the process of dependent origination, which has been foreshadowed little by little, is brought to its ultimate conclusion. The full twelve factors of dependent origination are not mentioned, but the process beginning with ignorance is implied throughout. Wrong view is a form of ignorance, and we have seen several examples of how such wrong views prompt intentional choices that generate consciousness in a new life.
5. Vivaṭṭakathādi 5. The End of the Round
Yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ imehi sabbeheva uttaritaraṁ pajānāti. When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contact’s origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape, they understand what lies beyond all these things. “Contact” (phassa) is the conjunction of the sense stimulus, the sense organ, and the associated consciousness.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā pubbantakappikā vā aparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imeheva dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi antojālīkatā, ettha sitāva ummujjamānā ummujjanti, ettha pariyāpannā antojālīkatāva ummujjamānā ummujjanti. All of these ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning or the final end are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net. They cannot see a way past attachment so long as they theorize in terms of an existing self.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, dakkho kevaṭṭo vā kevaṭṭantevāsī vā sukhumacchikena jālena parittaṁ udakadahaṁ otthareyya. Tassa evamassa: ‘ye kho keci imasmiṁ udakadahe oḷārikā pāṇā, sabbe te antojālīkatā. Ettha sitāva ummujjamānā ummujjanti; ettha pariyāpannā antojālīkatāva ummujjamānā ummujjantī’ti; Suppose a deft fisherman or his apprentice were to cast a fine-meshed net over a small pond. They’d think: ‘Any sizable creatures in this pond will be trapped in the net. Wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.’ The title is explained with a vivid simile. The Buddha was a master of observation, and constantly drew from everyday experience to illustrate his teachings. The metaphor works on a surface level to illustrate how theorists are trapped. But it also conveys something deeper, a sense of pathos and empathy with the helpless creatures who have no idea why they suffer.
evameva kho, bhikkhave, ye hi keci samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā pubbantakappikā vā aparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantakappikā vā pubbantāparantānudiṭṭhino pubbantāparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imeheva dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi antojālīkatā ettha sitāva ummujjamānā ummujjanti, ettha pariyāpannā antojālīkatāva ummujjamānā ummujjanti. In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning or the final end are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.
Ucchinnabhavanettiko, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa kāyo tiṭṭhati. The Realized One’s body remains, but his leash to existence has been cut off. The Buddha is not his body, which is merely the remnant of past kamma. | The bhavanetti is “that which leads to continued existence”. Early Sanskrit netrī always retains the expected grammatical sense, a noun from the root “to lead”, i.e. a “leader” (Rig Veda 1.113.4, 4.56.2, 5.50.2, 7.76.6, 7.77.2). Compare the English concept of the psychopomp or ferryman who leads you to the afterlife. Here, the commentary explains, “It is a name for craving. For by it beings are bound in their heart and lead on to life after life, like an ox tethered by the throat.” This suggests the sense of “lead” as in “leash”, which fits the metaphor of “cutting off”.
Yāvassa kāyo ṭhassati, tāva naṁ dakkhanti devamanussā. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.
Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṁ jīvitapariyādānā na naṁ dakkhanti devamanussā. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, ambapiṇḍiyā vaṇṭacchinnāya yāni kānici ambāni vaṇṭapaṭibandhāni, sabbāni tāni tadanvayāni bhavanti; When the stalk of a bunch of mangoes is cut, all the mangoes attached to the stalk will follow along. This metaphor is found at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.36, where it refers to the separation of the self from the body at death.
evameva kho, bhikkhave, ucchinnabhavanettiko tathāgatassa kāyo tiṭṭhati, In the same way, the Realized One’s body remains, but his leash to existence has been cut off.
yāvassa kāyo ṭhassati, tāva naṁ dakkhanti devamanussā, As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.
kāyassa bhedā uddhaṁ jīvitapariyādānā na naṁ dakkhanti devamanussā”ti. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.”
Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā ānando bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: When he had spoken, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha,
“acchariyaṁ, bhante, abbhutaṁ, bhante, ko nāmo ayaṁ, bhante, dhammapariyāyo”ti? “It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! What is the name of this exposition of the teaching?”
“Tasmātiha tvaṁ, ānanda, imaṁ dhammapariyāyaṁ atthajālantipi naṁ dhārehi, dhammajālantipi naṁ dhārehi, brahmajālantipi naṁ dhārehi, diṭṭhijālantipi naṁ dhārehi, anuttaro saṅgāmavijayotipi naṁ dhārehī”ti. “Well then, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Net of Meaning’, or else ‘The Net of the Teaching’, or else ‘The Divine Net’, or else ‘The Net of Views’, or else ‘The Supreme Victory in Battle’.” It is not uncommon to find multiple names for the same sutta, and here we see this practice originated with the Buddha himself. When is referred to by name, however, it is always called the Brahmajāla (SN 41.3:2.4, Kd 21:1.8.8, Vb 17:21.3). It is also referred to by the list of views, numbered sixty-three at Snp 3.6:42.1 and sixty at SN 8.2:5.1 = Thag 21.1:9.1.
Idamavoca bhagavā. That is what the Buddha said.
Attamanā te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti. Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said.
Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne dasasahassī lokadhātu akampitthāti. And while this discourse was being spoken, the ten-thousandfold galaxy shook.
Brahmajālasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ paṭhamaṁ.