Other Translations: Deutsch
From: , ,
Sutta Nipāta 4.9 Sutta Nipāta 4.9Anthology of Discourses 4.9
Māgaṇḍiyasutta To MāgandiyaWith Māgaṇḍiya
“Disvāna taṇhaṁ aratiṁ ragañca, “On seeing [the daughters of Māra] —Discontent, Craving, & Passion—[Māgandiya, a brahman, offers his daughter to the Buddha, who replies:] This information is taken from SnA. The Sanskrit version of this sutta found in the Divyāvadāna provides the same basic information in a narrative much more elaborate than that in SnA. The Sanskrit translation of this sutta found in East Turkestan includes a short prose introduction that agrees in some details with the Divyāvadāna narrative, and in others with the SnA narrative.“Even when I saw the sirens Craving, Malignancy, and Lust, Māra’s daughters, the archetypal temptresses. Their failed seduction is told at SN 4.25.
Nāhosi chando api methunasmiṁ; there wasn’t even the desire for sex.I had no desire for sex.
Kimevidaṁ muttakarīsapuṇṇaṁ, So what would I want with this, filled with urine & excrement?What is this body full of piss and shit? The commentary is surely correct in glossing these lines as kimevidaṁ imissā dārikāya muttakarīsapuṇṇaṁ rūpaṁ. Idaṁ (neuter) refers to the body (rūpa) not to the girl. It’s a meaningful distinction; the Buddha was criticizing the nature of the body, not shaming the person.
Pādāpi naṁ samphusituṁ na icche”. I wouldn’t want to touch it even with my foot.”Unfortunately, the sutta does not say what Māgandiya’s daughter had done or thought to deserve such a sharp rebuke. See MN 58.I wouldn’t even want to touch it with my foot.” Icche is 1st optative. Naṁ is rendered as feminine (“her”) by Norman and Bodhi, but it agrees with idaṁ in the previous line, so it should be neuter (“it”). Again, the Buddha says nothing in criticism of the woman, only of the body.
“Etādisañce ratanaṁ na icchasi, “If you don’t want this gem of a woman, coveted“If you do not want a gem such as this,
Nāriṁ narindehi bahūhi patthitaṁ; by many kings,a lady desired by many lords of men,
Diṭṭhigataṁ sīlavataṁ nu jīvitaṁ, then for what sort of viewpoint, habit, practice, life,then what manner of theory, precepts and vows, livelihood,
Bhavūpapattiñca vadesi kīdisaṁ”. attainment of [further] becoming do you argue?”and rebirth in a new life do you assert?”
“Idaṁ vadāmīti na tassa hoti, “‘I argue for this’ doesn’t occur to one“After judging among the teachings,” The sense only emerges with the specific nuance of terms. Niccheyya means to “judge, decide” not simply “consider”; and samuggahītaṁ means “[a view that is] adopted” (not “assumed” or “grasped”). Finally, the na here applies, not just to idaṁ vadāmi, but also to samuggahītaṁ, with which idaṁ agrees.
(māgaṇḍiyāti bhagavā) (the Buddha)said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya,
Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ; when considering what’s grasped among doctrines.“none have been adopted thinking, ‘I assert this.’
Passañca diṭṭhīsu anuggahāya, Looking for what is ungrasped with regard to views,See AN 10:93.Seeing views without adopting any,
Ajjhattasantiṁ pacinaṁ adassaṁ”. and detecting inner peace, I saw.”searching, I saw inner peace.” This presumably refers to the times when the Buddha-to-be rejected his former teachers.
“Vinicchayā yāni pakappitāni, “At any theorized judgments,“O sage, you speak of judgments you have formed,”
(iti māgaṇḍiyo) (Māgandiya)said Māgaṇḍiya, Two Māgaṇḍiyas appear in the Pali canon: here and in MN 75 where he attacks the Buddha as a destroyer of life. As to the protagonist of the current sutta, the Pali commentary, Divyāvadāna 36—which calls him Mākandika—and the Chinese parallel in the Arthapada (T iv 180) say he too hails from the Kuru country, as also at MN 75. Now, the Mahābhārata and other Sanskrit sources name Mākandī as a city or province on the banks of the Ganges, in the Pañcāla kingdom south of Hastināpura. This more-or-less agrees with Māgaṇḍiya’s home in the Kuru country, and suggests his name means “the man from Mākandī”. Divyāvadāna 36 and Sanskrit fragment say the Mākandika of the current sutta was also a wanderer, which does not contradict the position of the Pali commentaries and the Arthapada that he was a brahmin. At AN 5.294–302:1.1 māgaṇḍika is listed as a type of ascetic; these could well be students of Māgaṇḍiya. Kathāsaritsāgara 15 tells the comic farce of an ascetic from Mākandikā on the banks of the Ganges, who fell in love with the daughter of a merchant and went to ridiculous lengths to obtain her, only to end up a laughing-stock. This story could well have begun life as a comic inversion of this sutta. Reading all these sources together, we can posit that there was a brahmin wanderer from Mākandī on the Ganges in Kuru, who gained a certain fame and following as a teacher, but who is mainly remembered for his failed schemes. The Pali commentaries further specify that the Māgaṇḍiya of MN 75 is the nephew of the one in the current sutta.
Te ve munī brūsi anuggahāya; Sage, you speak of not grasping.“without having adopted any of those views.
Ajjhattasantīti yametamatthaṁ, This ‘inner peace’: what does it mean,As to that matter of ‘inner peace’—
Kathaṁ nu dhīrehi paveditaṁ taṁ”. how is it, by the enlightened, proclaimed?”how is that described by the attentive?”
“Na diṭṭhiyā na sutiyā na ñāṇena, “Not by view, not by learning, not by knowledge,“Purity is spoken of not as due to view,”
(māgaṇḍiyāti bhagavā) (the Buddha)said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya,
Sīlabbatenāpi na suddhimāha; nor by habit or practice does he speak of purity;“learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows; Pi here doesn’t qualify sīlabbata (per Norman), it co-ordinates with nopi tena. I capture this with the not/nor construction.
Adiṭṭhiyā assutiyā añāṇā, Nor is it found by a person through lack of view,nor without view, learning,
Asīlatā abbatā nopi tena; of learning, of knowledge, of habit or practice.Putting the first two sentences of this verse together and making sense of them is the major challenge for anyone trying to translate this poem. The reading given here is based on considerations of both grammar and context. a) First, grammar: The Pali of the first sentence puts the words for “view, learning, knowledge, habit, & practice” in the instrumental case. This case stands for the relationship “by means of” or “because of” but it also has an idiomatic meaning: “in terms of.” (To keep the translation neutral on this point, I have translated with the idiom, “in connection with,” which can carry both possibilities.) The second sentence puts the words for lack of view, etc., in the ablative case, which carries the meaning “because of” or “from.” If we assume that the instrumental case in the first sentence is meant in the sense of “by means of,” then we are dealing—as Māgandiya asserts—with plain nonsense: The first sentence would say that a person cannot achieve purity by means of views, etc., while the second sentence would be saying that he cannot achieve purity by means of no view, etc. The fact that the two sentences place the relevant terms in different grammatical cases, though, suggests that they are talking about two different kinds of relationships. If we take the instrumental in the first sentence idiomatically in the sense of “in terms of,” then the verse not only makes sense but also fits in with teachings of the rest of the Pali suttas: A person cannot be said to be pure simply because he/she holds to a particular view, body of learning, etc. Purity is not defined in those terms. The second sentence goes on to say that a person doesn’t arrive at purity from a lack of view, etc. Putting the two sentences together with the third, the message is this: One uses right views, learning, knowledge, habits, & practices as a path, a means for arriving at purity. Once one arrives, one lets go of the path, because the purity of inner peace, in its ultimate sense, is something transcending the means by which it is reached. b) The immediate context of this verse supports this interpretation. The Buddha’s initial statement here is an answer, not to the question of how the goal is attained, but to Māgandiya’s question of how an enlightened person would describe the goal. The Buddha responds by contradicting the general views current in his time as to how such a state would be defined, and so in this context the meaning of “in terms of” makes the most immediate sense. Then, having shown that description isn’t helpful, the Buddha goes on to discuss the most useful thing that can be said about such a state: how to get there. However, in the verse immediately following this one, it’s obvious that Māgandiya has not caught this distinction and so misses the Buddha’s point. For further illustrations of the role of right view in taking one to a dimension beyond all views, see AN 10:93, AN 10:96, MN 22 (in particular, the simile of the raft), and MN 24. (The analogy of the relay coaches in MN 24 actually seems more tailored to the issues raised by the Buddha’s remarks in this sutta than it does to the question it addresses in that one.) See also sections III/H and III/H/i in The Wings to Awakening. Nd I, without explaining the grammatical word play at work in this verse, offers an interpretation in line with the one offered in this note: On the one hand, it says, one doesn’t describe purity or release in terms of view, etc. On the other, one cannot attain inner peace without using a measure of right view, learning, knowledge, habit (virtue), and practice. It defines right view in terms of mundane right view, described in MN 117; learning in terms of the voice of another (AN 2:124) and the nine traditional divisions of Dhamma in the Canon: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions (AN 7:64); knowledge in terms of knowledge of what has been done by action, knowledge in line with the four noble truths, the knowledge of the six forms of direct knowing (AN 5:28), and knowledge of the nine concentration attainments (AN 9:33); habit (virtue) in terms of restraint in the Pāṭimokkha (AN 10:17); and practice in terms of eight of the dhutaṅga practices: living in the wilderness, going for alms, wearing cast-off cloth, wearing only one triple set of robes, bypassing no donors on one’s alms round, refusing food brought afterwards, not lying down, and accepting whatever lodging one is assigned (see Thag 16:7 and SN 16:5). It is important to note that Nd I does not insist that all these practices and forms of knowledge, etc., must be completely mastered to attain inner peace. Instead, it insists that a “measure” (matta) be mastered, without defining how large that measure must be.knowledge, or precepts and vows.
Ete ca nissajja anuggahāya, Letting these go, without grasping,Having relinquished these, not adopting them,
Santo anissāya bhavaṁ na jappe”. at peace, independent, one wouldn’t long for becoming.”peaceful, independent, one would not pray for another life.”
“No ce kira diṭṭhiyā na sutiyā na ñāṇena, “Well, if not by view, not by learning, not by knowledge,“It seems purity is spoken of not as due to view,”
(iti māgaṇḍiyo) (Māgandiya)said Māgaṇḍiya,
Sīlabbatenāpi na suddhimāha; nor by habit or practice does he speak of purity;“learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows;
Adiṭṭhiyā assutiyā añāṇā, and it isn’t found by a person through lack of view,nor without view, learning,
Asīlatā abbatā nopi tena; of learning, of knowledge, of habit or practice,The lines of this verse up to this point are clearly missing in the text of the Sanskrit version found in East Turkestan. Hoernle, the scholar who first studied the text, concluded that the lines in the Pali here must have been a later interpolation, but it’s also possible that the Sanskrit was either a faulty translation or an accurate translation based on a faulty transmission of the text.knowledge, or precepts and vows.
Maññāmahaṁ momuhameva dhammaṁ, it seems to me that this teaching’s simply confused,If so, I think this teaching is sheer folly;
Diṭṭhiyā eke paccenti suddhiṁ”. for some assume a purity in terms of —by means of— a view.”“In terms of—by means of”: Two ways of interpreting the instrumental case in this sentence.some believe that purity comes from view.”
“Diṭṭhañca nissāya anupucchamāno, “Asking questions dependent on view,“Continuing to question while relying on a view,”
(māgaṇḍiyāti bhagavā) (the Buddha)said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya,
Samuggahītesu pamohamāgā; you’re confused by the things you have grasped.“you’ve become confused by all you’ve adopted.
Ito ca nāddakkhi aṇumpi saññaṁ, And so you don’t glimpse even the slightest notion [of what I am saying].From this you’ve not glimpsed the slightest idea,
Tasmā tuvaṁ momuhato dahāsi. That’s why you think it’s confused.which is why you consider the teaching folly.
Samo visesī uda vā nihīno, ‘Equal,’ ‘superior,’ or ‘inferior,’If you think that ‘I’m equal,
Yo maññati so vivadetha tena; whoever supposes this, by that he’d dispute;special, or worse’, you’ll dispute about that.
Tīsu vidhāsu avikampamāno, whereas to one unaffected by these three,Not wavering due to the three discriminations,
Samo visesīti na tassa hoti. ‘equal,’ ‘superior,’ do not occur.they have no thought, ‘I’m equal or special’.
Saccanti so brāhmaṇo kiṁ vadeyya, Of what would the brahman say ‘true’Why would that brahmin say, ‘It’s true’,
Musāti vā so vivadetha kena; or ‘false,’ with whom would he dispute?or with whom would they dispute, ‘It’s false’?
Yasmiṁ samaṁ visamaṁ vāpi natthi, he in whom ‘equal,’ ‘unequal’ are not—There is no equal or unequal in them,
Sa kena vādaṁ paṭisaṁyujeyya. with whom would he join in dispute?so who would they take on in debate?
Okaṁ pahāya aniketasārī, Having abandoned home, living free from society,After leaving their bastion to migrate without abode, This verse is quoted and discussed at SN 22.3:1.4.
Gāme akubbaṁ muni santhavāni; the sage in villages creates no intimacies.a sage doesn’t get close to anyone in town.
Kāmehi ritto apurakkharāno, Remote from sensuality, not preferring,Rid of sensual pleasures, not expecting,
Kathaṁ na viggayha janena kayirā. he wouldn’t engage with people in quarrelsome debate.A long explanation of this verse, attributed to Ven. Mahā Kaccāna, is contained in SN 22:3. The main points are these: “The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form, it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling… perception… fabrication is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home. “And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to the property of form: These the Tathāgata has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathāgata is said to be not dwelling at home. [Similarly with the remaining aggregates.] … “And how does one live free from society? The Tathāgata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathāgata is said to be living free from society. [Similarly with the society of sound-impressions, aroma-impressions, flavor-impressions, tactile-sensation-impressions, and idea-impressions.] “And how is one not intimate in villages? There is the case where a monk lives unentangled with householders. Not delighting together with them, not sorrowing together with them, not happy when they are happy, not pained when they are pained, he does not take on any of their arisen business affairs as his own duty. This is how one is not intimate in villages.… “And how is one remote from sensuality? There is the case where a certain person is free of passion for sensuality, free of desire, free of love, free of thirst, free of fever, free of craving for sensuality. This is how one is remote from sensuality.… “And how is one free from preferences? There is the case where a certain person does not think, ‘May form be like this in the future. May feeling.… May perception.… May fabrication.… May consciousness be like this in the future.’ This is how one is free from preferences.… “And how does one not engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is not a fomenter of this kind of debate: ‘You understand this doctrine & discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!’ This is how one does not engage with people in quarrelsome debate.”they wouldn’t get in arguments with people.
Yehi vivitto vicareyya loke, Those things aloof from which he should go about in the world:A spiritual giant would not take up for debate
Na tāni uggayha vadeyya nāgo; The Nāga wouldn’t take them up & argue for them.the things in the world from which they live secluded.
Jalambujaṁ kaṇḍakavārijaṁ yathā, As the prickly lotusAs a prickly lotus born in the water
Jalena paṅkena canūpalittaṁ; is unsmeared by water & mud,is unsullied by water and mud,
Evaṁ munī santivādo agiddho, so the sage, an exponent of peace, without greed,so the greedless sage, proponent of peace,
Kāme ca loke ca anūpalitto. is unsmeared by sensuality & the world.is unsmeared by sensuality and the world.
Na vedagū diṭṭhiyāyako na mutiyā, An attainer-of-knowledge isn’t measured, made proud,“Measured … made proud”—two meanings of the Pali word mānameti.A knowledge master does not become conceited
Sa mānameti na hi tammayo so; by views or what’s thought, for he isn’t fashioned of them.To be fashioned by something is to define oneself around it. See MN 78, note 2; and MN 113. For discussions of the role of non-fashioning in the practice, see The Wings to Awakening, II/B and III/G, and The Paradox of Becoming, chapter 6.due to view or thought, for they are not determined by that.
Na kammunā nopi sutena neyyo, He wouldn’t be led by action, learning;“Action” here can mean either kamma in a restricted sense, as ritual action, or in its general sense, meaning that the attainer-of-knowledge has gone beyond creating seeds of kamma that will lead to further becoming (see AN 3:34). According to Nd I, “action” here denotes the three types of fabrication (abhisaṅkhāra): meritorious (ripening in pleasure), demeritorious (ripening in pain), and imperturbable (the formless attainments)—see DN 33.They’ve no need for deeds or learning, Neyyo has the sense “needing to be led”, for example a student who “requires education” before they can master a passage (AN 4.133:1.3). Here it refers to the arahant.
Anūpanīto sa nivesanesu. doesn’t reach a conclusion in any entrenchments.they’re not indoctrinated in dogmas. Anupanīto (“not led in”) relates to neyyo in the previous line. Anupanīto has the sense of “one who has been educated (in recitation)” at MN 93:15.2. Compare English “brought into the fold”. The sense of “dogma” for nivesana is established at Snp 4.3:6.3 and Snp 4.5:6.3.
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā, For one dispassionate toward perception there are no snares;There are no ties for one detached from ideas;
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā; for one released by discernment, no delusions.there are no delusions for one freed by wisdom.
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṁ, Those who grasp at perceptions & viewsBut those who have adopted ideas and views
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti. go about clashing in the world.”wander the world causing conflict.”
Māgaṇḍiyasuttaṁ navamaṁ. To Māgandiya, the ninth.vv. 835–847. See also: DN 9; MN 63; MN 72; AN 4:194.