Other Translations: Deutsch , ગુજરાતી , हिन्दी , Italiano , Polski , ру́сский язы́к , Srpski , தமிழ்
From: , ,
Majjhima Nikāya 1 Middle Discourses 1Middle Discourses 1
Mūlapariyāyasutta The Root SequenceThe Root of All Things
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—I have heard thatThe Buddha listed clinging to views as one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time—the Sāṅkhya, or classification school. This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddālaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a “root”: an abstract principle out of which all things emanate and which remains immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upaniṣads and eventually developed into the classical Sāṅkhya system around the time of the Buddha. Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha’s teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Sāṅkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha’s opening lines —“I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena”—would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Sāṅkhya. Paralleling the classical Sāṅkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: unbinding (nibbāna). In the pattern of Sāṅkhya thought, unbinding would thus be the ultimate “root” or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate. However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the “in” (immanence) & “out of” (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of “root”—the root of suffering experienced in the present—and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true awakening. If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Sāṅkhyan mold, then it’s small wonder that they were displeased—one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha’s words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3:126. Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Sāṅkhya philosophers, there has long been—and still is—a common tendency to create a “Buddhist” metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the “All”—the entirety of our sensory & mental experience—is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, “perceive”) a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that “we are the knowing”), and then suppose that level of experience to be the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.So I have heard. Just as the Dīghanikāya begins with the complex and demanding Brahmajālasutta, the Majjhima opens with one of the most abstruse discourses in the entire canon. It examines the ways that the process of perception and identification evolves with progress on the path. It was translated, together with its commentary and extensive analysis, by Bhikkhu Bodhi as The Discourse on the Root of Existence. The commentarial background is also found in the Mūlapariyāya Jātaka (Ja 245). The commentary connects this sutta with the Gotamakacetiyasutta (AN 3.125), but there is no internal evidence to support this.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā ukkaṭṭhāyaṁ viharati subhagavane sālarājamūle. on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Ukkaṭṭhā, in the shade of a royal Sal tree in the Very Blessed Forest.At one time the Buddha was staying near Ukkaṭṭhā in the Subhaga Forest at the root of a magnificent sal tree. Ukkaṭṭhā, near Sāvatthī, is mentioned only rarely, and always in the context of extraordinary teachings and events that emphasize the cosmic grandeur of the Buddha against the brahmins, likely because it was the home of the prominent Kosalan brahmin Pokkharasāti (DN 3:1.2.1, DN 14:3.29.1, MN 49:2.1).
Tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: There he addressed the monks,There the Buddha addressed the mendicants,
“bhikkhavo”ti. “Monks!”“Mendicants!” The pattern of this discourse answers to such passages as Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7, where Yājñavalkya expounds a series of principles in relation to which the “immortal self” is conceived. The commentary says that this discourse was delivered to a group of former brahmins who had become conceited when they learned the Buddha’s teaching. While the text certainly responds to ideas and methods of Brahmanical texts, that interpretation is not supported by the text.
“Bhadante”ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ. “Yes, lord,” the monks responded to him.“Venerable sir,” they replied.
Bhagavā etadavoca: The Blessed One said,The Buddha said this:
“sabbadhammamūlapariyāyaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. “Monks, I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena [or: the root sequence of all phenomena].“Mendicants, I will teach you the explanation of the root of all things. In his third discourse, speaking to Brahmanical ascetics, the Buddha reframed the “all” as the experience of the six senses (SN 35.28). The distinctive “conceiving” pattern of this sutta is therefore also applied to the “all” of the six senses (SN 35.30:1.19, SN 35.90:3.7). More broadly, the same pattern is also applied to the “aggregates, elements, and sense fields” (SN 35.31:1.21, SN 35.91:4.1). | The meaning of “root” is clarified later (MN 1:171.4) as “taking pleasure”, i.e. craving, which is the “root” of suffering.
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī”ti. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”Listen and apply your minds well, I will speak.”
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ. “As you say, lord,” they responded to him.“Yes, sir,” they replied.
Bhagavā etadavoca: The Blessed One said:The Buddha said this:
“Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto—“There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—“Take an unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the true persons. An “unlearned ordinary person”, who has not realized any of the stages of the noble path, is contrasted with one who has entered the path. | “Noble one” (ariya) loosely conveys the sense “cultured” or “civilized”; it is a term for the inheritors of the Aryan culture that originated among the proto-Indo-European peoples of the Pontic–Caspian steppe. | “True person” (sappurisa) indicates one who is authentic and genuine in their realization of the truth, and hence is virtuous and good. Both “noble one” and “true person” are technical terms referring to any person who has at least entered the path to stream-entry.
pathaviṁ pathavito sañjānāti; perceives earth as earth.They perceive earth as earth. Although their perception (saññā) is accurate, to perceive something “as” something is to recognize it filtered through memory and concepts learned in the past, a subtle pre-processing that interprets present experience in light of expectations and desires. | The ending -to here and throughout is the “ablative of perspective”, which is used with verbs of cognition to express the idea of seeing something in a certain light; for example, one contemplates the body “as impermanent” (MN 74:9.1).
pathaviṁ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṁ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṁ meti maññati, pathaviṁ abhinandati. Perceiving earth as earth, he supposes (things) about earth, he supposes (things) in earth, he supposes (things) coming out of earth, he supposes earth as ‘mine,’ he delights in earth.Having perceived earth as earth, they conceive it to be earth, they conceive it in earth, they conceive it as earth, they conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they approve earth. To “conceive” or “imagine” (maññati) is, according to the commentary, to think in terms of a “self”, proliferating experience through craving, conceit, or views until it is constructed for me. This usage draws upon such passages as Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.20, where due to ignorance, a person “imagines” in a dream the fearful things they saw when awake, or at the highest level, “imagines I am this all” (ahamevedaṁ sarvo’smīti manyate). | Each of the five phrases takes the “perception of earth as earth” and conceives, imagines, or construes that perception in progressively more differentiated and objectified ways, until it becomes something that is owned and enjoyed.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say. “Complete understanding” (pariññā) is the understanding of the arahant that permanently cuts through all delusions and conceits.
Āpaṁ āpato sañjānāti; He perceives water as water.They perceive water as water. The sutta proceeds through the four main physical elements or properties before proceeding to beings and then various deities. The difference between these things is not as clear-cut as one might think. The elements were worshiped as gods, while the gods were often anthropomorphized natural phenomena such as the sky (deva) or the sun (“sublime radiance”). To identify with a material element is to share the essence of a powerful force of nature. | A similar list, but with fewer items, is found starting at MN 49:11.1.
āpaṁ āpato saññatvā āpaṁ maññati, āpasmiṁ maññati, āpato maññati, āpaṁ meti maññati, āpaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving water as water, he supposes (things) about water, he supposes (things) in water, he supposes (things) coming out of water, he supposes water as ‘mine,’ he delights in water.Having perceived water as water, they conceive it to be water …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Tejaṁ tejato sañjānāti; He perceives fire as fire.They perceive fire as fire.
tejaṁ tejato saññatvā tejaṁ maññati, tejasmiṁ maññati, tejato maññati, tejaṁ meti maññati, tejaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving fire as fire, he supposes (things) about fire, he supposes (things) in fire, he supposes (things) coming out of fire, he supposes fire as ‘mine,’ he delights in fire.Having perceived fire as fire, they conceive it to be fire …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Vāyaṁ vāyato sañjānāti; He perceives wind as wind.Earth, water, fire, and wind are the four properties that comprise the experience of physical form.They perceive air as air.
vāyaṁ vāyato saññatvā vāyaṁ maññati, vāyasmiṁ maññati, vāyato maññati, vāyaṁ meti maññati, vāyaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving wind as wind, he supposes (things) about wind, he supposes (things) in wind, he supposes (things) coming out of wind, he supposes wind as ‘mine,’ he delights in wind.Having perceived air as air, they conceive it to be air …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Bhūte bhūtato sañjānāti; He perceives beings as beings.They perceive creatures as creatures. “Creatures” (bhūta) can refer to any living being, including humans and animals, as well as invisible entities such as ghosts.
bhūte bhūtato saññatvā bhūte maññati, bhūtesu maññati, bhūtato maññati, bhūte meti maññati, bhūte abhinandati. Perceiving beings as beings, he supposes (things) about beings, he supposes (things) in beings, he supposes (things) coming out of beings, he supposes beings as ‘mine,’ he delights in beings.Having perceived creatures as creatures, they conceive them to be creatures …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Deve devato sañjānāti; He perceives devas as devas.They perceive gods as gods. “Gods” (deva) or “deities” (devatā) are terms for the many divine entities of ancient Indian belief. Some were inherited from the old Vedic theology, while others reflect local customs and beliefs. All are impermanent and subject to suffering.
deve devato saññatvā deve maññati, devesu maññati, devato maññati, deve meti maññati, deve abhinandati. Perceiving devas as devas, he supposes (things) about devas, he supposes (things) in devas, he supposes (things) coming out of devas, he supposes devas as ‘mine,’ he delights in devas.Having perceived gods as gods, they conceive them to be gods …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Pajāpatiṁ pajāpatito sañjānāti; He perceives Pajāpati as Pajāpati.They perceive the Progenitor as the Progenitor. Pajāpati (“progenitor”) was the lonely god of creation (“Let Prajāpati generate progeny for us”, Rig Veda 10.85.3). The heat of his fervent exertions (tapas) created the world and all things in it (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 6).
pajāpatiṁ pajāpatito saññatvā pajāpatiṁ maññati, pajāpatismiṁ maññati, pajāpatito maññati, pajāpatiṁ meti maññati, pajāpatiṁ abhinandati. Perceiving Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he supposes (things) about Pajāpati, he supposes (things) in Pajāpati, he supposes (things) coming out of Pajāpati, he supposes Pajāpati as ‘mine,’ he delights in Pajāpati.Having perceived the Progenitor as the Progenitor, they conceive him to be the Progenitor …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Brahmaṁ brahmato sañjānāti; He perceives Brahmā as Brahmā.They perceive the Divinity as the Divinity. Brahmā is also regarded as a creator, but in the sense of the underlying divine force that sustains the life of the cosmos. In Buddhism, several individual Brahmās appear, depicted as high deities who achieved their status due to the practice of first jhāna in a past life.
brahmaṁ brahmato saññatvā brahmaṁ maññati, brahmasmiṁ maññati, brahmato maññati, brahmaṁ meti maññati, brahmaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving Brahmā as Brahmā, he supposes (things) about Brahmā, he supposes (things) in Brahmā, he supposes (things) coming out of Brahmā, he supposes Brahmā as ‘mine,’ he delights in Brahmā.Having perceived the Divinity as the Divinity, they conceive him to be the Divinity …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Ābhassare ābhassarato sañjānāti; He perceives the Radiant devas as the Radiant devas.They perceive those of sublime luminosity as those of sublime luminosity. This and the next two are higher Brahmā realms. Beings in this realm are sometimes called “gods” (devā). They achieved their status through the second, third, and fourth jhānas respectively. Later Brahmanical texts mention a class of Ābhāsvara deities, but it does not appear to be a Vedic concept. | The 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_.
ābhassare ābhassarato saññatvā ābhassare maññati, ābhassaresu maññati, ābhassarato maññati, ābhassare meti maññati, ābhassare abhinandati. Perceiving the Radiant devas as the Radiant devas, he supposes (things) about the Radiant devas, he supposes (things) in the Radiant devas, he supposes (things) coming out of the Radiant devas, he supposes the Radiant devas as ‘mine,’ he delights in the Radiant devas.Having perceived those of sublime luminosity as those of sublime luminosity, they conceive them to be those of sublime luminosity …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Subhakiṇhe subhakiṇhato sañjānāti; He perceives the Beautiful Black devas as the Beautiful Black devas.They perceive those of universal beauty as those of universal beauty. “Universal beauty” is subhakiṇha. Subha is “beauty, radiance”. Kiṇha is “universal, entire, total” (= Sanskrit kṛtsna); the same word is the basis for the meditation on “universals” (kasiṇa). The concept appears to be Buddhist, but we find a precedent when Yājñavalkya says that, just as salt is “entirely” salty, the Self is an “entire mass of consciousness” (kṛtsnaḥ prajñānaghana eva, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.13).
subhakiṇhe subhakiṇhato saññatvā subhakiṇhe maññati, subhakiṇhesu maññati, subhakiṇhato maññati, subhakiṇhe meti maññati, subhakiṇhe abhinandati. Perceiving the Beautiful Black devas as the Beautiful Black devas, he supposes (things) about the Beautiful Black devas, he supposes (things) in the Beautiful Black devas, he supposes (things) coming out of the Beautiful Black devas, he supposes the Beautiful Black devas as ‘mine,’ he delights in the Beautiful Black devas.But then they conceive them to be those of universal beauty …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Vehapphale vehapphalato sañjānāti; He perceives the Sky-fruit devas as the Sky-fruit devas.They perceive those of abundant fruit as those of abundant fruit. The gods of “abundant fruit” (vehapphala; Sanskrit bṛhatphala) do not appear in Brahmanical literature, but bṛhat is a common descriptor of divinity. See eg. the Vedic god Bṛhaspati, identified with the planet Jupiter, or Rig Veda 9.107.15, which describes Soma as ṛtam bṛhat, “vast and true”.
vehapphale vehapphalato saññatvā vehapphale maññati, vehapphalesu maññati, vehapphalato maññati, vehapphale meti maññati, vehapphale abhinandati. Perceiving the Sky-fruit devas as the Sky-fruit devas, he supposes (things) about the Sky-fruit devas, he supposes (things) in the Sky-fruit devas, he supposes (things) coming out of the Sky-fruit devas, he supposes the Sky-fruit devas as ‘mine,’ he delights in the Sky-fruit devas.Having perceived those of abundant fruit as those of abundant fruit, they conceive them to be those of abundant fruit …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Abhibhuṁ abhibhuto sañjānāti; He perceives the Conqueror as the Conqueror.In this section of the list, “beings” denotes all living beings below the level of the gods. “Devas” denotes the beings in the sensual heavens. The remaining terms— Pajāpati, Brahmā, the Radiant devas, the Beautiful Black devas, the Sky-fruit devas, & the Conqueror—denote devas in the heavens of form & formlessness.They perceive the Vanquisher as the Vanquisher. “Vanquisher” (abhibhū) is an epithet of Brahmā (MN 49:5.2) that was appropriated for the Buddha (AN 4.23:5.1). In Rig Veda 8.97.10 it is an epithet of Indra, but it is not a regular name for a deity in either Buddhism or Brahmanism. Here it appears to be the name of the highest of the Brahmā gods.
abhibhuṁ abhibhuto saññatvā abhibhuṁ maññati, abhibhusmiṁ maññati, abhibhuto maññati, abhibhuṁ meti maññati, abhibhuṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the Conqueror as the Conqueror, he supposes (things) about the Conqueror, he supposes (things) in the Conqueror, he supposes (things) coming out of the Conqueror, he supposes the Conqueror as ‘mine,’ he delights in the Conqueror.Having perceived the Vanquisher as the Vanquisher, they conceive him to be the Vanquisher …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ ākāsānañcāyatanato sañjānāti; He perceives the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space.They perceive the dimension of infinite space as the dimension of infinite space. Here begins the series of realms associated with the practice of formless meditations. These were practiced by the most advanced non-dualist Brahmanical teachers before the Buddha, who identified such experiences with the highest Self that is the cosmic divinity. The Buddha adopted the practices as part of the development of meditation, divesting them of metaphysical significance.
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ ākāsānañcāyatanato saññatvā ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ maññati, ākāsānañcāyatanasmiṁ maññati, ākāsānañcāyatanato maññati, ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ meti maññati, ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space, he supposes (things) about the dimension of the infinitude of space, he supposes (things) in the dimension of the infinitude of space, he supposes (things) coming out of the dimension of the infinitude of space, he supposes the dimension of the infinitude of space as ‘mine,’ he delights in the dimension of the infinitude of space.Having perceived the dimension of infinite space as the dimension of infinite space, they conceive it to be the dimension of infinite space … “Space” (ākāsa) is a principle of deep significance in the Upaniṣads, yet it is ultimately a lesser manifestation of the Absolute (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.7; Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1; Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.12).
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ viññāṇañcāyatanato sañjānāti; He perceives the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.They perceive the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness. “Infinite consciousness” is identified with the highest Self by Yājñavalkya at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12.
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ viññāṇañcāyatanato saññatvā viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ maññati, viññāṇañcāyatanasmiṁ maññati, viññāṇañcāyatanato maññati, viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ meti maññati, viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, he supposes (things) about the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, he supposes (things) in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, he supposes (things) coming out of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, he supposes the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as ‘mine,’ he delights in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.Having perceived the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness, they conceive it to be the dimension of infinite consciousness …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ ākiñcaññāyatanato sañjānāti; He perceives the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness.They perceive the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness. Taught by the Brahmanical sage Āḷāra Kālāma at MN 26:15.13.
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ ākiñcaññāyatanato saññatvā ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ maññati, ākiñcaññāyatanasmiṁ maññati, ākiñcaññāyatanato maññati, ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ meti maññati, ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness, he supposes (things) about the dimension of nothingness, he supposes (things) in the dimension of nothingness, he supposes (things) coming out of the dimension of nothingness, he supposes the dimension of nothingness as ‘mine,’ he delights in the dimension of nothingness.Having perceived the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness, they conceive it to be the dimension of nothingness …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ nevasaññānāsaññāyatanato sañjānāti; He perceives the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.The dimension of the infinitude of space, the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, & the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception are four formless states that can be attained in concentration.They perceive the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Taught by the Brahmanical sage Uddaka Rāmaputta at MN 26:16.13.
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ nevasaññānāsaññāyatanato saññatvā nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ maññati, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanasmiṁ maññati, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanato maññati, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ meti maññati, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he supposes (things) about the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he supposes (things) in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he supposes (things) coming out of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he supposes the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as ‘mine,’ he delights in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.Having perceived the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they conceive it to be the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Diṭṭhaṁ diṭṭhato sañjānāti; He perceives the seen as the seen.They perceive the seen as the seen. Now the discourse introduces the “epistemic tetrad”—the seen, heard, thought, and known—which describe the means of knowing spiritual truths (see also note on SN 24.1:4.11). This framework was adopted from Yājñavalkya, for whom it is the Self that must be seen, heard, thought, and known (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7, 2.4.5, 4.5.6; cf. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.13.7). Yet the Absolute Self is “the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.4.2, 3.7.23, 3.8.11, 4.3.31), the divinity that is ancient and primordial (4.4.18). It is through inference or understanding that one can learn to see, hear, think, and know that which is unknown (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.3), and which comprises one’s spiritual understanding (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.4.5).
diṭṭhaṁ diṭṭhato saññatvā diṭṭhaṁ maññati, diṭṭhasmiṁ maññati, diṭṭhato maññati, diṭṭhaṁ meti maññati, diṭṭhaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the seen as the seen, he supposes (things) about the seen, he supposes (things) in the seen, he supposes (things) coming out of the seen, he supposes the seen as ‘mine,’ he delights in the seen.Having perceived the seen as the seen, they conceive it to be the seen … While the “sight of ascetics” is regarded as a blessing (Snp 2.4:10.2), taking the “seeing” of a holy person as a standard of truth is a mistake (Snp 4.4). For Vedists, seeing can also refer to the Self which is beheld in a dream (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.9), where things are revealed in a person’s own light (4.3.14).
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Sutaṁ sutato sañjānāti; He perceives the heard as the heard.They perceive the heard as the heard. This refers to teachings that are “heard” or learned by being passed down in oral tradition through a lineage of teachers. Knowledge heard from a teacher is said to lead to the goal (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.9.3). These are the Vedic scriptures (śruti) that were believed to have been “heard” or transmitted by divine inspiration. Buddhist suttas are marked with the phrase, “So I have heard”. No scripture, however, is infallible (MN 76:25.2).
sutaṁ sutato saññatvā sutaṁ maññati, sutasmiṁ maññati, sutato maññati, sutaṁ meti maññati, sutaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the heard as the heard, he supposes (things) about the heard, he supposes (things) in the heard, he supposes (things) coming out of the heard, he supposes the heard as ‘mine,’ he delights in the heard.Having perceived the heard as the heard, they conceive it to be the heard …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Mutaṁ mutato sañjānāti; He perceives the sensed as the sensed.They perceive the thought as the thought. Muta means “(what is) thought”, but is often mistranslated as “sensed”, a meaning that does not occur in the early texts. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.5.1 explains that “thought” (there, citta) is the basis of the Vedic mantras. Philosophical thought, like scripture, is fallible (MN 76:27.3), but people get attached to their theories (Snp 4.5).
mutaṁ mutato saññatvā mutaṁ maññati, mutasmiṁ maññati, mutato maññati, mutaṁ meti maññati, mutaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the sensed as the sensed, he supposes (things) about the sensed, he supposes (things) in the sensed, he supposes (things) coming out of the sensed, he supposes the sensed as ‘mine,’ he delights in the sensed.Having perceived the thought as the thought, they conceive it to be the thought …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Viññātaṁ viññātato sañjānāti; He perceives the cognized as the cognized.“The seen, the heard, the sensed, & the cognized” is a set of terms to cover all things experienced through the six senses.They perceive the known as the known. The “known” (viññāta) is that which is cognized with consciousness (viññāṇa). For the Vedists this has the sense of “understanding” of the various branches of learning (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.7.1). It can also mean the states of expanded consciousness in deep meditation as indicated in the expanded “epistemic heptad” (SN 24.1:4.11). Even such states are not immune to misinterpretation (eg. MN 136:9.1, DN 1:1.31.1).
viññātaṁ viññātato saññatvā viññātaṁ maññati, viññātasmiṁ maññati, viññātato maññati, viññātaṁ meti maññati, viññātaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the cognized as the cognized, he supposes (things) about the cognized, he supposes (things) in the cognized, he supposes (things) coming out of the cognized, he supposes the cognized as ‘mine,’ he delights in the cognized.Having perceived the known as the known, they conceive it to be the known …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Ekattaṁ ekattato sañjānāti; He perceives singleness as singleness.They perceive oneness as oneness. Perception of “oneness” (ekatta) sees the world as manifold reflections of an underlying unity. Arising from meditative experience or philosophical reflection, it is associated with the non-dual schools of Brahmanism. Īśa Upaniṣad 7, for example, speaks of “contemplating the oneness” (ekatvam anupaśyataḥ) of all creatures with the supreme soul. Yājñavalkya said in the state of non-differentiation the Self “becomes clear as water, one, the seer without a second; this is the Brahmā realm” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.32: salila eko draṣṭādvaito bhavati, eṣa brahmalokaḥ).
ekattaṁ ekattato saññatvā ekattaṁ maññati, ekattasmiṁ maññati, ekattato maññati, ekattaṁ meti maññati, ekattaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving singleness as singleness, he supposes (things) about singleness, he supposes (things) in singleness, he supposes (things) coming out of singleness, he supposes singleness as ‘mine,’ he delights in singleness.Having perceived oneness as oneness, they conceive it to be oneness …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Nānattaṁ nānattato sañjānāti; He perceives multiplicity as multiplicity.Singleness = experience in states of intense concentration (jhāna). Multiplicity = experience via the six senses. See MN 137.They perceive diversity as diversity. “Diversity” (nānatta) is the opposite fallacy to “oneness”; based on the diversity of sense experience, it interprets the world as irreducibly manifold. An example would be the Jains, who believed the world was made up of countless separate entities, a view criticized in Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 3.13 (nānātvaṁ nindyate). Both these fallacies take a particular mode of perception which is true in certain respects and make it into a metaphysical absolute.
nānattaṁ nānattato saññatvā nānattaṁ maññati, nānattasmiṁ maññati, nānattato maññati, nānattaṁ meti maññati, nānattaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving multiplicity as multiplicity, he supposes (things) about multiplicity, he supposes (things) in multiplicity, he supposes (things) coming out of multiplicity, he supposes multiplicity as ‘mine,’ he delights in multiplicity.Having perceived diversity as diversity, they conceive it to be diversity …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Sabbaṁ sabbato sañjānāti; He perceives the All as the All.“What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, ‘Repudiating this All, I will describe another,’ if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain and, furthermore, would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range.” —SN 35:23 For more on this topic, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1.They perceive all as all. The “all” is another critical term in the Upaniṣads, representing the totality of creation as an expression of divinity. See eg. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.2, “the self is all this” (ātmaivedaṁ sarvamiti), or Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.5.19, “this self that experiences all is divinity” (ayam ātmā brahma sarvānubhūḥ).
sabbaṁ sabbato saññatvā sabbaṁ maññati, sabbasmiṁ maññati, sabbato maññati, sabbaṁ meti maññati, sabbaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving the All as the All, he supposes (things) about the All, he supposes (things) in the All, he supposes (things) coming out of the All, he supposes the All as ‘mine,’ he delights in the All.Having perceived all as all, they conceive it to be all …
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Nibbānaṁ nibbānato sañjānāti; He perceives unbinding as unbinding.Unbinding = nibbāna (nirvāṇa).They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. It is puzzling to see “extinguishment” (nibbāna; Sanskrit nirvāṇa) here, as it is the end of conceiving. The similar sequence at MN 49:23.1 culminates with “all”. Three interpretations: (1) Simple textual error. Of the three Chinese parallels, EA 44.6 mentions nibbāna here, while MA 106 and T 56 do not. If two separate texts have the same error, it predates the separation between the schools, or arose later through contamination. (2) The five kinds of “extinguishment in the present life”. These are false liberations believed by sectarians (DN 1:3.19.1). The commentary says they are meant here, but it seems unlikely, given that below the stream-enterer is enjoined to not identify with nibbāna, whereas they have already dispelled such misconceptions of the path. (3) An unenlightened person’s misconception of the Buddhist goal. At least some ancient Buddhists read it this way, as this passage is quoted in an Abhidhamma discussion as to whether the deathless as an object of thought can be a fetter (Kathāvatthu 9.2). The Theravāda commentary, rejecting this, says it was the view of the Pubbaseliyas, a branch of the Mahāsaṅghikas.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato saññatvā nibbānaṁ maññati, nibbānasmiṁ maññati, nibbānato maññati, nibbānaṁ meti maññati, nibbānaṁ abhinandati. Perceiving unbinding as unbinding, he supposes things about unbinding, he supposes things in unbinding, he supposes things coming out of unbinding, he supposes unbinding as ‘mine,’ he delights in unbinding.Having perceived extinguishment as extinguishment, they conceive it to be extinguishment, they conceive it in extinguishment, they conceive it as extinguishment, they conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Puthujjanavasena paṭhamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sekkho appattamānaso anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ patthayamāno viharati, sopi pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; A monk who is a trainee—yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled—directly knows earth as earth.A mendicant who is a trainee, who hasn’t achieved their heart’s desire, but lives aspiring to the supreme sanctuary from the yoke, directly knows earth as earth. A “trainee” (sekha), who has realized stream-entry, once-return, or non-return, has had a vision of the path and Nibbāna. Yet since they have not fully relinquished the fetters that bind them to transmigration, they continue to deepen their practice of the noble eightfold path. Their “direct knowing” (abhiññā) is purified by the twin powers of samatha and vipassanā meditation, rather than “perception” (saññā), which is filtered through the five hindrances and other cognitive distortions. This distinction between perception and higher awareness (vijñāna or prajñāna) was first made by Yājñavalkya (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12 and 4.5.13).
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ mā maññi, pathaviyā mā maññi, pathavito mā maññi, pathaviṁ meti mā maññi, pathaviṁ mābhinandi. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not suppose things about earth, let him not suppose things in earth, let him not suppose things coming out of earth, let him not suppose earth as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, let them not conceive it to be earth, let them not conceive it in earth, let them not conceive it as earth, let them not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, let them not approve earth. The sutta depicts progress through the path in three grammatical modes. The ordinary person conceives; the trainee ought not conceive; the perfected one does not conceive. This echoes the “three rounds” of the first sermon (Dhammacakkappavattanasutta, SN 56.11): “there is” suffering; suffering “should be understood”; suffering “has been understood”.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Pariññeyyaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.So that they may completely understand it, I say.
Āpaṁ …pe… They directly know water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception … The stream-enterer has not necessarily had personal experience of all these meditation states and realms of existence. Yet they “directly know” dependent origination, and hence understand that all such states are conditioned, impermanent, and included within the round of transmigration.
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; Directly knowing unbinding as unbinding, let him not suppose things about unbinding, let him not suppose things in unbinding, let him not suppose things coming out of unbinding, let him not suppose unbinding as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in unbinding.They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ mā maññi, nibbānasmiṁ mā maññi, nibbānato mā maññi, nibbānaṁ meti mā maññi, nibbānaṁ mābhinandi. Why is that?Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, let them not conceive it to be extinguishment, let them not conceive it in extinguishment, let them not conceive it as extinguishment, let them not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, let them not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.Why is that?
‘Pariññeyyaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. So that they may completely understand it, I say.
Sekkhavasena dutiyanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto, sopi pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of effluents—who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge—directly knows earth as earth.A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—directly knows earth as earth. The “perfected one” is the arahant, literally “worthy one”, who is the Buddhist spiritual ideal. Their direct knowing is so powerful that it has cut through all fetters binding them to transmigration.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, they do not conceive it to be earth, they do not conceive it in earth, they do not conceive it as earth, they do not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they do not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Pariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.Because they have completely understood it, I say.
Āpaṁ …pe… They directly know water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, they do not conceive it to be extinguishment, they do not conceive it in extinguishment, they do not conceive it as extinguishment, they do not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they do not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
‘Pariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. Because they have completely understood it, I say.
Khīṇāsavavasena tatiyanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññā vimutto, sopi pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of effluents—who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge—directly knows earth as earth.A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—directly knows earth as earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, they do not conceive it to be earth, they do not conceive it in earth, they do not conceive it as earth, they do not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they do not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Khayā rāgassa, vītarāgattā. Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.Because they’re free of greed due to the ending of greed. The text repeats the passage on the perfected one three times, emphasizing the ending of greed, hate, and delusion respectively.
Āpaṁ …pe… They directly know water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, they do not conceive it to be extinguishment, they do not conceive it in extinguishment, they do not conceive it as extinguishment, they do not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they do not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Khayā rāgassa, vītarāgattā. Because they’re free of greed due to the ending of greed.
Khīṇāsavavasena catutthanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto, sopi pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of effluents—who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge—directly knows earth as earth.A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—directly knows earth as earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, they do not conceive it to be earth, they do not conceive it in earth, they do not conceive it as earth, they do not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they do not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Khayā dosassa, vītadosattā. Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.Because they’re free of hate due to the ending of hate.
Āpaṁ …pe… They directly know water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, they do not conceive it to be extinguishment, they do not conceive it in extinguishment, they do not conceive it as extinguishment, they do not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they do not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Khayā dosassa, vītadosattā. Because they’re free of hate due to the ending of hate.
Khīṇāsavavasena pañcamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto, sopi pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of effluents—who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge—directly knows earth as earth.A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—directly knows earth as earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, they do not conceive it to be earth, they do not conceive it in earth, they do not conceive it as earth, they do not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they do not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Khayā mohassa, vītamohattā. Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.Because they’re free of delusion due to the ending of delusion.
Āpaṁ …pe… They directly know water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, they do not conceive it to be extinguishment, they do not conceive it in extinguishment, they do not conceive it as extinguishment, they do not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they do not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Khayā mohassa, vītamohattā. Because they’re free of delusion due to the ending of delusion.
Khīṇāsavavasena chaṭṭhanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Tathāgatopi, bhikkhave, arahaṁ sammāsambuddho pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; The Tathāgata—a worthy one, rightly self-awakened—directly knows earth as earth.The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha directly knows earth as earth. The Buddha is an arahant, and he shares his fundamental understanding with other arahants. Yet the suttas elevate his understanding as the one who discovered the path.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive it to be earth, he does not conceive it in earth, he does not conceive it as earth, he does not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, he does not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Pariññātantaṁ tathāgatassā’ti vadāmi. Because the Tathāgata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.Because the Realized One has completely understood it to the end, I say. To “completely understood to the end” is a phrase unique to this sutta. It implies that, while other arahants understand phenomena to the extent necessary for release, the Buddha understands all phenomena without exception.
Āpaṁ …pe… He directly knows water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, he does not conceive it to be extinguishment, he does not conceive it in extinguishment, he does not conceive it as extinguishment, he does not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he does not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
‘Pariññātantaṁ tathāgatassā’ti vadāmi. Because the Realized One has completely understood it to the end, I say.
Tathāgatavasena sattamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Tathāgatopi, bhikkhave, arahaṁ sammāsambuddho pathaviṁ pathavito abhijānāti; The Tathāgata—a worthy one, rightly self-awakened—directly knows earth as earth.The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha directly knows earth as earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṁ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṁ meti na maññati, pathaviṁ nābhinandati. Directly knowing earth as earth, he doesn’t suppose things about earth, doesn’t suppose things in earth, doesn’t suppose things coming out of earth, doesn’t suppose earth as ‘mine,’ doesn’t delight in earth.Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive it to be earth, he does not conceive it in earth, he does not conceive it as earth, he does not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, he does not approve earth.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth,Because he has understood that approval is the root of suffering, This clarifies an ambiguity in the phrase “approve” (or “delights”, “relishes”, (abhi)-nandati). This can have a positive sense, as the audience normally “approves” the Buddha’s teachings (but see the end of this sutta). Here, however, the Buddha clarifies that he is using “approve” in the sense of craving, as it is found in the standard definition of the second noble truth (SN 56.11:4.4).
iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti. and that for what has come into being there is aging & death.and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. With these lines the Buddha connects the teachings of this sutta with dependent origination. He employs a similar strategy at the end of the Brahmajālasutta.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, ‘tathāgato sabbaso taṇhānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti vadāmi. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathāgata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect awakening, I say.
Āpaṁ …pe… He directly knows water …
tejaṁ … fire …
vāyaṁ … air …
bhūte … creatures …
deve … gods …
pajāpatiṁ … the Progenitor …
brahmaṁ … the Divinity …
ābhassare … those of sublime luminosity …
subhakiṇhe … those replete with glory …
vehapphale … those of abundant fruit …
abhibhuṁ … the Vanquisher …
ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite space …
viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … the dimension of infinite consciousness …
ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of nothingness …
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
diṭṭhaṁ … the seen …
sutaṁ … the heard …
mutaṁ … the thought …
viññātaṁ … the known …
ekattaṁ … oneness …
nānattaṁ … diversity …
sabbaṁ … all …
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati. Having directly known extinguishment as extinguishment, he does not conceive it to be extinguishment, he does not conceive it in extinguishment, he does not conceive it as extinguishment, he does not conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he does not approve extinguishment.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—Because he has understood that approval is the root of suffering,
iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti. and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, ‘tathāgato sabbaso taṇhānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti vadāmī”ti. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”
Tathāgatavasena aṭṭhamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Idamavoca bhagavā. That is what the Buddha said.
Na te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti. But the mendicants did not approve what the Buddha said. That they “did not approve” (na abhinanduṁ) is confirmed in the commentary and in the parallel at EA 44.6, which explains that the mendicants did not understand the discourse. Alternatively, some modern interpreters (Bodhi, Ñāṇananda), relying on the commentarial background explanation, suggest that the problem was that they understood it all too well and were not happy that their beliefs were challenged. These explanations, however, do not take into account the centrality of “approval” (nanda)—it is literally the “root” that lends the discourse its title. Given that an arahant does not “approve” even Nibbāna, and that “approval” is the root of suffering, is it any wonder that the audience did not “approve” the teaching? It is not that they did not understand, nor that their understanding threatened their egos, but that they understood so well that they received the teaching with perfect equanimity. Elsewhere the Buddha urged that one should “neither approve (abhinandati) nor dismiss” a teaching (AN 4.180:2.5 = DN 16:4.8.4, DN 29:18.4, MN 112:3.1). The normal response, where the audience approves a teaching with pleasure, is meant in a conventional sense, whereas this sutta shows how for an arahant all such responses are transcended.
Mūlapariyāyasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ paṭhamaṁ.