Other Translations: Deutsch , Italiano , ру́сский язы́к , Srpski
From: , ,
Majjhima Nikāya 22 Middle Discourses 22Middle Discourses 22
Alagaddūpamasutta The Water-Snake SimileThe Simile of the Cobra
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—I have heard thatThis is a discourse about clinging to views (diṭṭhi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job. The first section of the discourse, leading up to the simile of the water-snake, focuses on the danger of misapprehending the Dhamma in general, and particularly the teachings on sensuality. The discourse doesn’t explain how the offending monk, Ariṭṭha, formulated his misapprehension of the Dhamma, but the Commentary suggests a plausible scenario: “Here the monk… having gone into seclusion, reasons as follows: ‘There are people living the household life, enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners. As for monks, they see pleasurable forms cognizable via the eye, hear… smell… taste… feel (pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable via the body. They use soft carpets and clothing. All this is proper. Then why shouldn't the sight, sound, smell, taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!‘ Thus… comparing a mustard seed with Mount Sineru, he gives rise to the evil viewpoint, ‘Why did the Blessed One—binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort—formulate the first pārājika training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There is nothing wrong with that act.’” Regardless of how Ariṭṭha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary’s suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful. The Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2:25: “Monks, these two slander the Tathāgata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred.” Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of the water-snake, which in turn is an introduction to the simile of the raft. It is important to underline the connection between these two similes, for it is often missed. Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dhamma is to be let-go. In fact, one major Mahāyāna text—the Diamond Sūtra—interprets the raft simile as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river. However, the simile of the water-snake makes the point that the Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. When this point is then applied to the raft simile, the implication is clear: One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go. Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the discourse, which focuses on the teaching of not-self. This is one of the most easily misapprehended teachings in the Canon largely because it is possible to draw the wrong inferences from it. Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates—form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness—he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one’s identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were “me,” then it must also be “mine,” which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as “me” or “mine.” The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches. In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list: I have a self … I have no self … It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self… or … This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. Thus the view “I have no self” is just as much a doctrine of self as the view “I have a self.” Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls “I-making”—the creation of a sense of self—if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4:24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for “the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the pacification of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.” Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self. Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving the self and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the inconstancy and stress of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates are inconstant and stressful there is no self. He simply asks, When they are inconstant and stressful, is it proper to assume that they are “me, my self, what I am”? Now, because the sense of self is a product of “I-making,” this question seeks to do nothing more than to induce disenchantment and dispassion for that process of I-making, so as to put a stop to it. Once that is accomplished, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose in putting an end to suffering and stress. That’s the safety of the further shore. As the Buddha says in this discourse, “Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress.” As he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation; and as MN 140 points out, when one is truly unagitated one is unbound. The raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there—free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced.So I have heard.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Tena kho pana samayena ariṭṭhassa nāma bhikkhuno gaddhabādhipubbassa evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ hoti: Now on that occasion this evil viewpoint had arisen in the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers:Now at that time a mendicant named Ariṭṭha, who had previously been a vulture trapper, had the following harmful misconception: For “vulture trapper” (gaddhabādhi), see SN 47.7:1.4 where √bādh clearly means to “trap” a monkey. The commentary’s “killer” seems unjustified.
“tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā”ti. “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions.”“As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.” By this he denies the third of the four kinds of self-assurance (MN 12:25.1).
Assosuṁ kho sambahulā bhikkhū: A large number of monks heard,Several mendicants heard this rumour.
“ariṭṭhassa kira nāma bhikkhuno gaddhabādhipubbassa evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ: “They say that this evil viewpoint has arisen in the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers:
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’”ti. ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions.’”
Atha kho te bhikkhū yena ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etadavocuṁ: So they went to the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers and on arrival said to him,They went up to Ariṭṭha and said to him,
“saccaṁ kira te, āvuso ariṭṭha, evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ: “Is it true, friend Ariṭṭha, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you—“Is it really true, Reverend Ariṭṭha, that you have such a harmful misconception:
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’”ti. ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions’?”‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them’?”
“Evaṁ byā kho ahaṁ, āvuso, bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā”ti. “Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”“Indeed, reverends. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.”
Atha kho tepi bhikkhū ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etasmā pāpakā diṭṭhigatā vivecetukāmā samanuyuñjanti samanugāhanti samanubhāsanti: Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that evil viewpoint, quizzed him back and forth and rebuked him, saying,Then, wishing to dissuade Ariṭṭha from his view, the mendicants pursued, pressed, and grilled him, The stock phrase “pursued, pressed, and grilled” (samanuyuñjanti samanugāhanti samanubhāsanti) is sometimes rendered as if it meant to “question”, but here there is no question. While these terms are commonly used in a context of questioning, they do not, in and of themselves, mean to question. Rather they mean to engage with a person and push for an answer or response.
“mā hevaṁ, āvuso ariṭṭha, avaca, mā bhagavantaṁ abbhācikkhi; na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṁ, na hi bhagavā evaṁ vadeyya. “Don’t say that, friend Ariṭṭha. Don’t slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that.“Don’t say that, Ariṭṭha! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not say that. Ariṭṭha makes two mistakes: misunderstanding sensual pleasures, and misrepresenting the Buddha.
Anekapariyāyenāvuso ariṭṭha, antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāya. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.In many ways the Buddha has said that obstructive acts are obstructive, and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them. Ariṭṭha did not specify what “obstructions” he was referring to, but this reply by the mendicants indicates that he meant indulgence in sensual pleasures, a conclusion supported by the commentary and several parallel texts. See too Thig 16.1:45.2 where sensual pleasures are said to be “obstructive”. Other things said to be obstructive are “possessions, honor, and popularity” (eg. SN 17.2:1.2) and “false speech” (Kd 2:3.3.14). In the latter context, “obstructive” is explained as preventing the attainment of jhāna and higher spiritual realizations.
Appassādā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.The Buddha says that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
Aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.With the similes of a skeleton … The first seven of these ten similes are taught with explanations at MN 54:15.1. The full ten are quoted at AN 5.76:11.2 and by the bhikkhunī Sumedhā at Thig 16.1:41.1. With slight variations the list recurs in various parallels and some similes are found individually.
maṁsapesūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh…a scrap of meat …
tiṇukkūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … a grass torch…a grass torch …
aṅgārakāsūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … a pit of glowing embers…a pit of glowing coals …
supinakūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … a dream…a dream …
yācitakūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … borrowed goods…borrowed goods …
rukkhaphalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … the fruits of a tree…fruit on a tree …
asisūnūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … a butcher’s ax and chopping block…a butcher’s knife and chopping board …
sattisūlūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā … swords and spears…swords and spears …
sappasirūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo”ti. a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.”The first seven of these comparisons are treated in detail in MN 54. The simile of the butcher’s ax and chopping block is mentioned in MN 23, the simile of swords and spears in SN 5:1, and the simile of the snake’s head in Sn 4:1.a cobra’s head, the Buddha says that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.”
Evampi kho ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tehi bhikkhūhi samanuyuñjiyamāno samanugāhiyamāno samanubhāsiyamāno tadeva pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa voharati: And yet even though he was quizzed back & forth and rebuked by those monks, the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through stubbornness and attachment to that very same evil viewpoint, continued to insist,But even though the mendicants pursued, pressed, and grilled him in this way, Ariṭṭha obstinately stuck to his misconception and insisted on it.
“evaṁ byā kho ahaṁ, āvuso, bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā”ti. “Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”
Yato kho te bhikkhū nāsakkhiṁsu ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etasmā pāpakā diṭṭhigatā vivecetuṁ, atha kho te bhikkhū yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdiṁsu. Ekamantaṁ nisinnā kho te bhikkhū bhagavantaṁ etadavocuṁ: So when the monks were unable to pry the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that evil viewpoint, they went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they told him what had happened.When they weren’t able to dissuade Ariṭṭha from his view, the mendicants went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and told him what had happened.
“ariṭṭhassa nāma, bhante, bhikkhuno gaddhabādhipubbassa evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ:
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’ti.
Assumha kho mayaṁ, bhante:
‘ariṭṭhassa kira nāma bhikkhuno gaddhabādhipubbassa evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ—
tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’ti.
Atha kho mayaṁ, bhante, yena ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tenupasaṅkamimha; upasaṅkamitvā ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etadavocumha:
‘saccaṁ kira te, āvuso ariṭṭha, evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ—
tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’ti?
Evaṁ vutte, bhante, ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo amhe etadavoca:
‘evaṁ byā kho ahaṁ, āvuso, bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’ti.
Atha kho mayaṁ, bhante, ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etasmā pāpakā diṭṭhigatā vivecetukāmā samanuyuñjimha samanugāhimha samanubhāsimha:
‘mā hevaṁ, āvuso ariṭṭha, avaca, mā bhagavantaṁ abbhācikkhi; na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṁ, na hi bhagavā evaṁ vadeyya.
Anekapariyāyenāvuso ariṭṭha, antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāya.
Appassādā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo.
Aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā …pe…
sappasirūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti.
Evampi kho, bhante, ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo amhehi samanuyuñjiyamāno samanugāhiyamāno samanubhāsiyamāno tadeva pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa voharati:
‘evaṁ byā kho ahaṁ, āvuso, bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’ti.
Yato kho mayaṁ, bhante, nāsakkhimha ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etasmā pāpakā diṭṭhigatā vivecetuṁ, atha mayaṁ etamatthaṁ bhagavato ārocemā”ti.
Atha kho bhagavā aññataraṁ bhikkhuṁ āmantesi: So the Blessed One told a certain monk,So the Buddha addressed one of the monks,
“ehi tvaṁ, bhikkhu, mama vacanena ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ āmantehi: “Come, monk. In my name, call the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, saying,“Please, monk, in my name tell the mendicant Ariṭṭha, formerly a vulture trapper, that
‘satthā taṁ, āvuso ariṭṭha, āmantetī’”ti. ‘The Teacher calls you, friend Ariṭṭha.’”the Teacher summons him.”
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho so bhikkhu bhagavato paṭissutvā, yena ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etadavoca: “As you say, lord,” the monk responded and, having gone to the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, on arrival he said,“Yes, sir,” that monk replied. He went to Ariṭṭha and said to him,
“satthā taṁ, āvuso ariṭṭha, āmantetī”ti. “The Teacher calls you, friend Ariṭṭha.”“Reverend Ariṭṭha, the Teacher summons you.”
“Evamāvuso”ti kho ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tassa bhikkhuno paṭissutvā yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinnaṁ kho ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ bhagavā etadavoca: “As you say, my friend,” the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers responded. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him,“Yes, reverend,” Ariṭṭha replied. He went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him,
“saccaṁ kira te, ariṭṭha, evarūpaṁ pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ uppannaṁ: “Is it true, Ariṭṭha, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you—“Is it really true, Ariṭṭha, that you have such a harmful misconception:
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’”ti? ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions’?”‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them’?”
“Evaṁ byā kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi: ‘yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā te paṭisevato nālaṁ antarāyāyā’”ti. “Yes, indeed, lord. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”“Indeed, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.” “Absolutely” renders the particle byā, which is a rare intensive form of iva. It is employed in the same manner by Sāti at MN 38:3.7, who is equally confident and equally wrong.
“Kassa kho nāma tvaṁ, moghapurisa, mayā evaṁ dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāsi? “Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way?“Futile man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?
Nanu mayā, moghapurisa, anekapariyāyena antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā? Alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāya. Worthless man, haven’t I in many ways described obstructive acts? And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.Haven’t I said in many ways that obstructive acts are obstructive, and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them?
Appassādā kāmā vuttā mayā, bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.I’ve said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
Aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.With the similes of a skeleton …
maṁsapesūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh…a scrap of meat …
tiṇukkūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … a grass torch…a grass torch …
aṅgārakāsūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … a pit of glowing embers…a pit of glowing coals …
supinakūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … a dream…a dream …
yācitakūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … borrowed goods…borrowed goods …
rukkhaphalūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … the fruits of a tree…fruit on a tree …
asisūnūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … a butcher’s ax and chopping block…a butcher’s knife and chopping board …
sattisūlūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā … swords and spears…swords and spears …
sappasirūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā, bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.a cobra’s head, I’ve said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
Atha ca pana tvaṁ, moghapurisa, attanā duggahitena amhe ceva abbhācikkhasi, attānañca khanasi, bahuñca apuññaṁ pasavasi. But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp (of the Dhamma), have both slandered us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself,But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and brim with much wickedness.
Tañhi te, moghapurisa, bhavissati dīgharattaṁ ahitāya dukkhāyā”ti. for that will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”Apart from a few minor details, this story up to this point is identical with the origin story for Pācittiya 68 and the origin story for the rules concerning the act of suspension given in Cullavagga (CvI.32.1-3.) Ariṭṭha was the first monk to be suspended from the Saṅgha. Cv I.34 reports that, instead of making an effort to mend his ways so that the act of suspension might be rescinded, he simply disrobed.This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.” The discourse up to this point is also found twice in the Vinaya. At Bu Pc 68 the Buddha makes it a confessable offense to persistently insist on a pernicious wrong view of this sort. At Kd 11:32.1.1 the Buddha asks the Saṅgha to perform an act of suspension (or “ejection”, ukkhepanīyakamma) against Ariṭṭha. This portion is also found in the parallel Vinayas of the Dharmaguptaka, Kāśyapīya, Mahāsāṅghika, Mahīśāsaka, Mūlasarvāstivāda, and Sarvāstivāda schools.
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: Then the Blessed One said to the monks,Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, “What do you think, monks?“What do you think, mendicants?
api nāyaṁ ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo usmīkatopi imasmiṁ dhammavinaye”ti? Is this monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm in this Dhamma & Vinaya?”The image here is apparently that of trying to start a fire with the friction of a fire stick. Ariṭṭha hasn’t even been able to create any warmth, much less the spark of insight that would create light.Has this mendicant Ariṭṭha kindled even a spark of ardor in this teaching and training?” “Kindled even a spark of ardor” renders usmīkatopi, found in a similar context at MN 38:6.3. Usmā elsewhere appears as bodily warmth (MN 43:22.9, cf. Brahmasūtra 4.2.11), or the initial heating of fire-sticks when rubbed together (MN 140:19.13). But the most pertinent context is Ja 526:55.4, where a young ascetic will swiftly lose their usmāgataṁ—explained by the commentary as “the fire of an ascetic” (samaṇatejaṁ)—should they fall prey to sensual temptation. Thus, drawing on the traditional imagery of tapas as heat and fervor, it refers to the kindling of ascetic ardor. It never became a technical term in Pali, but in Sanskrit Abhidharma, uṣmagata refers to the conjunction of radiant samādhi with wisdom in the initial realization of the truths, which “burns up” the defilements (Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣya 6.17, Abhidharmasamuccaya 2.4).
“Kiñhi siyā, bhante; “How could he be, lord?“How could that be, sir?
no hetaṁ, bhante”ti. No, lord.”No, sir.”
Evaṁ vutte, ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo tuṇhībhūto maṅkubhūto pattakkhandho adhomukho pajjhāyanto appaṭibhāno nisīdi. When this was said, the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.When this was said, Ariṭṭha sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.
Atha kho bhagavā ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ tuṇhībhūtaṁ maṅkubhūtaṁ pattakkhandhaṁ adhomukhaṁ pajjhāyantaṁ appaṭibhānaṁ viditvā ariṭṭhaṁ bhikkhuṁ gaddhabādhipubbaṁ etadavoca: Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him,Knowing this, the Buddha said,
“paññāyissasi kho tvaṁ, moghapurisa, etena sakena pāpakena diṭṭhigatena. “Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own evil viewpoint.“Futile man, you will be known by your own harmful misconception.
Idhāhaṁ bhikkhū paṭipucchissāmī”ti. I will cross-examine the monks on this matter.”I’ll question the mendicants about this.”
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: Then the Blessed One addressed the monks,Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
“tumhepi me, bhikkhave, evaṁ dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānātha yathāyaṁ ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo attanā duggahitena amhe ceva abbhācikkhati, attānañca khanati, bahuñca apuññaṁ pasavatī”ti? “Monks, do you, too, understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers does when, through his own wrong grasp, he both slanders us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself?”“Mendicants, do you understand my teaching as Ariṭṭha does, when he misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself, and brims with much wickedness?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante. “No, lord,“No, sir.
Anekapariyāyena hi no, bhante, antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā; for in many ways the Blessed One has described obstructive acts to us as obstructive,For in many ways the Buddha has told us that obstructive acts are obstructive, and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them.
alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāya. and indulged in they are genuine obstructions.
Appassādā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.The Buddha has said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
Aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā …pe… The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones, a lump of flesh, a grass torch, a pit of glowing embers, a dream, borrowed goods, the fruits of a tree, a butcher’s ax and chopping block, swords and spears,With the similes of a skeleton …
sappasirūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo”ti. and a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.”a cobra’s head, the Buddha has said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.”
“Sādhu sādhu, bhikkhave, sādhu, kho me tumhe, bhikkhave, evaṁ dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānātha. “It’s good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way,“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this.
Anekapariyāyena hi kho, bhikkhave, antarāyikā dhammā vuttā mayā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāya. for in many ways I have described obstructive acts to you, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.For in many ways I have said that obstructive acts are obstructive …
Appassādā kāmā vuttā mayā, bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.
Aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā …pe… I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones, a lump of flesh, a grass torch, a pit of glowing embers, a dream, borrowed goods, the fruits of a tree, a butcher’s ax and chopping block, swords and spears,
sappasirūpamā kāmā vuttā mayā, bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo. and a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.I’ve said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
Atha ca panāyaṁ ariṭṭho bhikkhu gaddhabādhipubbo attanā duggahitena amhe ceva abbhācikkhati, attānañca khanati, bahuñca apuññaṁ pasavati. But this monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through his own wrong grasp (of the Dhamma), has both slandered us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself,But still this Ariṭṭha misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself, and brims with much wickedness.
Tañhi tassa moghapurisassa bhavissati dīgharattaṁ ahitāya dukkhāya. and that will lead to this worthless man’s long-term harm & suffering.This will be for his lasting harm and suffering.
So vata, bhikkhave, aññatreva kāmehi aññatra kāmasaññāya aññatra kāmavitakkehi kāme paṭisevissatīti—netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati. For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn’t possible.According to the Commentary, “indulge in sensual pleasures” here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire—such as hugging and petting—should be included under this phrase as well.Truly, mendicants, it is quite impossible to perform sensual acts without sensual desires, sensual perceptions, and sensual thoughts. According to the commentary, this refers to sexual intercourse. This sentence is not found in the Chinese parallel at MA 200.
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacce moghapurisā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti—“Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma:Take a futile person who memorizes the teaching—
suttaṁ, geyyaṁ, veyyākaraṇaṁ, gāthaṁ, udānaṁ, itivuttakaṁ, jātakaṁ, abbhutadhammaṁ, vedallaṁ. dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha’s teachings].statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations. These nine categories (aṅga) of the teaching were an early organization of the Dhamma before the system of nikāyas (or āgamas) was introduced at the First Council. While their exact specification is uncertain, in my view they are most likely as follows (with an example of each). Sutta is short doctrinal statements (SN 12.1). Geyya is mixed prose and verse (“prosimetra”, SN 1.1). Veyyākaraṇa is questions and answers (MN 22). Gāthā is pure verse (Thig 1.1). Udāna is the inspired statements identified as such in the early texts (MN 75:19.1). Itivuttaka perhaps means “legends of the past” (DN 27) rather than the book of that name (Iti 1). Jātaka are the past life stories of the Buddha found in the early texts (MN 81). Abbhutadhamma are stories of the amazing qualities of the Buddha or disciples (MN 123). Vedalla are detailed analytical elaborations (MN 43). Once the system of aṅgas fell into disuse, some names were repurposed as specific books (Udāna, Itivuttaka, Jātaka). Northern traditions, including the parallels to this passage, usually extend the list to twelve with the addition of nidāna (background stories), apadāna (past lives of disciples), and upadesa (explanatory treatises).
Te taṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā tesaṁ dhammānaṁ paññāya atthaṁ na upaparikkhanti. Having studied the Dhamma, they don’t ascertain the meaning [or: the purpose] of those Dhammas with their discernment.The Pali switches from the singular (Dhamma) to the plural (Dhammas) here. This is one of the few discourses that uses the plural form to mean “teachings” rather than “phenomena.” This same use of “Dhammas” to mean “teachings” reoccurs in the raft simile, below.But they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom,
Tesaṁ te dhammā paññāya atthaṁ anupaparikkhataṁ na nijjhānaṁ khamanti. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don’t come to an agreement through pondering.and so don’t come to an acceptance of them after deliberation. “Considered acceptance” is nijjhānaṁ khamanti.
Te upārambhānisaṁsā ceva dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti itivādappamokkhānisaṁsā ca. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate.They memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. This theme is expanded in several discourses of the Aṭṭhakavagga, such as Snp 4.8.
Yassa catthāya dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti tañcassa atthaṁ nānubhonti. They don’t reach the goal for which (people) study the Dhamma.They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized them.
Tesaṁ te dhammā duggahitā dīgharattaṁ ahitāya dukkhāya saṁvattanti. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering.Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Duggahitattā, bhikkhave, dhammānaṁ. Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.10 says that those who worship ignorance enter darkness, but those who love knowledge (veda) enter even greater darkness. This is a recurring theme; for example, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.2 tells how Uddālaka saw the vanity of his son Śvetaketu when he returned from his schooling.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso alagaddatthiko alagaddagavesī alagaddapariyesanaṁ caramāno. “Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake.Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra. And while wandering in search of a cobra The alagadda appears only here in early Pali. Sanskrit sources identify alagarda either as a water-snake—in which case, however, it is said to be non-venomous (Kṣīrasvāmin’s Amarakoṣodghāṭana 1.7.5)—or as a kind of cobra (darvīkara, Suśrutasaṁhitā 5.4), defined as such by its hood. The sappa is also said to be hooded, so I translate both words as “cobra”. | As to why the man was looking for a cobra, the commentary says he was looking to harvest the snake’s venom. But Candrakīrti, drawing on the pan-Indic legend that certain serpents have a “snake-gem” (nāgamaṇi) in their heads, says that a serpent captured with the proper herbs and incantations brings great riches, but should these fail it will turn deadly (Mūlamadhyamakavṛtti-prasannapadā, L. de La Vallée Poussin’s translation, page 497).
So passeyya mahantaṁ alagaddaṁ. He would see a large water-snakethey’d see a big cobra,
Tamenaṁ bhoge vā naṅguṭṭhe vā gaṇheyya. and grasp it by the coils or by the tail.and grasp it by the coil or the tail.
Tassa so alagaddo paṭiparivattitvā hatthe vā bāhāya vā aññatarasmiṁ vā aṅgapaccaṅge ḍaṁseyya. The water-snake, turning around, would bite him on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs,But that cobra would twist back and bite them on the hand or the arm or other major or minor limb,
So tatonidānaṁ maraṇaṁ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṁ vā dukkhaṁ. and from that cause he would suffer death or death-like suffering.resulting in death or deadly pain.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Duggahitattā, bhikkhave, alagaddassa. Because of the wrong-graspedness of the water-snake.Because of their wrong grasp of the cobra.
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacce moghapurisā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti—In the same way, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma.…In the same way, a futile person memorizes the teaching …
suttaṁ, geyyaṁ, veyyākaraṇaṁ, gāthaṁ, udānaṁ, itivuttakaṁ, jātakaṁ, abbhutadhammaṁ, vedallaṁ. dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.
Te taṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā tesaṁ dhammānaṁ paññāya atthaṁ na upaparikkhanti. Having studied the Dhamma, they don’t ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.
Tesaṁ te dhammā paññāya atthaṁ anupaparikkhataṁ na nijjhānaṁ khamanti. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don’t come to an agreement through pondering.
Te upārambhānisaṁsā ceva dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti itivādappamokkhānisaṁsā ca. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate.
Yassa catthāya dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti tañcassa atthaṁ nānubhonti. They don’t reach the goal for which (people) study the Dhamma.
Tesaṁ te dhammā duggahitā dīgharattaṁ ahitāya dukkhāya saṁvattanti. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering.and those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Duggahitattā, bhikkhave, dhammānaṁ. Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.
Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacce kulaputtā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti—“But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma.…Now, take a gentleman who memorizes the teaching—
suttaṁ, geyyaṁ, veyyākaraṇaṁ, gāthaṁ, udānaṁ, itivuttakaṁ, jātakaṁ, abbhutadhammaṁ, vedallaṁ. dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations.
Te taṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā tesaṁ dhammānaṁ paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkhanti. Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.And once he’s memorized them, he examines their meaning with wisdom,
Tesaṁ te dhammā paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkhataṁ nijjhānaṁ khamanti. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering.and comes to an acceptance of them after deliberation. This is the “follower of teachings” (dhammānusāri), who is mentioned near the end of the sutta.
Te na ceva upārambhānisaṁsā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti na itivādappamokkhānisaṁsā ca. They don’t study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate.He doesn’t memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates.
Yassa catthāya dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti tañcassa atthaṁ anubhonti. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma.He realizes the goal for which he memorized them.
Tesaṁ te dhammā suggahitā dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya saṁvattanti. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness.Because they’re correctly grasped, those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Suggahitattā bhikkhave dhammānaṁ. Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.Because of his correct grasp of the teachings.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso alagaddatthiko alagaddagavesī alagaddapariyesanaṁ caramāno. “Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake.Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra. And while wandering in search of a cobra
So passeyya mahantaṁ alagaddaṁ. He would see a large water-snakethey’d see a big cobra,
Tamenaṁ ajapadena daṇḍena suniggahitaṁ niggaṇheyya. and pin it down firmly with a cleft stick.and hold it down carefully with a cleft stick.
Ajapadena daṇḍena suniggahitaṁ niggahitvā, gīvāya suggahitaṁ gaṇheyya. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck.Only then would they correctly grasp it by the neck.
Kiñcāpi so, bhikkhave, alagaddo tassa purisassa hatthaṁ vā bāhaṁ vā aññataraṁ vā aṅgapaccaṅgaṁ bhogehi paliveṭheyya, atha kho so neva tatonidānaṁ maraṇaṁ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṁ vā dukkhaṁ. Then no matter how much the water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs, he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering.And even though that cobra might wrap its coils around that person’s hand or arm or some other major or minor limb, that wouldn’t result in death or deadly pain.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Suggahitattā, bhikkhave, alagaddassa. Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake.Because of their correct grasp of the cobra.
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacce kulaputtā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti—In the same way, there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma.…In the same way, a gentleman memorizes the teaching …
suttaṁ, geyyaṁ, veyyākaraṇaṁ, gāthaṁ, udānaṁ, itivuttakaṁ, jātakaṁ, abbhutadhammaṁ, vedallaṁ. dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.
Te taṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā tesaṁ dhammānaṁ paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkhanti. Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.
Tesaṁ te dhammā paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkhataṁ nijjhānaṁ khamanti. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering.
Te na ceva upārambhānisaṁsā dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti, na itivādappamokkhānisaṁsā ca. They don’t study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate.
Yassa catthāya dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇanti, tañcassa atthaṁ anubhonti. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma.
Tesaṁ te dhammā suggahitā dīgharattaṁ atthāya hitāya sukhāya saṁvattanti. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness.and those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Suggahitattā, bhikkhave, dhammānaṁ. Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.These last two sentences are missing in MLDB but are present in MLS.Because of his correct grasp of the teachings.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yassa me bhāsitassa atthaṁ ājāneyyātha, tathā naṁ dhāreyyātha. “Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of my statements, that is how you should remember them.So, mendicants, when you understand what I’ve said, you should remember it accordingly.
Yassa ca pana me bhāsitassa atthaṁ na ājāneyyātha, ahaṁ vo tattha paṭipucchitabbo, ye vā panāssu viyattā bhikkhū. But when you don’t understand the meaning of my statements, then right there you should ask me or the experienced monks.But if I’ve said anything that you don’t understand, you should ask me about it, or some competent mendicants. As in, for example, MN 18.
Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desessāmi nittharaṇatthāya, no gahaṇatthāya. “Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.Mendicants, I will teach you a simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. This is the second renowned simile introduced in this discourse. It is referenced by name in MN 38:14.1. Metaphors of flood and crossing rivers abound in the Buddha’s teaching, and the specific idea of using a raft to cross over recurs at Ud 8.6:27.4 = DN 16:1.33.2 = Kd 6:28.12.7, Snp 1.2:4.1, SN 35.238:5.6.
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasikarotha, bhāsissāmī”ti. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”Listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.”
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ. “As you say, lord,” the monks responded to the Blessed One.“Yes, sir,” they replied.
Bhagavā etadavoca: The Blessed One said:The Buddha said this:
“Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso addhānamaggappaṭipanno. “Suppose a man were traveling along a path.“Suppose there was a person traveling along the road.
So passeyya mahantaṁ udakaṇṇavaṁ, orimaṁ tīraṁ sāsaṅkaṁ sappaṭibhayaṁ, pārimaṁ tīraṁ khemaṁ appaṭibhayaṁ; He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk,They’d see a large deluge, whose near shore was dubious and perilous, while the far shore was a sanctuary free of peril.
na cassa nāvā santāraṇī uttarasetu vā apārā pāraṁ gamanāya. but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.But there was no ferryboat or bridge for crossing over.
Tassa evamassa: The thought would occur to him,They’d think,
‘ayaṁ kho mahāudakaṇṇavo, orimaṁ tīraṁ sāsaṅkaṁ sappaṭibhayaṁ, pārimaṁ tīraṁ khemaṁ appaṭibhayaṁ; ‘Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk,
natthi ca nāvā santāraṇī uttarasetu vā apārā pāraṁ gamanāya. but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.
Yannūnāhaṁ tiṇakaṭṭhasākhāpalāsaṁ saṅkaḍḍhitvā, kullaṁ bandhitvā, taṁ kullaṁ nissāya hatthehi ca pādehi ca vāyamamāno sotthinā pāraṁ uttareyyan’ti. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?’‘Why don’t I gather grass, sticks, branches, and leaves and make a raft? Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I can safely reach the far shore.’
Atha kho so, bhikkhave, puriso tiṇakaṭṭhasākhāpalāsaṁ saṅkaḍḍhitvā, kullaṁ bandhitvā taṁ kullaṁ nissāya hatthehi ca pādehi ca vāyamamāno sotthinā pāraṁ uttareyya. Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet.According to SN 35:197: “The great expanse of water stands for the fourfold flood: the flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood of ignorance. The near shore, dubious & risky, stands for self-identification. The further shore, secure and free from risk, stands for unbinding. The raft stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view… right concentration. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the arousing of persistence.”And so they’d do exactly that.
Tassa purisassa uttiṇṇassa pāraṅgatassa evamassa: Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think,And when they’d crossed over to the far shore, they’d think,
‘bahukāro kho me ayaṁ kullo; ‘How useful this raft has been to me!‘This raft has been very helpful to me.
imāhaṁ kullaṁ nissāya hatthehi ca pādehi ca vāyamamāno sotthinā pāraṁ uttiṇṇo. For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore.Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore.
Yannūnāhaṁ imaṁ kullaṁ sīse vā āropetvā khandhe vā uccāretvā yena kāmaṁ pakkameyyan’ti. Why don’t I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?’Why don’t I hoist it on my head or pick it up on my shoulder and go wherever I want?’
Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, What do you think, monks?What do you think, mendicants?
api nu so puriso evaṅkārī tasmiṁ kulle kiccakārī assā”ti? Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?”Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Kathaṅkārī ca so, bhikkhave, puriso tasmiṁ kulle kiccakārī assa? “And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft?“And what, mendicants, should that person do with the raft?
Idha, bhikkhave, tassa purisassa uttiṇṇassa pāraṅgatassa evamassa: There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think,When they’d crossed over they should think,
‘bahukāro kho me ayaṁ kullo; ‘How useful this raft has been to me!‘This raft has been very helpful to me. …
imāhaṁ kullaṁ nissāya hatthehi ca pādehi ca vāyamamāno sotthinā pāraṁ uttiṇṇo. For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore.
Yannūnāhaṁ imaṁ kullaṁ thale vā ussādetvā udake vā opilāpetvā yena kāmaṁ pakkameyyan’ti. Why don’t I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?’Why don’t I beach it on dry land or set it adrift on the water and go wherever I want?’
Evaṅkārī kho so, bhikkhave, puriso tasmiṁ kulle kiccakārī assa. In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft.That’s what that person should do with the raft.
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, kullūpamo mayā dhammo desito nittharaṇatthāya, no gahaṇatthāya. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.In the same way, I have taught a simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on.
Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo pahātabbā pageva adhammā. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is not the teachings. Dhammā in the plural refers back to “those teachings” (tesaṁ dhammānaṁ) of the nine categories. Accordingly, when this simile is invoked at MN 38:14.1, it is in reference to views. The pair dhamma and adhamma usually means “the teaching” and “what is not the teaching” (eg. AN 2.104). Just as the positive form, however, means more than just “teaching”, but rather a teaching of natural and moral truth, the negative form implies there is something unnatural, in conflict with the way the world is.
Chayimāni, bhikkhave, diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni. “Monks, there are these six view-positions [diṭṭhiṭṭhāna].Mendicants, there are these six grounds for views. “Grounds for views” (diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) are the experiences or reasoning from which views are derived. The Buddha is explaining how Ariṭṭha fell into his wrong view. One of the purposes of this analysis is to show how, while divergent views might seem insightful, innovative, or courageous, they all fall back on the same basic fallacies. | For the “six” grounds, see SN 24.1:5.1.
Katamāni cha? Which six?What six?
Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto, There is the case 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.
rūpaṁ ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati; assumes about form: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’They regard form as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ The misguided person assumes that one or other of the aggregates is their self. In modern times, the teaching of the aggregates is often presented as a reductive argument: “What you take to be your self is in fact just the aggregates”. But the Buddha’s point is, rather: “The aggregates that you take to be your self do not have the properties of a self,” namely permanence, etc.
vedanaṁ ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about feeling: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’They also regard feeling …
saññaṁ ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about perception: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’perception …
saṅkhāre ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’choices …
yampi taṁ diṭṭhaṁ sutaṁ mutaṁ viññātaṁ pattaṁ pariyesitaṁ, anuvicaritaṁ manasā tampi ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ Standing in place of the fifth aggregate, “consciousness”, this includes all kinds of knowledge or spiritual wisdom, especially that gained through mysticism or meditation.
yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ—He assumes about the view-position—And as for this ground for views:
so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmīti—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’:The Pali here reads, so loko so attā. The translation given here follows the interpretation of Nyanaponika Thera in his translation of this discourse. Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his notes to the translation of this discourse in MLDB, calls this interpretation hypothetical, and instead suggests that this phrase indicates the Sāṅkhya theory of the changeless “person” as opposed to unchanging “nature.” However, in his later translation of SN 22:81, which contains an identical passage, he adopts Nyanaponika’s interpretation as well.‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ This is a both view and a ground for views. Such views, lacking empirical basis, have something dissatisfying about them, so adherent is driven to develop more and more complex metaphysical abstractions. At DN 1:1.30.1, this is treated as an eternalist view that arises from the grounds of either recollection of past lives or logic. | The repeated demonstrative pronouns in the Pali so loko so attā (literally, “This is the cosmos, this is the self”) affirm an emphatic and absolute identity: “The cosmos and the self are one and the same”. This phrase has a lexical parallel at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22, which argues for the renunciate life: “What can descendants do for those for whom the self and the cosmos are one and the same?” (ayamātmāyaṁ loka). Similarly, BU 1.2.7 says of the sacrificial fire as the sun, “these worlds are its self” (tasyeme lokā ātmānaḥ). See also the last words of a father to his son at BU 1.5.17: “You are divinity, you are the sacrifice, you are the cosmos” (tvaṁ brahma tvaṁ yajñas tvaṁ loka). | In this passage the terms attā and loko are reversed, presumably by textual error. It does not affect the meaning.
tampi ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati. ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’They regard this also as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’
Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako ariyānaṁ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto, sappurisānaṁ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto, “Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their DhammaBut a learned noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen true persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the true persons.
rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati; assumes about form: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’They regard form like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
vedanaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about feeling: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’They also regard feeling …
saññaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about perception: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’perception …
saṅkhāre ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’choices …
yampi taṁ diṭṭhaṁ sutaṁ mutaṁ viññātaṁ pattaṁ pariyesitaṁ, anuvicaritaṁ manasā, tampi ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati; He assumes about what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ—He assumes about the view-position—And the same for this ground for views:
so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmīti—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’:‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
tampi ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati. ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’They also regard like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
So evaṁ samanupassanto asati na paritassatī”ti. “Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present.”On non-agitation, see MN 138 and MN 140.Seeing in this way they’re not anxious about what doesn’t exist.” “What does not exist” (asati) is the self. | To be “anxious” (paritassati) is to be caught between desire and fear. It seems to be a word of specifically Buddhist usage, leaning equally on the roots √tras (to tremble in fear) and √tṛṣ (to thirst for or crave).
Evaṁ vutte, aññataro bhikkhu bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One,When he said this, one of the mendicants said to the Buddha,
“siyā nu kho, bhante, bahiddhā asati paritassanā”ti? “Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?”“Sir, can there be anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally?” By adding “externally” the focus is shifted from the self to “what belongs to the self”, namely possessions. However, the Chinese parallel at MA 200 apparently takes it in reference to the anxiety of an eternalist who hears the Buddha teaching “externally”.
“Siyā, bhikkhū”ti—bhagavā avoca. “There might, monk,” the Blessed One said.“There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha.
“Idha bhikkhu ekaccassa evaṁ hoti: “There is the case where someone thinks,“It’s when someone thinks,
‘ahu vata me, taṁ vata me natthi; ‘O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not!‘Oh, it once was mine but is mine no more.
siyā vata me, taṁ vatāhaṁ na labhāmī’ti. O, may it be mine! O, I don’t obtain it!’Oh, it could be mine but I do not get it.’
So socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati. He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious.They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, bahiddhā asati paritassanā hotī”ti. It’s thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present.”That’s how there is anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally.”
“Siyā pana, bhante, bahiddhā asati aparitassanā”ti? “But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?”“But can there be no anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally?”
“Siyā, bhikkhū”ti—bhagavā avoca. “There might, monk,” the Blessed One said.“There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha.
“Idha bhikkhu ekaccassa na evaṁ hoti: “There is the case where someone doesn’t think,“It’s when someone doesn’t think,
‘ahu vata me, taṁ vata me natthi; ‘O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not!‘Oh, it once was mine but is mine no more.
siyā vata me, taṁ vatāhaṁ na labhāmī’ti. O, may it be mine! O, I don’t obtain it!’Oh, it could be mine but I do not get it.’
So na socati na kilamati na paridevati na urattāḷiṁ kandati na sammohaṁ āpajjati. He doesn’t grieve, isn’t tormented, doesn’t weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious.They don’t sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, bahiddhā asati aparitassanā hotī”ti. It’s thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present.”That’s how there is no anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally.”
“Siyā nu kho, bhante, ajjhattaṁ asati paritassanā”ti? “But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?”“But can there be anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally?”
“Siyā, bhikkhū”ti—bhagavā avoca. “There might, monk,” the Blessed One said.“There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha.
“Idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa evaṁ diṭṭhi hoti: “There is the case where someone has this view:“It’s when someone has such a view:
‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti. ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.’‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
So suṇāti tathāgatassa vā tathāgatasāvakassa vā sabbesaṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānādhiṭṭhānapariyuṭṭhānābhinivesānusayānaṁ samugghātāya sabbasaṅkhārasamathāya sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggāya taṇhākkhayāya virāgāya nirodhāya nibbānāya dhammaṁ desentassa. He hears a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata’s disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the pacification of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. The structure of this long compound is revealed at AN 10.96:14.1, which shows that “views” is not one item on the list, but applies to each item.
Tassa evaṁ hoti: The thought occurs to him,They think,
‘ucchijjissāmi nāmassu, vinassissāmi nāmassu, nassu nāma bhavissāmī’ti. ‘So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!’‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t even exist any more!’ They can only see the extremes: if not eternalism it must be annihilationism.
So socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati. He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious.They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, ajjhattaṁ asati paritassanā hotī”ti. It’s thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present.”That’s how there is anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally.”
“Siyā pana, bhante, ajjhattaṁ asati aparitassanā”ti? “But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is internally not present?”“But can there be no anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally?”
“Siyā, bhikkhū”ti bhagavā avoca. “There might, monk,” the Blessed One said.“There can,” said the Buddha.
“Idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa na evaṁ diṭṭhi hoti: “There is the case where someone doesn’t have this view:“It’s when someone doesn’t have such a view:
‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti. ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.’‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
So suṇāti tathāgatassa vā tathāgatasāvakassa vā sabbesaṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānādhiṭṭhānapariyuṭṭhānābhinivesānusayānaṁ samugghātāya sabbasaṅkhārasamathāya sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggāya taṇhākkhayāya virāgāya nirodhāya nibbānāya dhammaṁ desentassa. He hears a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata’s disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the pacification of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
Tassa na evaṁ hoti: The thought doesn’t occur to him,They don’t think,
‘ucchijjissāmi nāmassu, vinassissāmi nāmassu, nassu nāma bhavissāmī’ti. ‘So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!’‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t even exist any more!’
So na socati na kilamati na paridevati na urattāḷiṁ kandati na sammohaṁ āpajjati. He doesn’t grieve, isn’t tormented, doesn’t weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious.They don’t sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, ajjhattaṁ asati aparitassanā hoti. It’s thus that there is non-agitation over what is internally not present.”That’s how there is no anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally.
Taṁ, bhikkhave, pariggahaṁ pariggaṇheyyātha, yvāssa pariggaho nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva tiṭṭheyya. “Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.
Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṁ pariggahaṁ yvāssa pariggaho nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva tiṭṭheyyā”ti? But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?”But do you see any such possession?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Sādhu, bhikkhave. “Very good, monks.“Good, mendicants!
Ahampi kho taṁ, bhikkhave, pariggahaṁ na samanupassāmi yvāssa pariggaho nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṁ tatheva tiṭṭheyya. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.I also can’t see any such possession.
Taṁ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṁ upādiyetha, yaṁsa attavādupādānaṁ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā. “Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.It would make sense to grasp at a theory of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṁ attavādupādānaṁ yaṁsa attavādupādānaṁ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti? But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?”But do you see any such theory of self?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Sādhu, bhikkhave. “Very good, monks.“Good, mendicants!
Ahampi kho taṁ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṁ na samanupassāmi yaṁsa attavādupādānaṁ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.I also can’t see any such theory of self.
Taṁ, bhikkhave, diṭṭhinissayaṁ nissayetha yaṁsa diṭṭhinissayaṁ nissayato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā. “Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency [diṭṭhi-nissaya], depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.It would make sense to rely on a view that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṁ diṭṭhinissayaṁ yaṁsa diṭṭhinissayaṁ nissayato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti? But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?”But do you see any such view to rely on?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Sādhu, bhikkhave. “Very good, monks.“Good, mendicants!
Ahampi kho taṁ, bhikkhave, diṭṭhinissayaṁ na samanupassāmi yaṁsa diṭṭhinissayaṁ nissayato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.I also can’t see any such view to rely on.
Attani vā, bhikkhave, sati ‘attaniyaṁ me’ti assā”ti? “Monks, where there is a self, would there be (the thought,) ‘belonging to my self’?”Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”
“Evaṁ, bhante”. “Yes, lord.”“Yes, sir.”
“Attaniye vā, bhikkhave, sati ‘attā me’ti assā”ti? “Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be (the thought,) ‘my self’?”“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?”
“Evaṁ, bhante”. “Yes, lord.”“Yes, sir.”
“Attani ca, bhikkhave, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne, yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ: “Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position—“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not found as a genuine fact, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: “Not found as a genuine fact” renders saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne.
‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’—‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
nanāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kevalo paripūro bāladhammo”ti? Isn’t it utterly & completely a fool’s teaching?”
“Kiñhi no siyā, bhante, kevalo hi, bhante, paripūro bāladhammo”ti. “What else could it be, lord? It’s utterly & completely a fool’s teaching.”“How could it not, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, “What do you think, monks?“What do you think, mendicants? The following question and answer section is quoted verbatim from the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (SN 22.59:6.1). It appears twice elsewhere in the Majjhima (MN 35:20.4, MN 109:15.1), in the Vinaya (Kd 1:6.42.1), and about fifty times in the Saṁyutta.
rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Is form constant or inconstant?”Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Inconstant, lord.”“Impermanent, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Stressful, lord.”“Suffering, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ—“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā”ti? ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, “What do you think, monks?“What do you think, mendicants?
vedanā …pe… Is feeling…Is feeling …
saññā … perception…perception …
saṅkhārā … fabrications…choices …
viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? consciousness constant or inconstant?”consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Inconstant, lord.”“Impermanent, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Stressful, lord.”“Suffering, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ—“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā”ti? ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.”“No, sir.”
“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ, ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā, hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā, yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. “Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every form is to be seen as it has come to be with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’The word “every” here and in all parallel passages is sabba, which is the same as the word for “all.” On the range of meaning covered by the word “all,” see SN 35:23. DN 11, DN 15, MN 49, and AN 10:81 indicate that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside the range of “all,” and so would not fall under the aggregate of consciousness. This apparently corresponds to the dimension mentioned in SN 35:117 and Ud 8:1.“So, mendicants, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Yā kāci vedanā …pe… “Any feeling whatsoever.…You should truly see any kind of feeling …
yā kāci saññā … “Any perception whatsoever.…perception …
ye keci saṅkhārā … “Any fabrications whatsoever.…choices …
yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ, ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā, hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā, yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. “Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every consciousness is to be seen as it has come to be with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmiṁ nibbindati, vedanāya nibbindati, saññāya nibbindati, saṅkhāresu nibbindati, viññāṇasmiṁ nibbindati, “Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness.Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
nibbidā virajjati, virāgā vimuccati, vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ukkhittapaligho itipi, saṅkiṇṇaparikkho itipi, abbūḷhesiko itipi, niraggaḷo itipi, ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṁyutto itipi. “This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, whose moat is filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.See Dhp 398.Such a mendicant is one who is called ‘one who has lifted the cross-bar’, ‘one who has filled in the moat’, ‘one who has pulled up the pillar’, ‘one who is unimpeded’, and also ‘a noble one with banner lowered and burden dropped, detached’. These similes recur at AN 5.71 and AN 5.72. They reflect ideas of entrapment and freedom.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ukkhittapaligho hoti? “And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off?And how has a mendicant raised the cross-bar? Ignorance is a “hindrance” (nīvaraṇa), an image that ultimately draws on the Vedic myth of Vṛtra, a giant “constrictor” who trapped the waters (and sometimes cattle and sun) in darkness until it was slain by Indra and the waters released. Removing the bar permits escape from entrapment. At Chāndogya Upaniṣad 2.24.6, it is said that a devoted sacrificer may, at the time of death, pray that the cross-bar blocking entry to the next world be removed.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno avijjā pahīnā hoti, ucchinnamūlā tālāvatthukatā anabhāvaṅkatā, āyatiṁ anuppādadhammā. There is the case where a monk’s ignorance is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.It’s when a mendicant has given up ignorance, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ukkhittapaligho hoti. This is how a monk is one whose cross-bar is thrown off.That’s how a mendicant has lifted the cross-bar.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu saṅkiṇṇaparikkho hoti? “And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in?And how has a mendicant filled in the moat? An elephant may be trapped by a moat Cariyapiṭaka 11:3.1, so when it is filled in it may roam free.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno ponobbhaviko jātisaṁsāro pahīno hoti, ucchinnamūlo tālāvatthukato anabhāvaṅkato, āyatiṁ anuppādadhammo. There is the case where a monk’s wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.It’s when a mendicant has given up transmigrating through births in future lives, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu saṅkiṇṇaparikkho hoti. This is how a monk is one whose moat is filled in.That’s how a mendicant has filled in the moat.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abbūḷhesiko hoti? “And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out?And how has a mendicant pulled up the pillar? Likewise, an elephant may be tethered to a pillar (MN 125:12.11, Thag 19.1:51.2, Cariyapiṭaka 11:3.2). The term for “pillar” here (esikā) also serves as a pun for “search” (esanā). Two of the three “searches” (sensual pleasures and continued existence, SN 45.161) overlap with two of the three “cravings”.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno taṇhā pahīnā hoti, ucchinnamūlā tālāvatthukatā anabhāvaṅkatā, āyatiṁ anuppādadhammā. There is the case where a monk’s craving is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.It’s when a mendicant has given up craving, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abbūḷhesiko hoti. This is how a monk is one whose pillar is pulled out.That’s how a mendicant has pulled up the pillar.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu niraggaḷo hoti? “And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn?And how is a mendicant unimpeded? Giving up the five lower “fetters” (thus becoming a non-returner) makes you “unbarred” (niraggaḷa). This is also the name of a Vedic sacrifice (SN 3.9:4.3), where it is probably a name for the horse sacrifice, during which the horse is set free to roam for a year.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno pañca orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni pahīnāni honti, ucchinnamūlāni tālāvatthukatāni anabhāvaṅkatāni, āyatiṁ anuppādadhammāni. There is the case where a monk’s five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.It’s when a mendicant has given up the five lower fetters, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, obliterated them, so they’re unable to arise in the future.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu niraggaḷo hoti. This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.That’s how a mendicant is unimpeded.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṁyutto hoti? “And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered?And how is a mendicant a noble one with with banner lowered and burden dropped, detached? A “banner” is held aloft as a sign of identity. | At SN 22.22, the “burden” is said to be the five aggregates, and the burden is put down with the end of craving.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno asmimāno pahīno hoti, ucchinnamūlo tālāvatthukato anabhāvaṅkato, āyatiṁ anuppādadhammo. There is the case where a monk’s conceit ‘I am’ is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṁyutto hoti. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner lowered and burden dropped, detached.
Evaṁ vimuttacittaṁ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuṁ saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā anvesaṁ nādhigacchanti: “And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmās, & Pajāpati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find thatWhen a mendicant’s mind was freed like this, the gods together with Indra, the Divinity, and the Progenitor, search as they may, will not discover: This expression conveys a deep sense of wonder when faced with a state of meditative consciousness so profound that its “basis” is unknown (AN 11.9:3.15, SN 22.79:14.26). The “basis” is that on which consciousness depends, which fuels it and keeps it going. All such dependencies have been uprooted. | For the phrase saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā compare sa indraḥ sa prajāpatis tad brahma (Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa 8.4.15) or sa indralokam sa prajāpatilokam sa brahmalokam (Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka 3.3).
‘idaṁ nissitaṁ tathāgatassa viññāṇan’ti. ‘The consciousness of the one truly gone [tathāgata] is dependent on this.’The term “Tathāgata” is often, but not always, reserved for the Buddha. Sometimes, as in the case here, it is used to refer to the arahant.‘This is the basis of that realized one’s consciousness.’ “Realized one” (tahāgata) usually refers to the Buddha, but sometimes, as here, it applies to any arahant.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Diṭṭhevāhaṁ, bhikkhave, dhamme tathāgataṁ ananuvijjoti vadāmi. The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now.See SN 22:85 and SN 22:86. Compare Dhp 92–93.Because even in this very life that realized one is not found, I say. Here “not found” renders ananuvijja, whereas at MN 22:25.5 above it rendered anupalabbhamāna. Both terms refer to the self that is not discovered or discoverable.
Evaṁvādiṁ kho maṁ, bhikkhave, evamakkhāyiṁ eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti: “Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually slandered by some contemplatives & brahmans (who say),Though I state and assert this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the incorrect, hollow, false, untruthful claim:
‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññāpetī’ti. ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’‘The ascetic Gotama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being.’ This is the annihilationist view, exemplified by Ajita of the hair blanket (DN 2:22.1), and referred to above at MN 22:20.7.
Yathā cāhaṁ na, bhikkhave, yathā cāhaṁ na vadāmi, tathā maṁ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti: But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually slandered by those venerable contemplatives & brahmans (who say),They misrepresent me as what I am not, and saying what I do not say.
‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññāpetī’ti. ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’Annihilationism is one of the two extremes of wrong view criticized most heavily by the Buddha (the other is eternalism, as represented by the sixth of the six view-positions). Some interpreters, citing this passage, have tried to limit the meaning of annihilationism simply to the idea of the annihilation of an existing being. The teaching that there is no self, they then argue, does not count as annihilationism because there is no self to be annihilated. This interpretation ignores SN 44:10, which counts the statement “there is no self” as siding with annihilationism. As for the term, “existing being”: SN 22:36 and SN 23:2 state that a being is defined by his/her/its objects of clinging. SN 5:10 indicates that one of the ways of overcoming clinging is to focus on how the concept of “being” arises, without assuming the truth of the concept. And as MN 72, SN 22:85, and SN 22:86 maintain, when clinging is gone, one is called not a being but a Tathāgata—who, freed from clinging, cannot be classified as or identified with anything at all.
Pubbe cāhaṁ, bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṁ. “Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress.Some have suggested, citing SN 12:15, that this passage means that there are only two things happening in reality: stress and the cessation of stress. However, in the context of SN 22:86, where this statement also occurs, it clearly means simply that the Buddha is selective in the topics he chooses to address. In that discourse, he is refusing to take a stand on questions regarding the ontological status of the Tathāgata after death. Here he is refusing to take a stand on the related question of the status of the “existing being” (see note 13). In every case, the Buddha chooses to take a stand only on questions where the process of answering would be conducive to awakening. On this point, see MN 63 and SN 56:31.In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering. The particle c’eva here has its normal role of slight emphasis in conjunctions, and so this phrase does not mean, “I only teach suffering and the end of suffering”. The point, rather, is that when he speaks of cessation, it is the cessation of suffering, not the cessation of an “existing being”. This saying is also at SN 22.86:13.2 and SN 44.2:17.13.
Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare tathāgataṁ akkosanti paribhāsanti rosenti vihesenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa na hoti āghāto na appaccayo na cetaso anabhiraddhi. And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathāgata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that.This being so, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the Realized One, he doesn’t get resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated.
Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare tathāgataṁ sakkaronti garuṁ karonti mānenti pūjenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa na hoti ānando na somanassaṁ na cetaso uppilāvitattaṁ. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathāgata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that.Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate him, he doesn’t get thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited. The Buddha teaches a similar equanimity at DN 1:1.5.1.
Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare vā tathāgataṁ sakkaronti garuṁ karonti mānenti pūjenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa evaṁ hoti: And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathāgata for that, he thinks,If they praise him, he just thinks,
‘yaṁ kho idaṁ pubbe pariññātaṁ tattha me evarūpā kārā karīyantī’ti. ‘They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.’According to the Commentary, “this” here refers to the five aggregates. As SN 22:23 points out, “comprehension” means the ending of passion, aversion, and delusion with regard to the object comprehended. In other words, the Buddha sees that the honor and respect he receives is aimed at the five aggregates; because he has no passion, aversion, or delusion with regard to those aggregates, he is not overjoyed by any honor paid to them.‘They do such things for me regarding what in the past was completely understood.’ Read tattha me “regarding that for me” rather than commentary’s tattha (i)me “regarding that for these [aggregates]”. The latter reading is supported by BJT’s tatrime, but I think this is probably a backreading from the commentary. In the parallel phrase for the monks below, we would expect tattha no, which is in fact attested in the Thai and PTS editions, so I translate “us” accordingly.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, tumhe cepi pare akkoseyyuṁ paribhāseyyuṁ roseyyuṁ viheseyyuṁ, tatra tumhe hi na āghāto na appaccayo na cetaso anabhiraddhi karaṇīyā. “Therefore, monks, if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass you as well, you should feel no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that.So, mendicants, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble you, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, tumhe cepi pare sakkareyyuṁ garuṁ kareyyuṁ māneyyuṁ pūjeyyuṁ, tatra tumhehi na ānando na somanassaṁ na cetaso uppilāvitattaṁ karaṇīyaṁ. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate you as well, you should feel no joy, no gladness, no elation of heart because of that.Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate you, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, tumhe cepi pare sakkareyyuṁ garuṁ kareyyuṁ māneyyuṁ pūjeyyuṁ, tatra tumhākaṁ evamassa: And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate you, you should think,If they praise you, just think,
‘yaṁ kho idaṁ pubbe pariññātaṁ, tattha me evarūpā kārā karīyantī’ti. ‘They do us such service at this that has already been comprehended.’The Thai edition of the Pali Canon has the word “us” here, whereas the Burmese, Sinhalese, and PTS editions have “me.”‘They do such things for us regarding what in the past was completely understood.’ This seems out of place here, for “completely understood” refers to arahantship, yet as a general teaching this should include everyone. In the Chinese parallel at MA 200, after being abused, one reflects that it is due to past deeds, and after being praised, one reflects that it is due to present knowledge and elimination of defilements. Anālayo (Comparative Study, pp. 56–7) suggests that the Pali phrase pubbe pariññātaṁ might be a conflation of these two ideas due to a textual confusion which also left the Pali without a reflection on being abused. While this must remain conjectural, it is a neat explanation for the several doctrinal and textual problems of this passage.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ na tumhākaṁ taṁ pajahatha; “Therefore, monks, whatever isn’t yours: Let go of it.So, mendicants, give up what isn’t yours. This passage is found in several other suttas such as SN 22.33, and applied to the six senses at SN 35.101, etc.
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.
Kiñca, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ? And what isn’t yours?And what isn’t yours?
Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Form isn’t yours: Let go of it.Form isn’t yours: give it up.
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.
Vedanā, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Feeling isn’t yours: Let go of it.Feeling …
sā vo pahīnā dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.
Saññā, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Perception isn’t yours: Let go of it.perception …
sā vo pahīnā dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.
Saṅkhārā, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, te pajahatha; Fabrications aren’t yours: Let go of them.choices …
te vo pahīnā dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissanti. Your letting go of them will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.
Viññāṇaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Consciousness isn’t yours: Let go of it.consciousness isn’t yours: give it up.
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.
Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, “What do you think, monks?What do you think, mendicants?
yaṁ imasmiṁ jetavane tiṇakaṭṭhasākhāpalāsaṁ, taṁ jano hareyya vā daheyya vā yathāpaccayaṁ vā kareyya. If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta’s Grove,Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them.
Api nu tumhākaṁ evamassa: would the thought occur to you,Would you think,
‘amhe jano harati vā dahati vā yathāpaccayaṁ vā karotī’”ti? ‘It’s us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes’?”‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, lord.“No, sir.
“Taṁ kissa hetu”? Why is that?Why is that?
“Na hi no etaṁ, bhante, attā vā attaniyaṁ vā”ti. Because those things are not our self, nor do they belong to our self.”Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.”
“Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yaṁ na tumhākaṁ taṁ pajahatha; “Even so, monks, whatever isn’t yours: Let go of it.“In the same way, mendicants, give up what isn’t yours.
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.
Kiñca, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ? And what isn’t yours?And what isn’t yours?
Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Form isn’t yours: Let go of it.Form …
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.
Vedanā, bhikkhave …pe… Feeling…feeling …
saññā, bhikkhave … perception…perception …
saṅkhārā, bhikkhave …pe… fabrications…choices …
viññāṇaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha; Consciousness isn’t yours: Let go of it.consciousness isn’t yours: give it up.
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.The teaching well-explained thus by me is clarified, revealed, illuminated, and stripped of patchwork. Also at SN 12.22:2.1. | “Stripped of patchwork” (chinnapilotika) because, while the Dhamma has many and varied aspects, they all form a unified whole, not just scraps sewn together.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike ye te bhikkhū arahanto khīṇāsavā vusitavanto katakaraṇīyā ohitabhārā anuppattasadatthā parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojanā sammadaññāvimuttā, vaṭṭaṁ tesaṁ natthi paññāpanāya. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—there is for those monks who are arahants—whose effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who are released through right gnosis—no (future) cycle for manifestation. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.This last sentence is missing from this paragraph and all the following paragraphs both in MLDB and in MLS.In this teaching thus well-explained, for those mendicants who are perfected, who have ended the defilements, 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 are rightly freed through enlightenment, there is no cycle of rebirths to be found. … For the phrase “no cycle of rebirths to be found” (vaṭṭaṁ tesaṁ natthi paññāpanāya), compare DN 15:22.6.
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike yesaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni pahīnāni, sabbe te opapātikā, tattha parinibbāyino, anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—those monks who have abandoned the five lower fetters are all due to arise spontaneously (in the Pure Abodes), there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.In this teaching thus well-explained, those mendicants who have given up the five lower fetters are all reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world. … The qualifier “all of them” (sabbe te) here and below is not found in similar passages.
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike yesaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ tīṇi saṁyojanāni pahīnāni, rāgadosamohā tanubhūtā, sabbe te sakadāgāmino, sakideva imaṁ lokaṁ āgantvā dukkhassantaṁ karissanti. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—those monks who have abandoned (the first) three fetters, with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are all once-returners who, on returning only one more time to this world, will make an ending to stress. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.In this teaching thus well-explained, those mendicants who, having given up three fetters, and weakened greed, hate, and delusion, are all once-returners. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering. …
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike yesaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ tīṇi saṁyojanāni pahīnāni, sabbe te sotāpannā, avinipātadhammā, niyatā sambodhiparāyanā. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—those monks who have abandoned (the first) three fetters, are all stream-winners, certain, never again destined for the lower realms, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.In this teaching thus well-explained, those mendicants who have ended three fetters are all stream-enterers, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, assured, destined for awakening. …
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike ye te bhikkhū dhammānusārino saddhānusārino sabbe te sambodhiparāyanā. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—those monks who are Dhamma-followers and conviction-followers are all headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.Dhamma-followers and conviction-followers are apparently those who are following the path to stream entry but have yet to reach the fruit of stream entry. See MN 70.In this teaching thus well-explained, those mendicants who are followers of teachings or followers by faith are all are assured, destined for awakening. A “follower of teachings” is someone who accepts the teachings after reflecting on them with wisdom, while a “follower by faith” accepts the teachings due to their confidence in the teacher. They are both considered to be “practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry” (sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyāya paṭipanno), and, with the maturing of their faculties (SN 48.18:1.5), will assuredly attain stream-entry in this life (SN 25.1).
Evaṁ svākkhāto, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo uttāno vivaṭo pakāsito chinnapilotiko. “The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.The teaching well-explained thus by me is clarified, revealed, illuminated, and stripped of patchwork.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite chinnapilotike yesaṁ mayi saddhāmattaṁ pemamattaṁ sabbe te saggaparāyanā”ti. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me—clear, open, evident, stripped of rags—those monks who have a (sufficient) measure of conviction in me, a (sufficient) measure of love for me, are all headed for heaven.”In this teaching thus well-explained, those who have a degree of faith and love for me are all bound for heaven.” Saddhāmatta (“a degree of faith”) is to be distinguished from saddhāmattaka (“mere faith”). The former is sufficient for one to progress in the path (MN 70:21.2), but with the latter one just gets by (MN 65:28.7).
Idamavoca bhagavā. That is what the Blessed One said.That is what the Buddha said.
Attamanā te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words.See also: DN 9; DN 15; MN 2; MN 38; MN 70; SN 25:1–10; SN 35:99; SN 44:10; AN 3:87–88Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said.
Alagaddūpamasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ dutiyaṁ.