Other Translations: Deutsch , Italiano , ру́сский язы́к , Srpski
From: , ,
Majjhima Nikāya 74 Middle Discourses 74
Dīghanakhasutta With Dīghanakha
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—Thus I heard:So I have heard. This sutta records the occasion of the full enlightenment of the Buddha’s greatest disciple, Sāriputta, as well as the conversion of Dīghanakha. The commentary says this became the occasion for a unique four-factored gathering: it is the full moon in the month of Māgha; 1,250 mendicants spontaneously assemble; all were arahants with the six high knowledges; all were ordained by the “come, mendicant” formula. Today this is celebrated in the Makha Puja festival in Thailand.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā rājagahe viharati gijjhakūṭe pabbate sūkarakhatāyaṁ. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Rājagaha on Vulture Peak Mountain, in the Boar’s Cave.At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, on the Vulture’s Peak Mountain in the Boar’s Cave.
Atha kho dīghanakho paribbājako yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṁ sammodi. Then Dīghanakha the Wanderer went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him.Then the wanderer Dīghanakha went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. Dīghanakha means “Long-nails”; it must have been a nickname. Long nails are forbidden in the Vinaya (Kd 15:27.1.21) and also to the one performing a Brahmanical consecration (dīkṣā, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 3.1.2). Further, EA 34.4 says that long nails (爪長), uncut hair, and unwashed robes were disgraceful characteristics of ascetics. Ācārāṅgasūtra 2.8.5 speaks of the ascetic practice of abandoning the care of the hair of the head, beard, and nails. | Dīghanakha was Sāriputta’s nephew according to the Pali commentaries (not here, but in MN 111, SN 11.2, etc.) and northern texts such as Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstra, Mahāvibhāṣā, and Avadānaśataka.
Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ aṭṭhāsi. Ekamantaṁ ṭhito kho dīghanakho paribbājako bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: When the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he stood at one side. Standing at one side, Dīghanakha the Wanderer said to the Blessed One:When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he stood to one side and said to the Buddha,
“ahañhi, bho gotama, evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi: “Master Gotama, this is my doctrine, this is my view:“Worthy Gotama, this is my doctrine and view:
‘sabbaṁ me nakkhamatī’”ti. ‘I have no liking for anything.’”[^1]Sabbaṁ me na khamati—I have no liking for any: There is no special Pāli word corresponding to the English ‘any’. ‘I have no liking for all’ is ambiguous and might be understood as ‘I have a liking for some’. The sense demands the English negative idiom with negative and ‘any’. By this view Dīghanakha expresses his disapproval of all states of rebirth, a negative view no doubt rooted in hate (dosa). Comy. also says he is a materialist and nihilist.‘Nothing is acceptable to me.’” Dīghanakha’s view “nothing is acceptable to me” (sabbaṁ me nakkhamati) is obscure, which seems to be the point. Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels to this passage are identical to the Pali, so when some Chinese translations say “no view” or “no teaching” is acceptable, this is probably because the translators felt the need to clarify, echoing the common expression, “the acceptance of a view after consideration” (diṭṭhinijjhānakkhanti). This reading fits the text, but the sense may be broader than that. The closest phrasing in Pali is at DN 25:10.11, where “this is not acceptable to me” (idaṁ me nakkhamati) refers to food that a picky monk rejects. Views about acceptable food are recorded in detail in Jain texts, and we may presume that other orders had similar systems. Strictness in such matters is seen as a sign of virtue, escalating ultimately to the refusal of all food.
“Yāpi kho te esā, aggivessana, diṭṭhi: “That view of yours too, Aggivessana:“This view of yours, Aggivessana—Aggivessana is his Brahmanical clan name.
‘sabbaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti, esāpi te diṭṭhi nakkhamatī”ti? ‘I have no liking for anything’—do you have no liking for that view either?”is that acceptable to you?” While this displays the Buddha’s ready wit, like much good humor it plays on a deeper anxiety. For it is easy to say that one believes in nothing, but the state of unknowing is psychologically unstable, as minds seek answers. When someone claims to hold no views, their skepticism is how they hide their views from themselves.
“Esā ce me, bho gotama, diṭṭhi khameyya, taṁpassa tādisameva, taṁpassa tādisamevā”ti. “Even if I liked this view of mine, Master Gotama, it would be the same, it would be the same.”[^2]That is, Dīghanakha would adopt the same negative attitude even towards a view that he liked.“If I were to accept this view, worthy Gotama, it would make no difference, it would make no difference!”
“Ato kho te, aggivessana, bahū hi bahutarā lokasmiṁ ye evamāhaṁsu: “Well, Aggivessana, there are more, indeed far more, in the world who say:“Well, Aggivessana, there are many more in the world who say,
‘taṁpassa tādisameva, taṁpassa tādisamevā’ti. ‘it would be the same, it would be the same,’‘It would make no difference! It would make no difference!’
Te tañceva diṭṭhiṁ nappajahanti aññañca diṭṭhiṁ upādiyanti. and yet do not abandon that view and take up another view.But they don’t give up that view, and they grasp another view.
Ato kho te, aggivessana, tanū hi tanutarā lokasmiṁ ye evamāhaṁsu: And there are fewer, indeed far fewer, in the world who say:And there are a scant few in the world who say,
‘taṁpassa tādisameva, taṁpassa tādisamevā’ti. ‘it would be the same, it would be the same,’‘It would make no difference! It would make no difference!’
Te tañceva diṭṭhiṁ pajahanti aññañca diṭṭhiṁ na upādiyanti. and who abandon that view and do not take up another view.And they give up that view by not grasping another view.
Santaggivessana, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: There are, Aggivessana, some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
‘sabbaṁ me khamatī’ti; ‘I like everything’;‘Everything is acceptable to me.’
santaggivessana, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: there are, Aggivessana, some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
‘sabbaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti; ‘I have no liking for anything’;‘Nothing is acceptable to me.’
santaggivessana, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: and there are, Aggivessana, some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
‘ekaccaṁ me khamati, ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti. ‘I like some things, and I have no liking for some things.’‘Some things are acceptable to me and some things are not.’
Tatraggivessana, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: ‘sabbaṁ me khamatī’ti Of these, Aggivessana, the doctrine and view of those ascetics and brahmins who say: ‘I like everything’Regarding this, the view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom everything is acceptable
tesamayaṁ diṭṭhi sārāgāya santike, saññogāya santike, abhinandanāya santike, ajjhosānāya santike, upādānāya santike; is a view close to lust, close to bondage, close to relishing, close to holding, close to clinging;is close to greed, bondage, approving, attachment, and grasping.
tatraggivessana ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: ‘sabbaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti and the doctrine and view of those ascetics and brahmins who say: ‘I have no liking for anything’The view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom nothing is acceptable
tesamayaṁ diṭṭhi asārāgāya santike, asaññogāya santike, anabhinandanāya santike, anajjhosānāya santike, anupādānāya santike”ti. is a view close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-relishing, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.”is far from greed, bondage, approving, attachment, and grasping.”
Evaṁ vutte, dīghanakho paribbājako bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: When this was said, Dīghanakha the Wanderer said to the Blessed One:When he said this, the wanderer Dīghanakha said to the Buddha,
“ukkaṁseti me bhavaṁ gotamo diṭṭhigataṁ, samukkaṁseti me bhavaṁ gotamo diṭṭhigatan”ti. “Master Gotama extols my view, Master Gotama commends my view.”“Worthy Gotama commends my conviction! He recommends my conviction!”
“Tatraggivessana, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: “Of these, Aggivessana, the ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:“Now, regarding the ascetics and brahmins to whom
‘ekaccaṁ me khamati, ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti. ‘I like some things, and I have no liking for some things’—some things are acceptable and some things are not.
Yā hi tesaṁ khamati sāyaṁ diṭṭhi sārāgāya santike, saññogāya santike, abhinandanāya santike, ajjhosānāya santike, upādānāya santike; the part of their view that likes is close to lust, close to bondage, close to relishing, close to holding, close to clinging;Their view of what is acceptable is close to greed, bondage, approving, attachment, and grasping.
yā hi tesaṁ nakkhamati sāyaṁ diṭṭhi asārāgāya santike, asaññogāya santike, anabhinandanāya santike, anajjhosānāya santike, anupādānāya santike. and the part of their view that has no liking is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-relishing, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.Their view of what is not acceptable is far from greed, bondage, approving, attachment, and grasping.
Tatraggivessana, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: “Of these, Aggivessana, the ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:When it comes to the view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom
‘sabbaṁ me khamatī’ti ‘I like everything’—everything is acceptable,
tattha viññū puriso iti paṭisañcikkhati: a wise man among them considers thus:a sensible person reflects like this:
‘yā kho me ayaṁ diṭṭhi—‘If I were to adhere obstinately to this view of mine,‘I have the view that
sabbaṁ me khamatīti, “I like everything,”everything is acceptable.
imañce ahaṁ diṭṭhiṁ thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa vohareyyaṁ—grasping and holding to it,Suppose I were to obstinately stick to this view and insist,
idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti; declaring: “Only this is true, everything else is wrong”—“This is the only truth, anything else is futile.”
dvīhi me assa viggaho—then I would come into conflict with two others—Then I’d argue with two individuals—
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—sabbaṁ me nakkhamatīti, with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I have no liking for anything,”an ascetic or brahmin to whom nothing is acceptable,
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—ekaccaṁ me khamati, ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatīti—and with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I like some things, and I have no liking for some things”—and an ascetic or brahmin to whom some things are acceptable and some things are not.
imehi assa dvīhi viggaho. I would come into conflict with these two.
Iti viggahe sati vivādo, vivāde sati vighāto, vighāte sati vihesā’. Where there is conflict there is dispute; where there is dispute there is vexation; where there is vexation there is distress.’And when there’s arguing, there’s dispute; when there’s dispute there’s distress; and when there’s distress there’s harm.’
Iti so viggahañca vivādañca vighātañca vihesañca attani sampassamāno tañceva diṭṭhiṁ pajahati aññañca diṭṭhiṁ na upādiyati. So, seeing in himself this conflict, dispute, vexation, and distress, he abandons that view and does not take up another view.So, considering in themselves the potential for argument, dispute, distress, and harm, they give up that view by not grasping another view.
Evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ pahānaṁ hoti, evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ paṭinissaggo hoti. That is how there comes to be the abandoning of these views, that is how there comes to be the relinquishing of these views.That’s how those views are given up and let go.
Tatraggivessana, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: “Of these, Aggivessana, the ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:When it comes to the view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom
‘sabbaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti ‘I have no liking for anything’—nothing is acceptable,
tattha viññū puriso iti paṭisañcikkhati: a wise man among them considers thus:a sensible person reflects like this:
‘yā kho me ayaṁ diṭṭhi—‘If I were to adhere obstinately to this view of mine,‘I have the view that
sabbaṁ me nakkhamatīti, “I have no liking for anything,”nothing is acceptable.
imañce ahaṁ diṭṭhiṁ thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa vohareyyaṁ—grasping and holding to it,Suppose I were to obstinately stick to this view and insist,
idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti; declaring: “Only this is true, everything else is wrong”—“This is the only truth, anything else is futile.”
dvīhi me assa viggaho—then I would come into conflict with two others—Then I’d argue with two individuals—
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—sabbaṁ me khamatīti, with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I like everything,”an ascetic or brahmin to whom everything is acceptable,
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—ekaccaṁ me khamati ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatīti—and with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I like some things, and I have no liking for some things”—and an ascetic or brahmin to whom some things are acceptable and some things are not.
imehi assa dvīhi viggaho. I would come into conflict with these two.
Iti viggahe sati vivādo, vivāde sati vighāto, vighāte sati vihesā’. Where there is conflict there is dispute; where there is dispute there is vexation; where there is vexation there is distress.’And when there’s arguing, there’s dispute; when there’s dispute there’s distress; and when there’s distress there’s harm.’
Iti so viggahañca vivādañca vighātañca vihesañca attani sampassamāno tañceva diṭṭhiṁ pajahati aññañca diṭṭhiṁ na upādiyati. So, seeing in himself this conflict, dispute, vexation, and distress, he abandons that view and does not take up another view.So, considering in themselves the potential for argument, dispute, distress, and harm, they give up that view by not grasping another view.
Evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ pahānaṁ hoti, evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ paṭinissaggo hoti. That is how there comes to be the abandoning of these views, that is how there comes to be the relinquishing of these views.That’s how those views are given up and let go.
Tatraggivessana, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: “Of these, Aggivessana, the ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:When it comes to the view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom
‘ekaccaṁ me khamati, ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatī’ti ‘I like some things, and I have no liking for some things’—some things are acceptable and some things are not,
tattha viññū puriso iti paṭisañcikkhati: a wise man among them considers thus:a sensible person reflects like this:
‘yā kho me ayaṁ diṭṭhi—‘If I were to adhere obstinately to this view of mine,‘I have the view that
ekaccaṁ me khamati, ekaccaṁ me nakkhamatīti, “I like some things, and I have no liking for some things,”some things are acceptable and some things are not.
imañce ahaṁ diṭṭhiṁ thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa vohareyyaṁ—grasping and holding to it,Suppose I were to obstinately stick to this view and insist,
idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti; declaring: “Only this is true, everything else is wrong”—“This is the only truth, anything else is futile.”
dvīhi me assa viggaho—then I would come into conflict with two others—Then I’d argue with two individuals—
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—sabbaṁ me khamatīti, with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I like everything,”an ascetic or brahmin to whom everything is acceptable,
yo cāyaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—sabbaṁ me nakkhamatīti—and with the ascetic or brahmin whose doctrine and view is: “I have no liking for anything”—and an ascetic or brahmin to whom nothing is acceptable.
imehi assa dvīhi viggaho. I would come into conflict with these two.
Iti viggahe sati vivādo, vivāde sati vighāto, vighāte sati vihesā’. Where there is conflict there is dispute; where there is dispute there is vexation; where there is vexation there is distress.’And when there’s arguing, there’s dispute; when there’s dispute there’s distress; and when there’s distress there’s harm.’
Iti so viggahañca vivādañca vighātañca vihesañca attani sampassamāno tañceva diṭṭhiṁ pajahati aññañca diṭṭhiṁ na upādiyati. So, seeing in himself this conflict, dispute, vexation, and distress, he abandons that view and does not take up another view.So, considering in themselves the potential for argument, dispute, distress, and harm, they give up that view by not grasping another view.
Evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ pahānaṁ hoti, evametāsaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ paṭinissaggo hoti. That is how there comes to be the abandoning of these views, that is how there comes to be the relinquishing of these views.That’s how those views are given up and let go.
Ayaṁ kho panaggivessana, kāyo rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo odanakummāsūpacayo aniccucchādanaparimaddanabhedanaviddhaṁsanadhammo, aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassitabbo. Now, Aggivessana, this body possessed of form, made up of the four great elements, procreated by mother and father, built up out of rice and gruel, subject to impermanence, to being rubbed and massaged, to breaking apart and dispersal, should be regarded as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self.Aggivessana, this body is formed. It’s made up of the four principal states, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction. You should see it as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as gloom, as an affliction, as alien, as breaking apart, as empty, as not-self.
Tassimaṁ kāyaṁ aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassato yo kāyasmiṁ kāyachando kāyasneho kāyanvayatā sā pahīyati. When one regards this body thus, as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self, one abandons desire for the body, affection for the body, and subservience to the body.[^3]Kāyanvayatā—‘following the body’ or ‘being dependent on the body’ are more concise translations; cf. Sutta 36, para. 4: kāyanvayaṁ cittaṁ and cittanvayo kāyo. The term is difficult to translate; it seems to refer to what we are now accustomed to call the ‘neo-realistic’ or ‘physiological-neurological’ view of the ‘body’ and its ‘sensations’, which is rejected here as an adequate view.Doing so, you’ll give up desire, affection, and subservience to the body. For kāyanvayatā (“subservience to the body”) see MN 36:4.4. The inclusion of this rare phrase here suggests that Jain-like practices such as starvation may be indicated.
Tisso kho imā, aggivessana, vedanā—There are, Aggivessana, three kinds of feeling—There are these three feelings:
sukhā vedanā, dukkhā vedanā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā. pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.pleasant, painful, and neutral.
Yasmiṁ, aggivessana, samaye sukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, neva tasmiṁ samaye dukkhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, na adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti; On the occasion, Aggivessana, when one feels pleasant feeling, one does not on that occasion feel painful feeling or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling;At a time when you feel a pleasant feeling, you don’t feel a painful or neutral feeling;
sukhaṁyeva tasmiṁ samaye vedanaṁ vedeti. one feels only pleasant feeling on that occasion.you only feel a pleasant feeling.
Yasmiṁ, aggivessana, samaye dukkhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, neva tasmiṁ samaye sukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, na adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti; On the occasion when one feels painful feeling, one does not on that occasion feel pleasant feeling or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling;At a time when you feel a painful feeling, you don’t feel a pleasant or neutral feeling;
dukkhaṁyeva tasmiṁ samaye vedanaṁ vedeti. one feels only painful feeling on that occasion.you only feel a painful feeling.
Yasmiṁ, aggivessana, samaye adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, neva tasmiṁ samaye sukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti, na dukkhaṁ vedanaṁ vedeti; On the occasion when one feels neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one does not on that occasion feel pleasant feeling or painful feeling;At a time when you feel a neutral feeling, you don’t feel a pleasant or painful feeling;
adukkhamasukhaṁyeva tasmiṁ samaye vedanaṁ vedeti. one feels only neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling on that occasion.you only feel a neutral feeling.
Sukhāpi kho, aggivessana, vedanā aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā; Pleasant feeling too, Aggivessana, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to exhaustion, to falling away, to fading away, to cessation;Pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.
dukkhāpi kho, aggivessana, vedanā aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā; painful feeling too is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to exhaustion, to falling away, to fading away, to cessation;
adukkhamasukhāpi kho, aggivessana, vedanā aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā. and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling too is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to exhaustion, to falling away, to fading away, to cessation.
Evaṁ passaṁ, aggivessana, sutavā ariyasāvako sukhāyapi vedanāya nibbindati, dukkhāyapi vedanāya nibbindati, adukkhamasukhāyapi vedanāya nibbindati; Seeing thus, Aggivessana, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with pleasant feeling, becomes disenchanted with painful feeling, becomes disenchanted with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling;Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings.
nibbindaṁ virajjati, virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ, vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti. being disenchanted, his lust fades away; with the fading of lust he is liberated. When he is liberated, there comes the knowledge: “It is liberated.”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 understands: ‘Birth is exhausted, the life divine has been lived, what was to be done is done, there is no more of this to come.’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.’
Evaṁ vimuttacitto kho, aggivessana, bhikkhu na kenaci saṁvadati, na kenaci vivadati, yañca loke vuttaṁ tena voharati, aparāmasan”ti. A bhikkhu whose mind is liberated thus, Aggivessana, does not side with anyone, does not dispute with anyone; he employs the current speech of the world without misapprehending it.”A mendicant whose mind is freed like this doesn’t side with anyone or dispute with anyone. They use the language of the world to communicate without getting stuck on it.” See DN 9:53.5.
Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā sāriputto bhagavato piṭṭhito ṭhito hoti bhagavantaṁ bījayamāno. Now on that occasion the venerable Sāriputta was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him.Now at that time Venerable Sāriputta was standing behind the Buddha fanning him.
Atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassa etadahosi: Then it occurred to the venerable Sāriputta:Then he thought,
“tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no bhagavā dhammānaṁ abhiññā pahānamāha, tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no sugato dhammānaṁ abhiññā paṭinissaggamāhā”ti. “The Blessed One, it seems, speaks to us of the abandoning of these various things through direct knowledge; the Fortunate One, it seems, speaks to us of the relinquishing of these various things through direct knowledge.”“It seems the Buddha speaks of giving up and letting go of all these things through direct knowledge.”
Iti hidaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa paṭisañcikkhato anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci. As the venerable Sāriputta considered this, his mind was liberated from the taints by non-clinging.Reflecting like this, Venerable Sāriputta’s mind was freed from the defilements by not grasping. Sāriputta became a stream-enterer on hearing a short teaching from the monk Assaji (Kd 1:23.5.6), whereupon he told his friend Moggallāna. They both promptly left their former teacher Sañjaya, a traumatic loss to Sañjaya and his community. AN 4.172:2.1 says that Sāriputta became enlightened a fortnight after he ordained, a detail confirmed in multiple parallels to this passage; MN 111:2.8 details the practice he undertook in that fortnight. This means that the current discussion must have taken place only a fortnight after leaving Sañjaya. Now, Sañjaya’s philosophy was to systematically avoid taking any position (DN 2:32.2), which is similar to Dīghanakha’s doctrine. It seems likely, then, that Dīghanakha was a disciple of Sañjaya. This supposition finds support in several parallels, which say Dīghanakha was annoyed to learn that Sāriputta had rejected other teachers and gone over to the Buddha (eg. Avadānaśataka, Vaidya 1958a 256: sarve tīrthakarā nigṛhītāḥ; also in Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstra and Mahāvibhāṣā). These sources do not specify Sañjaya, but who else could it be?
Dīghanakhassa pana paribbājakassa virajaṁ vītamalaṁ dhammacakkhuṁ udapādi: But in Dīghanakha the Wanderer there arose the spotless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma:And the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in the wanderer Dīghanakha:
“yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti. “Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation.”“Everything that is liable to arise is liable to cease.”
Atha kho dīghanakho paribbājako diṭṭhadhammo pattadhammo viditadhammo pariyogāḷhadhammo tiṇṇavicikiccho vigatakathaṅkatho vesārajjappatto aparappaccayo satthusāsane bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: Then Dīghanakha the Wanderer, having seen the Dhamma, attained the Dhamma, understood the Dhamma, fathomed the Dhamma, having crossed beyond doubt, being free from perplexity, having gained intrepidity, and become independent of others in the Teacher’s dispensation, said to the Blessed One:Then Dīghanakha saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. He went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. He said to the Buddha:
“abhikkantaṁ, bho gotama, abhikkantaṁ, bho gotama. “Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!“Excellent, worthy Gotama! Excellent!
Seyyathāpi, bho gotama, nikkujjitaṁ vā ukkujjeyya, paṭicchannaṁ vā vivareyya, mūḷhassa vā maggaṁ ācikkheyya, andhakāre vā telapajjotaṁ dhāreyya: ‘cakkhumanto rūpāni dakkhantī’ti; evameva kho bhotā gotamena anekapariyāyena dhammo pakāsito. As though he were righting the overthrown, revealing the hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, holding up a lamp in the darkness so that those with eyes could see forms—so too the Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by Master Gotama.As if he were righting the overturned, or revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or lighting a lamp in the dark so people with clear eyes can see what’s there, worthy Gotama has made the teaching clear in many ways.
Esāhaṁ bhavantaṁ gotamaṁ saraṇaṁ gacchāmi dhammañca bhikkhusaṅghañca. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of bhikkhus.I go for refuge to the worthy Gotama, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha.
Upāsakaṁ maṁ bhavaṁ gotamo dhāretu ajjatagge pāṇupetaṁ saraṇaṁ gatan”ti. Let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge from today for life.”From this day forth, may the worthy Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.” The Pali is alone in saying Dīghanakha became a lay follower, as all parallels report that he ordained and became an arahant. As with Vacchagotta at MN 72:22.2, it is unlikely that a wanderer would become a lay follower and the Pali is probably in error. | The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstra, Tibetan Mūla-Sarvāstivāda-Vinaya, and Avadānaśataka say that, having cut his long nails before ordination, he was known by his actual name, Koṣṭhila, that is, the monk known in Pali as Mahākoṭṭhita. This contradicts the Pali tradition, but as Anālayo shows, there are several inconsistencies in the Pali accounts, so the northern tradition is credible (Comparative Study, vol. 1, p. 406, note 88).
Dīghanakhasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ catutthaṁ.