Other Translations: Deutsch , Italiano , ру́сский язы́к
From: , ,
Majjhima Nikāya 102 Middle Discourses 102
Pañcattayasutta The Five and Three
Evaṁ me sutaṁ—Thus I heard:So I have heard. This sutta is something of a “middle length” version of the better-known Brahmajālasutta (DN 1). Both these texts emphasize the importance of understanding the views of others. This is important, because we live and communicate in a cultural context, and our views are shared with those of others. Some of the views defined here are still current today, while others have disappeared in history. But we can still learn from the Buddha’s method to learn how to approach different views today. | A Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Pañcatraya Sūtra is discussed by Peter Skilling in Mahāsūtras II, pp. 469–511.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:There the Buddha addressed the mendicants,
“bhikkhavo”ti. “Bhikkhus.”“Mendicants!”
“Bhadante”ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ. “Venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied to the Blessed One.“Venerable sir,” they replied.
Bhagavā etadavoca: The Blessed One said this:The Buddha said this:
“santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhivuttipadāni abhivadanti. “Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate about the future, who hold views about the future, and who assert various propositions concerning the future.“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the final end, and propose various hypotheses concerning the final end.
‘Saññī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā’ti—‘The self is percipient and free from disease after death’—Some propose this: ‘The self is percipient and healthy after death.’ The first three are varieties of eternalism. | Aroga (“healthy”) is explained by the commentary as “permanent” (nicca), drawing on the root sense of the word, “unbroken”. However, aroga is always used in the sense “free of disease, well, healthy” (eg. MN 97:2.4), and this applies to the Brahmanical tradition as well as the Buddhist. Chandogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2 says that one who sees (the self) does not see death, they have no disease or pain. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.12 similarly says that one who sees the self will not suffer in the wake of the body, which Śaṅkāra explains, “Struggling with desires for himself, for his son, for his wife, and so on, he is born and dies again and again, and is diseased when his body is diseased.”
ittheke abhivadanti; thus some assert;
‘asaññī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā’ti—‘the self is non-percipient and free from disease after death’—Some propose this: ‘The self is non-percipient and healthy after death.’
ittheke abhivadanti; thus some assert;
‘nevasaññīnāsaññī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā’ti—‘the self is neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient and free from disease after death’—Some propose this: ‘The self is neither percipient nor non-percipient and healthy after death.’
ittheke abhivadanti; thus some assert;
sato vā pana sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti, diṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ vā paneke abhivadanti. or else they declare[^1] the annihilation, destruction, and non-existence of an existing being, or some assert Nibbāna here and now.[^2]Literally ‘make known’, and so throughout.But some assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being, while others propose extinguishment in this life. “Extinguishment in the present life” sounds like the Buddhist view, but since it is collected here with wrong views, it refers to misapprehension of absorption as being Nibbāna (MN 102:24.1). This is similar to the five views of DN 1:3.19.1. DN 1 adds sensual pleasures as a kind of false Nibbāna; it also makes it explicit that it is the extinguishment of “an existing being”. | In both suttas “extinguishment in the present life” is included with the views about the future, for unclear reasons. Skilling notes, however, that in the Pañcatraya Sūtra, “extinguishment in the present life” constitutes a separate category.
Iti santaṁ vā attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, sato vā pana sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti, diṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ vā paneke abhivadanti. So (a) they declare an existing self to be free from disease after death, or (b) they declare the annihilation, destruction, and non-existence of an existing being, or (c) some assert Nibbāna here and now.This does not mean Nibbāna in the Buddhist sense; see 25.1 below, and see Sutta 75 (Māgandiya) for one who holds this view.Thus they assert an existent self that is healthy after death; or they assert the annihilation of an existing being; while some propose extinguishment in this life.
Iti imāni pañca hutvā tīṇi honti, tīṇi hutvā pañca honti—So these five become three, and these three become five—In this way five become three, and three become five. That is, there are five total propositions, of which the first three are varieties of eternalism, which if treated as a group, gives three kinds of views.
ayamuddeso pañcattayassa. this is the summary of the five and the three.This is the summary recital of the five and three.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, ekattasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nānattasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, parittasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, appamāṇasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, etaṁ vā panekesaṁ upātivattataṁ viññāṇakasiṇameke abhivadanti appamāṇaṁ āneñjaṁ. Now, bhikkhus, of these, those ascetics and brahmins who declare a percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless, or they declare it percipient of unity, or they declare it percipient of diversity, or they declare it percipient of the limited, or they declare it percipient of the measureless; or else, going beyond all this, some assert the totality of consciousness,[^3] as measureless and imperturbable.Kasiṇa, translated in Sutta 77 as ‘totality’ or ‘wholeness’.Now, the ascetics and brahmins who propose a self that is percipient and healthy after death describe it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. Or they propose a self of unified perception, or of diverse perception, or of limited perception, or of limitless perception. Or some among those who go beyond this propose universal consciousness, limitless and imperturbable. The Buddha subdivides the first kind of eternalist according to the kind of self that is envisaged. | The “form” of the self may be either “coarse” form such as a human body, or “subtle form” like the heaven realms. | A formless self is associated with formless attainments. | “Having form and being formless” is not meant as a paradox. It could mean that the self evolves or transitions through different states, sometimes having form, sometimes not. Or it could refer to something like different layers of sheaths of the self, where everything is the self, but may be lesser attributes of self. | Unified perception results from jhāna, diverse perception from sense experience. | Limited perception is associated with sense consciousness or a limited attainment of absorption, while limitless perception is associated with a limitless absorption. This seems to refer to the first formless attainment. | “Universal consciousness” (viññāṇakasiṇa) is equivalent to the second formless attainment, which is mentioned by both the Pali commentary and the Pañcatraya Sūtra.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, ekattasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nānattasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, parittasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, appamāṇasaññiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, yā vā panetāsaṁ saññānaṁ parisuddhā paramā aggā anuttariyā akkhāyati—Those good ascetics and brahmins who declare a percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless, or they declare it percipient of unity, or they declare it percipient of diversity, or they declare it percipient of the limited, or they declare it percipient of the measureless, or else there is that perception which is declared to be the purest, the highest, the supreme, the unsurpassed of those perceptions—There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is percipient and healthy after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. Or they describe it as of unified perception, or of diverse perception, or of limited perception, or of limitless perception.
yadi rūpasaññānaṁ yadi arūpasaññānaṁ yadi ekattasaññānaṁ yadi nānattasaññānaṁ. whether perceptions of form, or perceptions of the formless, or perceptions of unity, or perceptions of diversity.
‘Natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññāyatanameke abhivadanti appamāṇaṁ āneñjaṁ. ‘There is nothing’—some assert the base of nothingness, as measureless and imperturbable.Or some, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, propose the dimension of nothingness, limitless and imperturbable. They declare that this is the purest, highest, best, and supreme of all those perceptions, whether of form or of formlessness or of unity or of diversity. This is the third formless attainment. | The fourth formless attainment, “neither perception nor non-perception” is so subtle that it cannot be considered an attainment with perception.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’[^4]The cessation of formations means Nibbāna (Comy).‘That much is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’ This describes the development of insight based on deep absorption. Even the most refined states are still conditioned and therefore “coarse” compared to Nibbāna.
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā. Now, bhikkhus, of these, those ascetics and brahmins who declare a non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a non-percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless.Now, the ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is non-percipient and healthy after death describe it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. The suttas occasionally mention the “non-percipient beings” (DN 1:2.31.1). The commentaries explain this as a realm of pure form, where consciousness is suspended for a long time. This is tricky to interpret in line with the Buddhist classes of existence, since such a state could not be considered “formless”. A similar problem comes when the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is considered to have form (MN 102:8.1). Such cases must refer to sectarian views that do not fit within the Buddhist system.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti. Now, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who declare a percipient self to be free from disease after death—these oppose them.Some editions read ‘tesaṁ ete’ here and at the parallel passages rather than ‘tesaṁ eke’; the sense is not materially affected.So they reject those who assert a self that is percipient and healthy after death.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Saññā rogo saññā gaṇḍo saññā sallaṁ, etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ: ‘asaññan’ti. ‘Perception is a disease, perception is a boil, perception is a dart; this is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, non-perception.’Because they believe that perception is a disease, a boil, a dart, and that the state of non-perception is peaceful and sublime.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā. Those good ascetics and brahmins who declare a non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a non-percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless.There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is non-percipient and healthy after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless.
Yo hi koci, bhikkhave, samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁ vadeyya: For, bhikkhus, if any ascetic or brahmin were to say:But if any ascetic or brahmin should say this:
‘ahamaññatra rūpā, aññatra vedanāya, aññatra saññāya, aññatra saṅkhārehi, viññāṇassa āgatiṁ vā gatiṁ vā cutiṁ vā upapattiṁ vā vuddhiṁ vā virūḷhiṁ vā vepullaṁ vā paññapessāmī’ti—‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from formations, I shall describe the coming or going, the passing away or reappearance, the growth, increase, or maturing of consciousness’—The reading ‘ahaṁ aññatra rūpā aññatra vedanāya aññatra saññāya aññatra saṅkhārehi viññāṇassa āgatiṁ…’ has been preferred here; cf. Saṁyutta XXII, 53-4.‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ Also at SN 22.53:2.2, etc. | The process of rebirth is often described in terms of consciousness, as in dependent origination or, say, the “stream of consciousness” (DN 28:7.13). However, consciousness never exists by itself, but only in relation to the other aggregates. The case of the formless realm might seem an exception, yet even formless rebirth is dependent on form of the past, since the four “form” absorptions are the basis for the formless attainments. Thus while the formless realms can be described without reference to present form they cannot be described without reference to form at all.
netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati. that is not possible.That is not possible.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā. Now, bhikkhus, of these, those ascetics and brahmins who declare a neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless.Now, the ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is neither percipient nor non-percipient and healthy after death describe it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti. Now, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who declare a percipient self to be free from disease after death—these oppose them, and those ascetics and brahmins who declare a non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—these too oppose them.So they reject those who assert a self that is percipient and healthy after death, as well as those who assert a self that is non-percipient and healthy after death.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Saññā rogo saññā gaṇḍo saññā sallaṁ, asaññā sammoho, etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ: ‘Perception is a disease, perception is a boil, perception is a dart; non-perception is delusion; this is peaceful, this is sublime, namely,Because they believe that perception is a disease, a boil, a dart; that non-perception is a stupor; and that the state of neither perception nor non-perception is peaceful and sublime. This is the highest of the formless attainments. | “Stupor” is sammoha.
‘nevasaññānāsaññan’ti. neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā. Those good ascetics and brahmins who declare a neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—those good ascetics and brahmins declare a neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self free from disease after death to be possessed of form, or they declare it to be formless, or they declare it to be both possessed of form and formless, or they declare it to be neither possessed of form nor formless.There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is neither percipient nor non-percipient and healthy after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā diṭṭhasutamutaviññātabbasaṅkhāramattena etassa āyatanassa upasampadaṁ paññapenti, byasanañhetaṁ, bhikkhave, akkhāyati etassa āyatanassa upasampadāya. For, bhikkhus, when any ascetics or brahmins declare the attainment of this base merely in terms of what has been seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, this is declared, bhikkhus, to be a disaster for the attainment of this base.The compound diṭṭha-suta-muta-viññātabba has been resolved as ‘what has been seen, heard, sensed, and cognized’, though it could also be rendered ‘what is to be cognized as seen, heard, and sensed’.Some ascetics or brahmins assert the embracing of that dimension merely through the conditioned phenomena of what ought be seen, heard, thought, and known. But that is said to be a disastrous approach. The commentary resolves the compound diṭṭhasutamutaviññātabba by applying the future passive participle viññātabba to the preceding items: diṭṭhaviññātabbamattena sutaviññātabbamattena mutaviññātabbamattena. However the same phrase occurs at SN 35.95:10.1 and AN 4.24:7.5, and in both cases the future passive sense is clearly meant to be distributed to each item. This grammatical form is characteristic of the epistemic tetrad from its origins (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5, 4.5.6).
Na hetaṁ, bhikkhave, āyatanaṁ saṅkhārasamāpattipattabbamakkhāyati; For this base, bhikkhus, is not declared to be attainable by an attainment accompanied by formations;For that dimension is said to be not attainable by means of conditioned phenomena, Cp. SN 14.11.
saṅkhārāvasesasamāpattipattabbametaṁ, bhikkhave, āyatanamakkhāyati. this base, bhikkhus, is declared to be attainable by an attainment accompanied by the residue of formations.but only with a residue of conditioned phenomena. This “residue” is the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception itself.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti, tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti. Now, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who declare the annihilation, destruction, and non-existence of an existing being—those ascetics and brahmins who declare a percipient self to be free from disease after death—these oppose them; those ascetics and brahmins who declare a non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—these too oppose them; and those ascetics and brahmins who declare a neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self to be free from disease after death—these too oppose them.Now, the ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being reject those who assert a self that is healthy after death, whether percipient or non-percipient or neither percipient nor non-percipient.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?Why is that?
Sabbepime bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhaṁ saraṁ āsattiṁyeva abhivadanti: All these good ascetics and brahmins, being intent on what lies ahead, assert only attachment thus:Because they think: ‘All of those ascetics and brahmins only propose their attachment to heading upstream: For uddhaṁ saraṁ (“heading upstream”) in the sense “heading for rebirth in a higher realm”, compare uddhaṁsoto (“one who heads upstream”), a term for a non-returner.
‘iti pecca bhavissāma, iti pecca bhavissāmā’ti. ‘So we shall be after death, so we shall be after death.’“After death we shall be like this! After death we shall be like that!”
Seyyathāpi nāma vāṇijassa vāṇijjāya gacchato evaṁ hoti: Just as a merchant going about his trade thinks:Suppose a trader was going to market, thinking:
‘ito me idaṁ bhavissati, iminā idaṁ lacchāmī’ti; ‘From this I shall get that, with this I shall obtain that’;“With this, that shall be mine! This way, I shall get that!”
evamevime bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā vāṇijūpamā maññe paṭibhanti: so too, these good ascetics and brahmins seem, as it were, like merchants:In the same way, those ascetics and brahmins seem to be like traders when they say: This is a pointed criticism of those who approach spiritual life with a materialist mindset.
‘iti pecca bhavissāma, iti pecca bhavissāmā’ti. ‘So we shall be after death, so we shall be after death.’“After death we shall be like this! After death we shall be like that!”’
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti te sakkāyabhayā sakkāyaparijegucchā sakkāyaññeva anuparidhāvanti anuparivattanti. Those good ascetics and brahmins who declare the annihilation, destruction, and non-existence of an existing being—out of fear of individual existence, out of disgust with individual existence, they run and circle round that very individual existence.The ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being; from fear and disgust with substantial reality, they just keep running and circling around substantial reality. “Fear and disgust” is what in the second Noble Truth is called “craving for non-existence” (vibhavataṇhā). | “Substantial reality” (sakkāya) is the five aggregates that make up the three realms of existence, and which are grasped at as an “existing being” (sato sattassa).
Seyyathāpi nāma sā gaddulabaddho daḷhe thambhe vā khile vā upanibaddho, tameva thambhaṁ vā khilaṁ vā anuparidhāvati anuparivattati; Just as a dog tied by a leash and bound to a strong post or pillar runs and circles round that very post or pillar,Suppose a mutt on a leash was tethered to a strong post or pillar. It would just keeping running and circling around that post or pillar. Sā (Sanskrit śvan) is a short form for “dog” from the same root as soṇa, suvāna, and sunakha, all of which are distantly related to English “hound”. We also find the unrelated term kukkura, “dog”. | This simile is also at SN 22.99:2.1.
evamevime bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā sakkāyabhayā sakkāyaparijegucchā sakkāyaññeva anuparidhāvanti anuparivattanti. so too, these good ascetics and brahmins, out of fear of individual existence, out of disgust with individual existence, run and circle round that very individual existence.In the same way, those ascetics and brahmins, from fear and disgust with substantial reality, just keep running and circling around substantial reality.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhivuttipadāni abhivadanti, sabbe te imāneva pañcāyatanāni abhivadanti etesaṁ vā aññataraṁ. Whatever ascetics or brahmins there may be, bhikkhus, who speculate about the future, who hold views about the future, and who assert various propositions concerning the future—all of them assert one or another of these five bases.Whatever ascetics and brahmins speculate and theorize about the final end, and propose various hypotheses concerning the final end, all of them propose one or other of these five topics. This statement seems misplaced here, as the introduction included “extinguishment in the present life” which has not yet been discussed. Probably it should occur further down, perhaps at MN 102:25.1. | The use of āyatana here is unusual. It seems the commentary understood it to mean the full scope of the topics treated, including the introduction, detailed analysis, and conclusion.
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā pubbantānudiṭṭhino pubbantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhivuttipadāni abhivadanti. There are, bhikkhus, some ascetics and brahmins who speculate about the past, who hold views about the past, and who assert various propositions concerning the past.There are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the first beginning, and propose various hypotheses concerning the first beginning. They propose the following, each insisting that theirs is the only truth and that everything else is wrong. “Theories of the past” are not mentioned in the introduction. In the Brahmajālasutta (DN 1), such theories are logically described before theories of the future. The theories of the past are similar to those of the Brahmajālasutta, but not identical, so they cannot have been simply copied over. These theories may have originally been mentioned in the introduction and listed at the start of the sutta, but displaced due to textual corruption. We have already seen in the preceding segment that corruption is likely at this point. Analayo discusses this issue in detail (Comparative Study, vol. ii, p. 597ff.).
‘Sassato attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—‘The self and the world are eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—[^5]The ‘self’ or soul is here identified with the ‘world’ (i.e. any state of existence): the ‘self’ is held to be any one of the five aggregates, and the ‘world’ the other four (Comy).‘The self and the cosmos are eternal.’ See the four kinds of eternalism at DN 1:1.30.1. | The phrase “self and cosmos” (attā ca loko ca) refers to the Upaniṣadic view, where the Self is ultimately a contingent aspect of the divinity that is the cosmos. That is why they occur together, as their nature and fate is inseparable. This is not true of other philosophies, as for example where a “soul” is created in a pre-existing universe, or when the universe is felt to be impermanent but the soul is eternal.
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘asassato attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are not eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are not eternal.’ This implies that at some point in the past, the self and the world appeared, which the commentary equates with the two kinds of “origination by chance” of DN 1:2.30.1.
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘sassato ca asassato ca attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are both eternal and not eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are both eternal and not eternal.’ Compare the four kinds of “partial eternalism” (DN 1:2.1.1).
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘nevasassato nāsassato attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are neither eternal nor not eternal.’ The commentary suggests that these are the “endless flip-floppers” of DN 1:2.23.1. That may be so, but they are characterized by the refusal to make a statement, whereas here we have a definite statement, even if the exact sense is unclear. As a rule, constructions of the “neither … nor” type point to a subtle state that does not fit a dualistic description. Perhaps it refers to a philosophy that words such as “eternal” are inadequate, because “eternal” means “live for an infinite time” whereas they believed in a destiny that transcends time.
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘antavā attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are finite, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are finite.’ These four views correspond to the same four “theories of the past” at DN 1:2.16.1. In addition, all the following items in this list are “theories of the future” at DN 1:2.38.7. Clearly it is possible to have similar views in relation to both the past and future. The classification of the finitude of the cosmos in relation to time seems puzzling, although in a relativistic universe time and distance are inextricably linked by the speed of light.
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘anantavā attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are infinite, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are infinite.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘antavā ca anantavā ca attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are both finite and infinite, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are both finite and infinite.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘nevantavā nānantavā attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are neither finite nor infinite, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are neither finite nor infinite.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘ekattasaññī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are percipient of unity, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are unified in perception.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘nānattasaññī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are percipient of diversity, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos are diverse in perception.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘parittasaññī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are percipient of the limited, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos have limited perception.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘appamāṇasaññī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are percipient of the measureless, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos have limitless perception.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘ekantasukhī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are exclusively happy, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos experience nothing but happiness.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘ekantadukkhī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are exclusively suffering, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos experience absolute suffering.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘sukhadukkhī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are both happy and suffering, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos experience both happiness and suffering.’
ittheke abhivadanti, ‘adukkhamasukhī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti—thus some assert; ‘the self and the world are neither suffering nor happy, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—‘The self and the cosmos experience neither happiness nor suffering.’
ittheke abhivadanti. thus some assert.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: Now, bhikkhus, of these, those ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:Now, consider the ascetics and brahmins whose view is as follows.
‘sassato attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti, tesaṁ vata aññatreva saddhāya aññatra ruciyā aññatra anussavā aññatra ākāraparivitakkā aññatra diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā paccattaṁyeva ñāṇaṁ bhavissati parisuddhaṁ pariyodātanti—netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati. ‘the self and the world are eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—that they should have, apart from faith, apart from liking, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it,[^6] any personal, purified, and clear knowledge of this—that is not possible.For faith and the rest, see Sutta 95, para. 14.‘The self and the cosmos are eternal. This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ It’s simply not possible for them to have personal knowledge of this that is pure and bright, apart from faith, endorsement, oral transmission, reasoned train of thought, or acceptance of a view after deliberation.
Paccattaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, ñāṇe asati parisuddhe pariyodāte yadapi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā tattha ñāṇabhāgamattameva pariyodapenti tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ upādānamakkhāyati. But, bhikkhus, when there is no personal, purified, and clear knowledge, then even the mere fragment of knowledge that those good ascetics and brahmins clarify in that respect is itself declared to be clinging on the part of those good ascetics and brahmins.But in the absence of personal knowledge that is pure and bright, even the portion of knowledge they illuminate is said to be grasping on their part. The phrase “pure and bright” (parisuddhe pariyodāte) normally describes the fourth absorption. The argument here may be parsed as follows. Even in the highest form of consciousness it is not possible to directly know such things as whether the cosmos is infinite. Any such doctrine, therefore, must be inferred from experience through the five forms of unreliable knowledge starting with faith. They are therefore confidently asserting things of which they have no direct knowledge. Because of this, even the portion of genuine knowledge and insight their meditation has brought them is corrupted by attachment. | Pariyodāta (“bright”) is glossed by the commentary as pabhassara (“radiant”). But “brighten” doesn’t quite work here for the verbal form pariyodapenti, so I use “illuminate”.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino: Now, bhikkhus, of these, those ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine and view is:Now, consider the ascetics and brahmins whose view is as follows.
‘asassato attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti …pe… ‘the self and the world are not eternal, only this is true, everything else is wrong’ …The self and the cosmos are not eternal,
sassato ca asassato ca attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are both eternal and not eternal’ …or both eternal and not eternal,
nevasassato nāsassato attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal’ …or neither eternal nor not-eternal,
antavā attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are finite’ …or finite,
anantavā attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are infinite’ …or infinite,
antavā ca anantavā ca attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are both finite and infinite’ …or both finite and infinite,
nevantavā nānantavā attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are neither finite nor infinite’ …or neither finite nor infinite,
ekattasaññī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are percipient of unity’ …or of unified perception,
nānattasaññī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are percipient of diversity’ …or of diverse perception,
parittasaññī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are percipient of the limited’ …or of limited perception,
appamāṇasaññī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are percipient of the measureless’ …or of limitless perception,
ekantasukhī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are exclusively happy’ …or experience nothing but happiness,
ekantadukkhī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are exclusively suffering’ …or experience absolute suffering,
sukhadukkhī attā ca loko ca … ‘the self and the world are both happy and suffering’ …or experience both happiness and suffering,
adukkhamasukhī attā ca loko ca, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti, tesaṁ vata aññatreva saddhāya aññatra ruciyā aññatra anussavā aññatra ākāraparivitakkā aññatra diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā paccattaṁyeva ñāṇaṁ bhavissati parisuddhaṁ pariyodātanti—netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati. ‘the self and the world are neither suffering nor happy, only this is true, everything else is wrong’—that they should have, apart from faith, apart from liking, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, any personal, purified, and clear knowledge of this—that is not possible.or experience neither happiness nor suffering. It’s simply not possible for them to have personal knowledge of this that is pure and bright, apart from faith, endorsement, oral transmission, reasoned train of thought, or acceptance of a view after deliberation.
Paccattaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, ñāṇe asati parisuddhe pariyodāte yadapi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā tattha ñāṇabhāgamattameva pariyodapenti tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ upādānamakkhāyati. But, bhikkhus, when there is no personal, purified, and clear knowledge, then even the mere fragment of knowledge that those good ascetics and brahmins clarify in that respect is itself declared to be clinging on the part of those good ascetics and brahmins.But in the absence of personal knowledge that is pure and bright, even the portion of knowledge they illuminate is said to be grasping on their part.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekaṁ pītiṁ upasampajja viharati: Here, bhikkhus, some ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all[^7] upon the fetters of sensual desire, enters upon and abides in the joy of seclusion,[^8] (thinking:)This is the second jhāna.Now, some ascetics and brahmins, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, enter and remain in the rapture of seclusion: The following section illustrates how genuine experiences of deep meditation become misapprehended as “extinguishment in the present life”. It begins with a lengthy and unique description of the absorptions, before specifying how grasping intervenes. | The “rapture of seclusion” includes the first two absorptions, which are characterized by rapture (pīti).
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ pavivekaṁ pītiṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in the joy of seclusion.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in the rapture of seclusion.’
Tassa sā pavivekā pīti nirujjhati. That joy of seclusion of his ceases.But that rapture of seclusion of theirs ceases.
Pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati domanassaṁ, domanassassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti. With the cessation of the joy of seclusion, grief arises; with the cessation of the grief, the joy of seclusion arises.When the rapture of seclusion ceases, sadness arises; and when sadness ceases, the rapture of seclusion arises. Upon emerging from the bliss of absorption, the mind experiences anew all the flavors of life, including sadness. Typically a meditator is happy and refreshed for a long time after a deep meditation. Still, there can be a sense of loss of the blissful state, and a melancholy reflection that that too is impermanent.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, yaṁ chāyā jahati taṁ ātapo pharati, yaṁ ātapo jahati taṁ chāyā pharati; Just as, bhikkhus, when the shade departs, the sunlight spreads, and when the sunlight departs, the shade spreads;It’s like how the sunlight fills the space when the shadow leaves, or the shadow fills the space when the sunshine leaves.
evameva kho, bhikkhave, pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati domanassaṁ, domanassassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti. so too, bhikkhus, with the cessation of the joy of seclusion, grief arises; with the cessation of the grief, the joy of seclusion arises.In the same way, when the rapture of seclusion ceases, sadness arises; and when sadness ceases, the rapture of seclusion arises.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ayaṁ kho bhavaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekaṁ pītiṁ upasampajja viharati: This good ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, enters upon and abides in the joy of seclusion, (thinking:)This good ascetic or brahmin, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, enters and remains in the rapture of seclusion:
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ pavivekaṁ pītiṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in the joy of seclusion.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in the rapture of seclusion.’
Tassa sā pavivekā pīti nirujjhati. That joy of seclusion of his ceases.But that rapture of seclusion of theirs ceases.
Pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati domanassaṁ, domanassassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti. With the cessation of the joy of seclusion, grief arises; with the cessation of the grief, the joy of seclusion arises.When the rapture of seclusion ceases, sadness arises; and when sadness ceases, the rapture of seclusion arises.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ upasampajja viharati: Here, bhikkhus, some ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, enters upon and abides in unworldly pleasure,[^9] (thinking:)This is the third jhāna.Now, some ascetics and brahmins, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, going beyond the rapture of seclusion, enter and remain in pleasure not of the flesh. The “pleasure not of the flesh” (nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ) is the third absorption, characterized by the ending of rapture and the persistence of pleasure (sukha). At SN 36.31:5.1 it is described as all the jhānas leading up to the third. The same sense is also at AN 6.45:24.3.
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in unworldly pleasure.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in pleasure not of the flesh.’
Tassa taṁ nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ nirujjhati. That unworldly pleasure of his ceases.But that pleasure not of the flesh of theirs ceases.
Nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti, pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ. With the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, the joy of seclusion arises; with the cessation of the joy of seclusion, unworldly pleasure arises.When pleasure not of the flesh ceases, the rapture of seclusion arises; and when the rapture of seclusion ceases, pleasure not of the flesh arises.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, yaṁ chāyā jahati taṁ ātapo pharati, yaṁ ātapo jahati taṁ chāyā pharati; Just as, bhikkhus, when the shade departs, the sunlight spreads, and when the sunlight departs, the shade spreads;It’s like how the sunlight fills the space when the shadow leaves, or the shadow fills the space when the sunshine leaves. …
evameva kho, bhikkhave, nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti, pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ. so too, bhikkhus, with the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, the joy of seclusion arises; with the cessation of the joy of seclusion, unworldly pleasure arises.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ayaṁ kho bhavaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā, nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ upasampajja viharati: This good ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, enters upon and abides in unworldly pleasure, (thinking:)This good ascetic or brahmin, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, going beyond the rapture of seclusion, enters and remains in pleasure not of the flesh.
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in unworldly pleasure.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in pleasure not of the flesh.’
Tassa taṁ nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ nirujjhati. That unworldly pleasure of his ceases.But that pleasure not of the flesh of theirs ceases.
Nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati pavivekā pīti, pavivekāya pītiyā nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ. With the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, the joy of seclusion arises; with the cessation of the joy of seclusion, unworldly pleasure arises.When pleasure not of the flesh ceases, the rapture of seclusion arises; and when the rapture of seclusion ceases, pleasure not of the flesh arises.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā, nirāmisassa sukhassa samatikkamā, adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ upasampajja viharati: Here, bhikkhus, some ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, through surmounting unworldly pleasure, enters upon and abides in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling,[^10] (thinking:)This is the fourth jhāna.Now, some ascetics and brahmins, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, going beyond the rapture of seclusion and pleasure not of the flesh, enter and remain in neutral feeling. This is the fourth absorption.
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in neutral feeling.’
Tassa sā adukkhamasukhā vedanā nirujjhati. That neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of his ceases.Then that neutral feeling ceases.
Adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ, nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati adukkhamasukhā vedanā. With the cessation of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, unworldly pleasure arises; with the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises.When neutral feeling ceases, pleasure not of the flesh arises; and when pleasure not of the flesh ceases, neutral feeling arises.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, yaṁ chāyā jahati taṁ ātapo pharati, yaṁ ātapo jahati taṁ chāyā pharati; Just as, bhikkhus, when the shade departs, the sunlight spreads, and when the sunlight departs, the shade spreads;It’s like how the sunlight fills the space when the shadow leaves, or the shadow fills the space when the sunshine leaves. …
evameva kho, bhikkhave, adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ, nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati adukkhamasukhā vedanā. so too, bhikkhus, with the cessation of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, unworldly pleasure arises; with the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ayaṁ kho bhavaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā, nirāmisassa sukhassa samatikkamā, adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ upasampajja viharati: This good ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, through surmounting unworldly pleasure, enters upon and abides in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, (thinking:)This good ascetic or brahmin, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, going beyond the rapture of seclusion and pleasure not of the flesh, enters and remains in neutral feeling.
‘etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ upasampajja viharāmī’ti. ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, that I enter upon and abide in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, entering and remaining in neutral feeling.’
Tassa sā adukkhamasukhā vedanā nirujjhati. That neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of his ceases.Then that neutral feeling ceases.
Adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya nirodhā uppajjati nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ, nirāmisassa sukhassa nirodhā uppajjati adukkhamasukhā vedanā. With the cessation of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, unworldly pleasure arises; with the cessation of the unworldly pleasure, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises.When neutral feeling ceases, pleasure not of the flesh arises; and when pleasure not of the flesh ceases, neutral feeling arises.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā, nirāmisassa sukhassa samatikkamā, adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya samatikkamā: Here, bhikkhus, some ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, through surmounting unworldly pleasure, through surmounting neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, regards himself thus:Now, some ascetics and brahmins, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, go beyond the rapture of seclusion, pleasure not of the flesh, and neutral feeling.
‘santohamasmi, nibbutohamasmi, anupādānohamasmī’ti samanupassati. ‘I am at peace, I am quenched, I am without clinging.’They regard themselves like this: ‘I am at peace; I am quenched; I am free of grasping.’ The repeated “I am” (ahamasmi) emphasizes the conceit that reinforces the sense of self.
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti. A Tathāgata understands this thus.The Realized One understands this as follows.
Ayaṁ kho bhavaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, aparantānudiṭṭhīnañca paṭinissaggā, sabbaso kāmasaṁyojanānaṁ anadhiṭṭhānā, pavivekāya pītiyā samatikkamā, nirāmisassa sukhassa samatikkamā, adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya samatikkamā: This good ascetic or brahmin, through the relinquishing of views based on the past and the relinquishing of views based on the future, through not resolving at all upon the fetters of sensual desire, through surmounting the joy of seclusion, through surmounting unworldly pleasure, through surmounting neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, regards himself thus:This good ascetic or brahmin, letting go of theories about the first beginning and the final end, not fixating on the fetters of sensuality, goes beyond the rapture of seclusion, pleasure not of the flesh, and neutral feeling.
‘santohamasmi, nibbutohamasmi, anupādānohamasmī’ti samanupassati; ‘I am at peace, I am quenched, I am without clinging’;They regard themselves like this: ‘I am at peace; I am quenched; I am free of grasping.’
addhā ayamāyasmā nibbānasappāyaṁyeva paṭipadaṁ abhivadati. certainly this venerable one asserts a way that is conducive to Nibbāna.Clearly this venerable speaks of a practice that’s conducive to extinguishment. The practice of absorption leads to Nibbāna, but if the state of absorption itself is misapprehended as being Nibbāna, the misapprehension is a form of attachment.
Atha ca panāyaṁ bhavaṁ samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā pubbantānudiṭṭhiṁ vā upādiyamāno upādiyati, aparantānudiṭṭhiṁ vā upādiyamāno upādiyati, kāmasaṁyojanaṁ vā upādiyamāno upādiyati, pavivekaṁ vā pītiṁ upādiyamāno upādiyati, nirāmisaṁ vā sukhaṁ upādiyamāno upādiyati, adukkhamasukhaṁ vā vedanaṁ upādiyamāno upādiyati. And yet this good ascetic or brahmin, clinging to a view based on the past, clings; clinging to a view based on the future, clings; clinging to the fetter of sensual desire, clings; clinging to the joy of seclusion, clings; clinging to unworldly pleasure, clings; clinging to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, clings.Nevertheless, they still grasp at theories about the first beginning or the final end, or the fetters of sensuality, or the rapture of seclusion, or pleasure not of the flesh, or neutral feeling. This contrasts with the earlier statement that they had let go of views of the past and future before entering absorption. Perhaps they had had temporarily let them go, only for them to re-arise later. Or perhaps there is an editorial issue.
Yañca kho ayamāyasmā: And as for this venerable one’s regarding himself thus:And when they regard themselves like this:
‘santohamasmi, nibbutohamasmi, anupādānohamasmī’ti samanupassati tadapi imassa bhoto samaṇassa brāhmaṇassa upādānamakkhāyati. ‘I am at peace, I am quenched, I am without clinging’—this too is declared to be clinging on the part of this good ascetic or brahmin.‘I am at peace; I am quenched; I am free of grasping,’ that’s also said to be grasping on their part.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—‘This is conditioned and gross; but there is the cessation of formations—that exists.’‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto. Knowing this thus, and seeing the escape from it, a Tathāgata has gone beyond it.Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, tathāgatena anuttaraṁ santivarapadaṁ abhisambuddhaṁ yadidaṁ—Now this, bhikkhus, is the unsurpassed, supreme state of peace that has been fully awakened to by the Tathāgata, namely—But the Realized One has awakened to the supreme state of sublime peace, that is,
channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimokkho”ti. liberation without clinging, through knowing as it actually is the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact.”liberation by not grasping after truly understanding the six fields of contact’s origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape.” The Brahmajālasutta also emphasizes how liberation from the “sixty-two” wrong views is achieved through insight into the “six fields of contact” (DN 1:3.72.1).
Idamavoca bhagavā. This is what the Blessed One said.That is what the Buddha said.
Attamanā te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti. Those bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said.
Pañcattayasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ dutiyaṁ.