Other Translations: Deutsch , Italiano , ру́сский язы́к
From: , ,
Majjhima Nikāya 147 Middle Discourses 147
Cūḷarāhulovādasutta The Shorter Advice to Rāhula The Shorter Discourse of Advice to RāhulaSource: https://www.digitalpalireader.online/_external/translations/bt-bdhrs/mn/mn_e_147.htm
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.MA says that this discourse was spoken to Rāhula shortly after his higher ordination, presumably at the age of twenty. The sutta also occurs at SN 35:121/iv.105–7.
Atha kho bhagavato rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa evaṁ cetaso parivitakko udapādi: Then as he was in private retreat this thought came to his mind, Then, while the Blessed One was alone in meditation, a thought arose in his mind thus:
“paripakkā kho rāhulassa vimuttiparipācanīyā dhammā. “The qualities that ripen in freedom have ripened in Rāhula. Five perceptions that ripen in freedom are taught at DN 33:2.1.139, but apart from that we do not encounter this idea in the discourses. | In SN 18.1–5, Rāhula requests a teaching so he can go on retreat. The teachings given there can be compared with the parallel, which says the Buddha first told Rāhula to teach the five aggregates, the six sense-spheres, and conditionality, and then to go on retreat and meditate on the same teachings (SA 200 at T ii 51a23). Only then did the Buddha consider him ready.“The states that ripen in deliverance have ripened in Rāhula.Vimuttiparipācanīyā dhammā. MA interprets these as the fifteen qualities that purify the five faculties (faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom), namely, in regard to each faculty: avoiding people who lack the faculty, associating with those endowed with it, and reflecting on suttas that inspire its maturation. MA brings in another set of fifteen qualities: the five faculties again; the five perceptions partaking of penetration, namely, perception of impermanence, suffering, non-self, abandoning, and dispassion; and the five qualities taught to Meghiya, namely, noble friendship, the virtue of the monastic rules, suitable conversation, energy, and wisdom (see AN 9:3/iv.356; Ud 4:1/36).
Yannūnāhaṁ rāhulaṁ uttariṁ āsavānaṁ khaye vineyyan”ti. Why don’t I lead him further to the ending of defilements?” Suppose I were to lead him on further to the destruction of the taints.”
Atha kho bhagavā pubbaṇhasamayaṁ nivāsetvā pattacīvaramādāya sāvatthiṁ piṇḍāya pāvisi. Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Sāvatthī for alms. Then, when it was morning, the Blessed One dressed, and taking his bowl and outer robe, went into Sāvatthī for alms.
Sāvatthiyaṁ piṇḍāya caritvā pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkanto āyasmantaṁ rāhulaṁ āmantesi: Then, after the meal, on his return from almsround, he addressed Venerable Rāhula, When he had walked for alms in Sāvatthī and had returned from his almsround, after his meal he addressed the venerable Rāhula thus:
“gaṇhāhi, rāhula, nisīdanaṁ; “Rāhula, get your sitting cloth. The sitting cloth was a standard requisite of monastics (Bu Pc 89). Regularly featured in the texts of the Sarvāstivāda schools, it is rarely mentioned in the Pali suttas (but see DN 16:3.1.3).“Take your sitting cloth with you, Rāhula;
yena andhavanaṁ tenupasaṅkamissāma divāvihārāyā”ti. Let’s go to the Dark Forest for the day’s meditation.” let us go to the Blind Men’s Grove to pass the day.”
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho āyasmā rāhulo bhagavato paṭissutvā nisīdanaṁ ādāya bhagavantaṁ piṭṭhito piṭṭhito anubandhi. “Yes, sir,” replied Rāhula. Taking his sitting cloth he followed behind the Buddha. “Yes, venerable sir,” the venerable Rāhula replied, and taking his sitting cloth with him, he followed close behind the Blessed One.
Tena kho pana samayena anekāni devatāsahassāni bhagavantaṁ anubandhāni honti: Now at that time many thousands of deities followed the Buddha, thinking, The presence of a thousand deities, which is unique to this discourse, is not mentioned in the Chinese parallel, and is obviously a later addition.Now on that occasion many thousands of deities followed the Blessed One, thinking:
“ajja bhagavā āyasmantaṁ rāhulaṁ uttariṁ āsavānaṁ khaye vinessatī”ti. “Today the Buddha will lead Rāhula further to the ending of defilements!” “Today the Blessed One will lead the venerable Rāhula further to the destruction of the taints.”MA says that these deities, who came from various celestial realms, had been companions of Rāhula’s during the previous life in which he first made the aspiration to attain arahantship as the son of a Buddha.
Atha kho bhagavā andhavanaṁ ajjhogāhetvā aññatarasmiṁ rukkhamūle paññatte āsane nisīdi. Then the Buddha plunged deep into the Dark Forest and sat at the root of a tree on the seat spread out. Then the Blessed One went into the Blind Men’s Grove and sat down at the root of a certain tree on a seat made ready.
Āyasmāpi kho rāhulo bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Rāhula bowed to the Buddha and sat down to one side. And the venerable Rāhula paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side.
Ekamantaṁ nisinnaṁ kho āyasmantaṁ rāhulaṁ bhagavā etadavoca: The Buddha said to him: The Blessed One then said to the venerable Rāhula:
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
cakkhu niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?” Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
rūpā niccā vā aniccā vā”ti? Are sights permanent or impermanent?” Are forms permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccā, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if they’re impermanent, are they suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if they’re impermanent, suffering, and perishable, are they fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
cakkhuviññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Is eye consciousness permanent or impermanent?” Is eye-consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
cakkhusamphasso nicco vā anicco vā”ti? Is eye contact permanent or impermanent?” Is eye-contact permanent or impermanent?”
“Anicco, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
yamidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ tampi niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises dependent on eye contact: is that permanent or impermanent?” Is anything comprised within the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that arise with eye-contact as condition permanent or impermanent?”It should be noted that the last four items mentioned are the four mental aggregates. Thus this discourse covers not only the sense bases but also the five aggregates, the aggregate of material form being implied by the physical sense faculties and their objects.
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi rāhula, sotaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? “What do you think, Rāhula? Is the ear … “Rāhula, what do you think? Is the ear permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante …pe… “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…
ghānaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? nose … Is the nose permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante …pe… “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…
jivhā niccā vā aniccā vā”ti? tongue … Is the tongue permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccā, bhante … “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…
kāyo nicco vā anicco vā”ti? body … Is the body permanent or impermanent?”
“Anicco, bhante … “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…
mano nicco vā anicco vā”ti? mind permanent or impermanent?” Is the mind permanent or impermanent?”
“Anicco, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi rāhula, dhammā niccā vā aniccā vā”ti? “What do you think, Rāhula? Are ideas permanent or impermanent?” “Rāhula, what do you think? Are mind-objects permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccā, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if they’re impermanent, are they suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if they’re impermanent, suffering, and perishable, are they fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi rāhula, manoviññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? “What do you think, Rāhula? Is mind consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Rāhula, what do you think? Is mind-consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi rāhula, manosamphasso nicco vā anicco vā”ti? “What do you think, Rāhula? Is mind contact permanent or impermanent?” “Rāhula, what do you think? Is mind-contact permanent or impermanent?”
“Anicco, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, rāhula, “What do you think, Rāhula? “Rāhula, what do you think?
yamidaṁ manosamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ, tampi niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises dependent on mind contact: is that permanent or impermanent?” Is anything comprised within the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that arise with mind-contact as condition permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.” “Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.” “Suffering, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” “No, venerable sir.”
“Evaṁ passaṁ, rāhula, sutavā ariyasāvako cakkhusmiṁ nibbindati, rūpesu nibbindati, cakkhuviññāṇe nibbindati, cakkhusamphasse nibbindati, yamidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ tasmimpi nibbindati. “Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises dependent on eye contact. “Seeing thus, Rāhula, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted with eye-contact, and disenchanted with anything comprised within the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that arise with eye-contact as condition.
Sotasmiṁ nibbindati, saddesu nibbindati …pe… They grow disillusioned with the ear … He becomes disenchanted with the ear, disenchanted with sounds…
ghānasmiṁ nibbindati, gandhesu nibbindati … nose … disenchanted with the nose, disenchanted with odours…
jivhāya nibbindati, rasesu nibbindati … tongue … disenchanted with the tongue, disenchanted with flavours…
kāyasmiṁ nibbindati, phoṭṭhabbesu nibbindati … body … disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with tangibles…
manasmiṁ nibbindati, dhammesu nibbindati, manoviññāṇe nibbindati, manosamphasse nibbindati, yamidaṁ manosamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ tasmimpi nibbindati. mind, ideas, mind consciousness, and mind contact. And they grow disillusioned with anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises dependent on mind contact. He becomes disenchanted with the mind, disenchanted with mind-objects, disenchanted with mind-consciousness, disenchanted with mind-contact, and disenchanted with anything comprised within the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that arise with mind-contact as condition.
Nibbindaṁ virajjati, virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti. 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.’” He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’”
Idamavoca bhagavā. That is what the Buddha said. That is what the Blessed One said.
Attamano āyasmā rāhulo bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandīti. Satisfied, Venerable Rāhula approved what the Buddha said. The venerable Rāhula was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.
Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne āyasmato rāhulassa anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci. And while this discourse was being spoken, Rāhula’s mind was freed from defilements by not grasping. Now while this discourse was being spoken, through not clinging the venerable Rāhula’s mind was liberated from the taints.
Tāsañca anekānaṁ devatāsahassānaṁ virajaṁ vītamalaṁ dhammacakkhuṁ udapādi: And the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in those thousands of deities: And in those many thousands of deities there arose the spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma:
“yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti. “Everything that is liable to arise is liable to cease.” “All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.”According to MA, stream-entry was the minimal attainment of those deities, but some attained the higher paths and fruits up to arahantship.
Cūḷarāhulovādasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ pañcamaṁ.