Other Translations: Deutsch , Lietuvių kalba , Polski , ру́сский язы́к , Srpski , Türkçe
From: ,
Saṁyutta Nikāya 22.59 Linked Discourses 22.59
6. Upayavagga 6. Involvement
Anattalakkhaṇasutta The Characteristic of Not-Self
Ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā bārāṇasiyaṁ viharati isipatane migadāye. At one time the Buddha was staying near Varanasi in the deer park at Isipatana. This is the famous “second discourse”, the story of which is told in the Vinaya (Kd 1:6.32.1). At the conclusion of the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta (SN 56.11), when Koṇḍañña became a stream-enterer, the Buddha continued to teach the five ascetics over several days. Eventually, all five realized stream-entry and went forth officially as Buddhist mendicants. Knowing they were ready, he taught them about not-self. In the first discourse, the Buddha referred to the five aggregates “in brief”, and now he draws that teaching out in more detail. Thus the second discourse is a commentary on a line in the first discourse.
Tatra kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye bhikkhū āmantesi: There the Buddha addressed the group of five mendicants:
“bhikkhavo”ti. “Mendicants!”
“Bhadante”ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ. “Venerable sir,” they replied.
Bhagavā etadavoca: The Buddha said this:
“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā. “Mendicants, form is not-self. The “self” (attā, Sanskrit ātman) is the cardinal doctrine of the Upaniṣads, whereas the five ascetics were likely Jains, or at least from a similar group. The Jains typically used jīva (“soul”) to indicate the radiant essence purified by austerities, which remains eternal as an individual, separate entity. This contrasts with the Upaniṣadic self, which merged into union with the divine Brahma. These terms, however, are not used exclusively, nor are their definitions consistent. The Buddha is casting a wide net, beginning with “form” to capture the most basic conceptions of self, and moving through successively more refined conceptions of self, culminating with the most subtle conception of the Upaniṣads, the identification of self with consciousness.
Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: This conditional argument against the “self” is found only here in this form, although the same manner of argument is also at MN 35:13.4. See too the Buddha’s discussion with Poṭṭhapāda on various kinds of “self” (DN 9:21.4).
‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ This responds to the “inner controller” (antaryāmin) of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7. Uddālaka, having learned this from the centaur Kabandha in Madra (near modern Islamabad), challenges Yājñavalkya, who explains it as the self who lives in the midst of all things, unknown but knowing, controlling all from within.
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel form:
‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
Vedanā anattā. Feeling is not-self …
Vedanā ca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ vedanā ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya:
‘evaṁ me vedanā hotu, evaṁ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti.
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā, tasmā vedanā ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati vedanāya:
‘evaṁ me vedanā hotu, evaṁ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti.
Saññā anattā …pe… Perception is not-self …
saṅkhārā anattā. Choices are not-self …
Saṅkhārā ca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissaṁsu, nayidaṁ saṅkhārā ābādhāya saṁvatteyyuṁ, labbhetha ca saṅkhāresu:
‘evaṁ me saṅkhārā hontu, evaṁ me saṅkhārā mā ahesun’ti.
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā anattā, tasmā saṅkhārā ābādhāya saṁvattanti, na ca labbhati saṅkhāresu:
‘evaṁ me saṅkhārā hontu, evaṁ me saṅkhārā mā ahesun’ti.
Viññāṇaṁ anattā. Consciousness is not-self.
Viññāṇañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ viññāṇaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca viññāṇe: For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness:
‘evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ hotu, evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ mā ahosī’ti. ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ anattā, tasmā viññāṇaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati viññāṇe: But because consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel consciousness:
‘evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ hotu, evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ mā ahosī’ti. ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’
Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, What do you think, mendicants? While the first passage is unique, the remainder of the discourse is repeated countless times throughout the discourses. The Buddha engages his audience in question and answer, stimulating reflection and giving encouragement.
rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.” To understand this argument, we must bear in mind that the “self” was a metaphysical theory of an abiding, eternal reality that is one’s truest essence, from which we have become alienated due to defiling influences. Salvation from the travails of the world lies in realizing this essential truth. It follows that what is impermanent cannot be the self, because when it disappears the self would also disappear (DN 15:29.4). And what is suffering cannot be the self, because our true essence is free of impurities and thus essentially blissful, radiant, and all-knowing. This salvific self cannot be identified with something that brings only pain (SN 22.60:5.1). | This metaphysical “self” has only a contingent relationship with the empirical “self” of psychology or popular usage. The psychological self grows and changes, and must develop emotional wholeness and coherence for a person to become a healthy individual. If someone with a fractured psychological self latches on to the Buddhist teaching of no metaphysical self, they can easily mistake one for the other, leading to further disintegration of the psyche. That is why contemplation of not-self is recommended for those who have practiced samādhi, a state of deep emotional integration.
“Vedanā … “Is feeling permanent or impermanent?” …
saññā … “Is perception permanent or impermanent?” …
saṅkhārā … “Are choices permanent or impermanent?” …
viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti? “Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”. “Impermanent, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti? “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”. “Suffering, sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”. “No, sir.”
“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. “So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattā vā bahiddhā vā …pe… yā dūre santike vā, sabbā vedanā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. Any kind of feeling at all …
Yā kāci saññā …pe… Any kind of perception at all …
ye keci saṅkhārā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā …pe… ye dūre santike vā, sabbe saṅkhārā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. Any kind of choices at all …
Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati. Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
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.
‘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.’”
Idamavoca bhagavā. That is what the Buddha said.
Attamanā pañcavaggiyā bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinanduṁ. Satisfied, the group of five mendicants approved what the Buddha said.
Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṁsūti. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the group of five mendicants were freed from defilements by not grasping.
Sattamaṁ.