Other Translations: Deutsch , Polski
From: ,
Saį¹yutta NikÄya 44.10 Linked Discourses 44.10
1. AbyÄkatavagga 1. The Undeclared Points
Änandasutta With Änanda
Atha kho vacchagotto paribbÄjako yena bhagavÄ tenupasaį¹
kami; upasaį¹
kamitvÄ bhagavatÄ saddhiį¹ sammodi. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him.
SammodanÄ«yaį¹ kathaį¹ sÄraį¹Ä«yaį¹ vÄ«tisÄretvÄ ekamantaį¹ nisÄ«di. Ekamantaį¹ nisinno kho vacchagotto paribbÄjako bhagavantaį¹ etadavoca: When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
ākiį¹ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattÄāti? āWorthy Gotama, does the self survive?ā For ādoes the self surviveā (atthattÄ, resolving to atthi attÄ), compare āmy self survivesā (atthi me attÄ, MN 2:8.2) and ādo gods surviveā (atthi devÄ, MN 90:13.2). In each case the question is whether the self continues to exist (atthi) or not (natthi) after death. We find a similar usage in Kaį¹ha Upaniį¹£ad 1.20, where Naciketa wonders what happens to a man after he dies, as āsome say he survives, while others say he does not surviveā (astÄ«ty eke nÄyam astÄ«ti caike).
Evaį¹ vutte, bhagavÄ tuį¹hÄ« ahosi. But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
āKiį¹ pana, bho gotama, natthattÄāti? āThen does the self not survive?ā
Dutiyampi kho bhagavÄ tuį¹hÄ« ahosi. But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.
Atha kho vacchagotto paribbÄjako uį¹į¹hÄyÄsanÄ pakkÄmi. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and left. Compare the behavior of MogharÄja at Snp 5.16. He has asked his question twice, but the Buddha was silent. Patiently, he asks a third time, and is answered at last. We have seen ample evidence of Vacchagottaās relentless questioning. Here it is not the Buddha who loses patience, but Vacchagotta, who is so used to getting the answers he wants. It seems he is at some sort of crisis point.
Atha kho ÄyasmÄ Änando acirapakkante vacchagotte paribbÄjake bhagavantaį¹ etadavoca: And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Änanda said to the Buddha:
ākiį¹ nu kho, bhante, bhagavÄ vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa paƱhaį¹ puį¹į¹ho na byÄkÄsÄ«āti? āSir, why didnāt you answer Vacchagottaās question?ā The Buddha gives four answers. In the first pair he explains his theoretical objections: a straight yes/no answer would have aligned him with the eternalists or annihilationists. In the second pair, he considers what would have been helpful for Vacchagotta in his current state.
āAhaƱcÄnanda, vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa āatthattÄāti puį¹į¹ho samÄno āatthattÄāti byÄkareyyaį¹, ye te, Änanda, samaį¹abrÄhmaį¹Ä sassatavÄdÄ tesametaį¹ saddhiį¹ abhavissa. āÄnanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that āthe self survivesā I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. Things that atthi (āexistā, here to ācontinue to existā or āsurviveā) were truly real and hence immortal. Thus āexistenceā or āsurvivalā of the self implies eternalism. See SN 12.15:2.1 and note.
AhaƱcÄnanda, vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa ānatthattÄāti puį¹į¹ho samÄno ānatthattÄāti byÄkareyyaį¹, ye te, Änanda, samaį¹abrÄhmaį¹Ä ucchedavÄdÄ tesametaį¹ saddhiį¹ abhavissa. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that āthe self does not surviveā I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. That is to say, there is currently a self that will cease to exist.
AhaƱcÄnanda, vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa āatthattÄāti puį¹į¹ho samÄno āatthattÄāti byÄkareyyaį¹, api nu me taį¹, Änanda, anulomaį¹ abhavissa ƱÄį¹assa uppÄdÄya: When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that āthe self survivesā, would that have facilitated the arising of the knowledge that The existence or survival of the self is incompatible with the Buddhaās teaching of not-self.
āsabbe dhammÄ anattÄāāti? all things are not-self?ā
āNo hetaį¹, bhanteā. āNo, sir.ā
āAhaƱcÄnanda, vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa ānatthattÄāti puį¹į¹ho samÄno ānatthattÄāti byÄkareyyaį¹, sammÅ«įø·hassa, Änanda, vacchagottassa paribbÄjakassa bhiyyo sammohÄya abhavissa: āWhen Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that āthe self does not surviveā, Vacchagottaāwho is already confusedāwould have got even more confused, thinking:
āahuvÄ me nÅ«na pubbe attÄ, so etarahi natthÄ«āāti. āIt seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.āā That is, he would have taken it for the annihilationist view.
Dasamaį¹.