102. The Five and Three (MN102)

Thus I heard:

On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthi, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus:

“Bhikkhus.”

“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:

Based on Future Finiteness

“Bhikkhus, there are some monks and divines, who, conjecturing about future finiteness and holding views about future finiteness, affirm various assertions contingent upon future finiteness.

(i) “Some affirm such assertion as this: ‘The percipient self is intact after death.’

(ii) “Some affirm such assertion as this: ‘The non-percipient self is intact after death.’

(iii) “Some affirm such assertion as this: ‘The neither-pecipient-nor-non-percipient self is intact after death.’

(iv) “Or they describe an existing being’s eventual annihilation, obliteration and non-being.

(v) “Then some affirm the assertion of ‘Nibbāna’ here and now.

“Thus (a) they either describe an existing being to be intact after death, or (b) they describe an existing being’s eventual annihilation, obliteration and non-being, or (c) they affirm the assertion of ‘Nibbāna’ here and now. So these five are three, and these three are five.

“This is the summary of the Five and Three.

(i) “Here, bhikkhus, when monks and divines describe a percipient self intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the percipient self intact after death to be:

1. possessed of form,

or 2. formless,

or 3. possessed of form and formless,

or 4. neither possessed of form nor formless,

or 5. percipient of unity,

or 6. percipient of difference,

or 7. percipient of the limited,

or 8. percipient of the measureless.

“Or else while those just mentioned affirm thus, some others similarly affirm assertions about consciousness as the absolute, measureless and imperturbable, which goes beyond that of those first mentioned.

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘When monks and divines describe the percipient self to be intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the percipient self intact after death to be (1) possessed of form… (as in para. 3)… (8) percipient of the measureless. Or else some others affirm assertions about perception of the base consisting of nothingness thus: “There is nothing”, as measureless and imperturbable, which perception is declared by them the purest, most perfect, most high, most unsurpassable, of those kinds of perceptions, whether perceptions of form or perceptions of the formless or perceptions of unity or perceptions of difference. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

(ii) “Here bhikkhus, when monks and divines describe the non-percipient self to be intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the non-percipient self intact after death to be:

1. possessed of form,

or 2. formless,

or 3. possessed of form and formless,

or 4. neither possessed of form nor formless.

“Here these oppose those good monks and divines who describe the percipient self intact after death. Why is that? Because: they assert thus: ‘Perception is a disease, a cancer, a dart; but the more peaceful, the superior goal, is this, that is to say, non-perception.’

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘When monks and divines describe the non-percipient self to be intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the non-percipient self intact after death to be (1) possessed of form… (as in para. 6)… neither possessed of form nor formless. But that any monk or divine should say: “I shall describe consciousness’s coming, or going, or passing away, or reappearance, or increase, or maturity, apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from formations, from consciousness”—that is impossible. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

(iii) “Here, bhikkhus, when monks and divines describe the neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self to be intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self intact after death to be:

1. possessed of form,

or 2. formless,

or 3. possessed of form and formless,

or 4. neither possessed of form nor formless.

“Here these oppose those good monks and divines who describe the percipient self intact after death, and they also oppose those good monks and divines who describe the non-percipient self intact after death. Why is that? Because they assert thus: ‘Perception is a disease, a cancer, a dart; but the more peaceful, the superior goal, is this, that is to say, neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘When monks and divines describe the neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self to be intact after death, then those good monks and divines describe the neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self intact after death to be (1) Possessed of form… (as in para. 9)… neither possessed of form nor formless. But when any monk or divine describes that the attaining of this base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception comes about with full formations of what is to be seen, heard, sensed and cognized, that proclaims precisely what prevents the attaining of that base; for that base is not proclaimed to be attainable with an attainment accompanied by such formations; that base is proclaimed to be attainable with an attainment accompanied by only reduced formations. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

(iv) “Here, bhikkhus, there are those monks and divines who describe an existing being’s eventual annihilation, obliteration and non-being. Here these oppose those good monks and divines who describe the percipient self intact after death, and they oppose those good monks and divines who describe the non-percipient self intact after death, and they oppose those good monks and divines who describe the neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient self intact after death. Why is that? Because all those good monks and divines, being intent upon the round of births beyond this life only affirm their attachment thus: ‘We shall be such after death, we shall be such after death.’ Just as a trader who goes to market thinks: ‘From this there will be this for me; with this I shall get this’, so too, these good monks and divines surely fancy: ‘We shall be such after death, we shall be such after death.’

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘There are monks and divines who describe an existing being’s eventual annihilation, obliteration and non-being. Because of fear of the existing-body, because of disgust with the existing-body, they keep running round, keep circling round, that same existing-body. Just as a dog tethered by a leash and anchored to a stout pole or post keeps running round, keeps circling round, that same pole or post, so too, these worthy monks and divines, because of fear of the existing-body, because of disgust with the existing-body, keep running round, keep circling round, that same existing-body. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations; there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

“Bhikkhus, any monks and divines there may be, who, conjecturing about future finiteness and holding views about future finiteness, affirm various assertions contingent upon future finiteness, all of them affirm these five bases, or one of them.

Based on Past Finiteness

“Bhikkhus, there are some monks and divines, who, conjecturing about past finiteness and holding views about past finiteness, affirm various assertions contingent upon past finiteness.

1. “Some affirm thus: ‘The self is eternal and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

2. “Some thus: ‘The self is not eternal and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

3. “Some thus: ‘The self is eternal and not eternal and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

4. “Some thus: ‘The self is neither eternal nor not eternal and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

5. “Some thus: ‘The self is finite and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

6. “Some thus: ‘The self is infinite and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

7. “Some thus: ‘The self is finite and infinite and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

8. “Some thus: ‘The self is neither finite nor infinite and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

9. “Some thus: ‘The self is percipient of unity and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

10. “Some thus: ‘The self is percipient of difference and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

11. “Some thus: ‘The self is percipient of the limited and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

12. “Some thus: ‘The self is percipient of the measureless and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

13. “Some thus: ‘The self has only pleasure and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

14. “Some thus: ‘The self has only pain and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

15. “Some thus: ‘The self has both pleasure and pain and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong’;

16. “And some affirm thus: ‘The self has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and is the world. Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’

(1) “Here, that any monk or divine whose assertion and whose view is thus: ‘The self is eternal and is the world; only this is true, anything else is wrong’ shall ever, apart from faith or from preference or from oral tradition or from arguing upon evidence or from liking to ponder upon views, have any actually personal purified and clear knowledge of that, that is not possible. Now when there is no actually personal purified and clear knowledge, then even that mere portion of knowledge thereof, which these good monks and divines clarify, itself proclaims the clinging that they have. ‘Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

(2) “Here, that any monk or divine whose assertion and whose view is thus: ‘The self is not eternal and is the world; only this is true, anything else is wrong’ shall ever… (complete as in para. 16)… a Tathagata goes beyond all that.

(3–16) “… (repeat para. 16. for each of the rest of the 16 views in para. 15)… a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

“Nibbāna” Here and Now

(v) Here, bhikkhus, some monk or divine, with the relinquishing of views based on past finiteness and of views based on future finiteness and in no way resolving upon the fetters of sensual desire, enters upon and abides in the happiness of seclusion and thinking: ‘The more peaceful is this, the superior goal is this: that I enter upon and abide in the happiness of seclusion.’ That happiness of seclusion ceases in him. With the cessation of the happiness of seclusion grief arises; with the cessation of the grief the happiness of seclusion arises. Just as what the shadow leaves the sunshine extends to, and what the sunshine leaves the shadow extends to, so too, with the cessation of the happiness of seclusion grief arises; with the cessation of the grief the happiness of seclusion arises.

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘This good monk or divine, with the relinquishing of views based on past finiteness and of views based on future finiteness and in no way resolving upon the fetters of sensual desire, enters upon and abides in the happiness of seclusion and thinks: “The more peaceful is this, the superior goal is this: that I enter upon and abide in the happiness of seclusion.” That happiness of seclusion ceases in him. With the cessation of the happiness of seclusion grief arises; with the cessation of the grief the happiness of seclusion arises. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that.’ By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

“Here bhikkhus, some monk or divine, with the relinquishing of views based on past finiteness and of views based on future finiteness, in no way resolving upon the fetters of sensual desire and with the surmounting of the happiness of seclusion enters upon and abides in non-material pleasure and thinks: ‘The more peaceful is this, the superior goal is this; that I enter upon and abide in non-material pleasure.’ That non-material pleasure ceases in him. With cessation of the non-material pleasure, happiness of seclusion arises; with the cessation of the happiness of seclusion, the non-material pleasure arises. Just as what the shadow leaves the sunshine extends to, and what the sunshine leaves the shadow extends to, so too, with the cessation of non-material pleasure, happiness of seclusion arises; with the cessation of happiness of seclusion, non-material pleasure arises.

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘This good monk or divine… (as in para. 20 with appropriate changes)… abides in non-material pleasure… I abide in non-material pleasure… ’ a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

“Here, bhikkhus, some monk or divine, with the relinquishing… and with the surmounting of the happiness of seclusion and of non-material pleasure enters upon and abides in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and thinks: ‘The more peaceful is this, the superior goal is this: that I enter upon and abide in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’ That neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling ceases in him. With the cessation of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, non-material pleasure arises; with the cessation of the non-material pleasure, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises. Just as what the shadow leaves the sunshine extends to, and what the sunshine leaves the shadow extends to, so too, with the cessation of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, non-material pleasure arises; with the cessation of non-material pleasure, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises.

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that thus: ‘This good monk or divine… ’ a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

“Here, bhikkhus, some monk or divine, with the relinquishing of views based on past finiteness, and views based on future finiteness, in no way resolving upon the fetters of sensual desire, and with the surmounting of the happiness of seclusion, of non-material pleasure, and of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, sees thus: ‘I am at peace, I have attained Nibbāna, I am without clinging.’

“Bhikkhus, a Tathāgata understands the whole of that… ‘… I am without clinging.’ Certainly this venerable one affirms the way directed to Nibbāna. Yet in clinging as the doer this good monk or divine still either clings to a view based on past finiteness or to a view based on future finiteness or to the happiness of seclusion, or to non-material pleasure, or to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. And when he sees thus: ‘I am at peace, I have attained Nibbāna, I am without clinging’, that itself proclaims the clinging that he has. Now the whole of that is conditioned and thus gross; but there is cessation of formations, there is that. By knowing thus and by seeing the escape from all that, a Tathāgata goes beyond all that.

The Unsurpassable Peace

“Bhikkhus, the supreme state of peace that is unsurpassable has been discovered by a Tathāgata, that is to say, liberation through not clinging, by knowing as they are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape, in the case of the six bases for contact.

“Bhikkhus, that is the supreme state of peace that is unsurpassable, discovered by a Tathāgata, that is to say, liberation through not clinging, by knowing as they are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape, in the case of the six bases for contact.”

This is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and they delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

This is an excerpt from A Treasury of the Buddha's Words, a collection of suttas from the Majjhima Nikāya translated by Ven. Nyanamoli Thera and edited by Khantipalo Bhikkhu in 1977.

It was printed in Thailand by Mahāmakut Rājavidyālaya Press for free distribution.