Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught

“That by means of which one has a perception of cosmos, a concept of cosmos with regard to the cosmos: That, in the Vinaya of a noble one, is called the ‘cosmos.’ Now, by means of what does one have a perception of cosmos, a concept of cosmos with regard to the cosmos? By means of the eye… the ear…

the nose… the tongue… the body… the intellect one has a perception of cosmos, a concept of cosmos with regard to the cosmos.” — SN 35:116 § 159. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: “‘The cosmos, the cosmos [loka],’ it is said. In what respect does the word ‘cosmos’ apply?

“Insofar as it disintegrates

[lujjati], monk, it is called the ‘cosmos.’ Now, what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too disintegrates.

“The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate….

“The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate….

“The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate….

“The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate….

“The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too disintegrates.

“Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the ‘cosmos.’” —

SN 35:82

§ 160. At S›vatthı. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: “I will teach you the origination of the cosmos & the ending of the cosmos. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said, “And what is the origination of the cosmos? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the cosmos.

“Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises noseconsciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact….

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the intellect & qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the cosmos.

“And what is the ending of the cosmos? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the cosmos.

“Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises noseconsciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact….

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact…. Dependent on the intellect & qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the cosmos.” — SN 12:44

§ 161. “Then the monk attained to such a state of concentration that the way leading to the gods of Brahm›’s retinue appeared in his centered mind. So he approached the gods of Brahm›’s retinue and, on arrival, asked them, ‘Friends, where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder?’ “When this was said, the gods of Brahm›’s retinue said to the monk, ‘We also don’t know where the four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder.

But there is Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror Unconquered, the AllSeeing, Wielder of Power, Sovereign Lord, Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than we. He should know where the four great elements… cease without remainder.’

“‘But where, friends, is the Great Brahm› now?’ “‘Monk, we also don’t know where Brahm› is or in what way Brahm› is. But when signs appear, light shines forth, and a radiance appears, Brahm› will appear. For these are the portents of Brahm›’s appearance: light shines forth and a radiance appears.’

“Then it was not long before the Great Brahm› appeared.

“So the monk approached the Great Brahm› and, on arrival, said, ‘Friend, where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder?’ “When this was said, the Great Brahm› said to the monk, ‘I, monk, am Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror Unconquered, the All-Seeing, Wielder of Power, Sovereign Lord, Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.’

“A second time, the monk said to the Great Brahm›, ‘Friend, I didn’t ask you if you were Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror Unconquered, the AllSeeing, Wielder of Power, Sovereign Lord, Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements… cease without remainder.’

“A second time, the Great Brahm› said to the monk, ‘I, monk, am Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror Unconquered, the All-Seeing, Wielder of Power, Sovereign Lord, Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.’

“A third time, the monk said to the Great Brahm›, ‘Friend, I didn’t ask you if you were Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror Unconquered, the AllSeeing, Wielder of Power, Sovereign Lord, Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements… cease without remainder.’

“Then the Great Brahm›, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, ‘These gods of Brahm›’s retinue believe, “There is nothing that the Great Brahm› does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahm› does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahm› is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahm› has not realized.” That is why I did not say in their presence that I too don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.’

“Then—just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm—the monk disappeared from the Brahm› world and immediately appeared in front of me. Having bowed down to me, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to me, ‘Venerable sir, where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property— cease without remainder?’

“When this was said, I said to him, ‘Once, monk, some sea-faring merchants took a shore-sighting bird and set sail in their ship. When they could not see the shore, they released the shore-sighting bird. It flew to the east, south, west, north, straight up, and to all the intermediate points of the compass. If it saw the shore in any direction, it flew there. If it did not see the shore in any direction, it returned right back to the ship. In the same way, monk, having gone as far as the Brahm› world in search of an answer to your question, you have come right back to my presence.

“‘Your question should not be phrased in this way: ‘Where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder?’ Instead, it should be phrased like this:

“‘Where do water, earth, fire, & wind

have no footing?

Where are long & short,

coarse & fine,

fair & foul,

name & form

brought to an end?

“‘And the answer to that is:

“‘Consciousness without surface,1

without end,

luminous all around:

Here water, earth, fire, & wind

have no footing.

Here

long & short

coarse & fine

fair & foul

name & form

are all brought to an end.

With the cessation of consciousness

each is here brought to an end.’” — DN 11

NOTE: 1. For a discussion of this term, see §205, note 4.

THE BUDDHA’S SILENCE

§ 162. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Master Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then is there no self?”

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. finanda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”

“finanda, if I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self— were to answer that there is a self, that would be in company with those contemplatives & brahmans who are exponents of eternalism [see Appendix Two]. If I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self—were to answer that there is no self, that would be in company with those contemplatives & brahmans who are exponents of annihilationism. If I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self—were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”

“No, lord.”

“And if I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self—were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?’” — SN 44:10 § 163. Then Uttiya the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One,

“Master Gotama, is it the case that

‘The cosmos is eternal: Only this is true;

anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“Uttiya, I haven’t declared that ‘The cosmos is eternal: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’”

“Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that: ‘The cosmos is not eternal:

Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“Uttiya, I haven’t declared that ‘The cosmos is not eternal: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’”

“Very well then, Master Gotama, is it the case that ‘The cosmos is finite… ’ …

‘The cosmos is infinite… ’ … ‘The soul is the same thing as the body… ’ … ‘The soul is one thing and the body another… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata exists… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“Uttiya, I haven’t declared that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’”

“But, Master Gotama, on being asked, ‘Is it the case that “The cosmos is eternal:

Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless”?’ you inform me, ‘Uttiya, I haven’t declared that “The cosmos is eternal: Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.”’ On being asked, ‘Is it the case that “The cosmos is not eternal… ” … “The cosmos is finite… ” … “The cosmos is infinite… ” … “The soul is the same thing as the body… ” … “The soul is one thing and the body another… ” … “After death a Tath›gata exists… ” … “After death a Tath›gata does not exist… ” … “After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist… ” … “After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless”?’ you inform me, ‘Uttiya, I haven’t declared that “After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.”’ Now is there anything you have declared?”

“Uttiya, having directly known it, I teach the Dhamma to my disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of unbinding.”

“And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of unbinding, will all the cosmos be led (to release), or a half of it, or a third?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

Then the thought occurred to Ven. finanda: “Don’t let Uttiya the wanderer acquire the evil view-standpoint that, ‘When I asked him an all-encompassing question, Gotama the contemplative faltered and didn’t reply. Perhaps he was unable to.’ That would be for his long-term harm & suffering.” So he said to Uttiya, “Very well then, my friend, I will give you an analogy, for there are cases where it is through the use of analogy that observant people can understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Suppose that there were a royal frontier city with strong ramparts, strong walls & arches, and a single gate. In it would be a wise, competent, & knowledgeable gatekeeper to keep out those he didn’t know and to let in those he did. Walking along the path encircling the city, he wouldn’t see a crack or an opening in the walls big enough for even a cat to slip through. Although he wouldn’t know that ‘So-and-so many creatures enter or leave the city,’ he would know this: ‘Whatever large creatures enter or leave the city all enter or leave it through this gate.’

“In the same way, the Tath›gata isn’t concerned with whether all the cosmos or half of it or a third of it will be led (to release) by means of that (Dhamma).

But he does know this: ‘All those who have been led, are being led, or will be led (to release) from the cosmos have done so, are doing so, or will do so after having abandoned the five hindrances—those defilements of awareness that weaken discernment—having well-established their minds in the four establishings of mindfulness, and having developed, as they have come to be, the seven factors for awakening. When you asked the Blessed One this question, you had already asked it in another way. That’s why he didn’t respond.” — AN 10:95

QUESTIONS OF INAPPROPRIATE ATTENTION

§ 164. “Monks, I will teach you dependent co-arising & dependently co-arisen phenomena. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak….

“Now, what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging-&-death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tath›gatas, this property stands—this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tath›gata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, ‘Look.’ From birth as a requisite condition comes aging-&-death.

[Similarly down through the causal stream to:] “From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tath›gatas, this property stands—this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tath›gata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, ‘Look.’ From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What’s there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising.

“And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging-&-death is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently coarisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.

[Similarly down through the causal stream to:] “Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena.

“When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?’ or that he would run after the future, thinking, ‘Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’ “Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be.” — SN 12:20 § 165. “Good, monks. Just as you say that, so do I: When this isn’t, that isn’t.

From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. In other words, from the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now, knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the past, thinking, ‘Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what were we in the past’?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the future, thinking, ‘Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we be in the future’?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound’?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, ‘The Teacher is our respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher’?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, ‘The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative’s words’?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you dedicate yourselves to another teacher?”

“No, lord.”

“Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you return to the observances, grand ceremonies, & auspicious rites of common contemplatives & brahmans as having any essence?”

“No, lord.”

“Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen, & understood for yourselves?”

“Yes, lord.”

“Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, ‘This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,’ and it was in reference to this that it was said.” — MN 38

DEPENDENT CO -ARISING: EXTREMES AVOIDE D

§ 166. [Kassapa the cloth-less ascetic:] “Now, then, Master Gotama, is pain self-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

“Then is pain other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

“Then is pain self-made & other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

“Then is pain, without self-making or other-making, spontaneously arisen?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

“Then is there no pain?”

“It’s not the case that there is no pain, Kassapa. There is pain.”

“Then in that case, Master Gotama doesn’t know, doesn’t see pain.”

“It’s not the case that I don’t know, don’t see pain, Kassapa. I do know pain. I do see pain.”…

“Then tell me about pain, Master Gotama. Teach me about pain.”

“Kassapa, the statement, ‘With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pleasure & pain are self-made’:

This circles around eternalism [see Appendix Two]. And the statement, ‘With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling’: This circles around annihilationism.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications…. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” — SN 12:17 § 167. As he was sitting there, Timbarukkha the wanderer said to the Blessed One, “Now, then, Master Gotama, are pleasure & pain self-made?”

“Don’t say that, Timbarukkha,” the Blessed One said.

“Then are pleasure & pain other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Timbarukkha,” the Blessed One said.

“Then are pleasure & pain self-made & other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Timbarukkha,” the Blessed One said.

“Then are pleasure & pain, without self-making or other-making, spontaneously arisen?”

“Don’t say that, Timbarukkha,” the Blessed One said.

“Then is there no pleasure & pain?”

“It’s not the case that there is no pleasure & pain, Timbarukkha. There is pleasure & pain.”

“Then in that case, Master Gotama doesn’t know, doesn’t see, pleasure & pain.”

“It’s not the case that I don’t know, don’t see, pleasure & pain, Timbarukkha.

I do know pleasure & pain. I do see pleasure & pain.”…

“Then tell me about pleasure & pain, Master Gotama. Teach me about pleasure & pain.”

“Timbarukkha, I don’t say that—with the feeling being the same as the one who feels, existing from the beginning—pleasure & pain are self-made. And I don’t say that—with feeling being one thing and the one who feels another, existing as the one struck by the feeling—pleasure & pain are other-made.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications…. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” — SN 12:18 § 168. “Whatever contemplatives & brahmans—teachers of kamma who declare that pleasure & pain are self-made: Even that is dependent on contact.

Whatever contemplatives & brahmans—teachers of kamma who declare that pleasure & pain are other-made… self-made & other-made… without selfmaking or other-making, spontaneously arisen: Even that is from contact as a requisite condition.

“That any contemplatives & brahmans—teachers of kamma who declare that pleasure & pain are self-made—would be sensitive to pleasure & pain other than through contact: That isn’t possible. That any contemplatives & brahmans— teachers of kamma who declare that pleasure & pain are other-made… selfmade & other-made… without self-making or other-making, spontaneously arisen—would be sensitive to pleasure & pain other than through contact: That isn’t possible. [Compare the final analysis in DN 1, §184] “When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual intention as the cause.

“From ignorance as a requisite condition, then either of one’s own accord one fabricates the bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally, or because of others one fabricates the bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally. Either alert one fabricates the bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally, or unalert one fabricates the bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally. [Similarly with verbal & intellectual fabrications.] “Now, ignorance is bound up in these things. From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, there no longer exists (the sense of) the body on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise. There no longer exists the speech… the intellect on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise. There no longer exists the field, the site, the dimension, or the issue on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise.” — SN 12:25 § 169. A certain brahman said to the Blessed One: “Now, then, Master Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results of the act]?”

“[To say,] brahman, ‘The one who acts is the same one who experiences,’ is one extreme.”

“Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other than the one who experiences?”

“[To say,] brahman, ‘The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences,’ is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications…. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” — SN 12:46 § 170. [Ven. Mah›Ko˛˛hita:] “Now tell me, S›riputta my friend: Is aging-&death self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or—without self-making or other-making—spontaneously arisen?”

[Ven. S›riputta:] “It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that aging-&-death is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that— without self-making or other-making—it’s spontaneously arisen. However, from birth as a requisite condition comes aging-&-death.”

“Now tell me, friend S›riputta: Is birth…. Is becoming…. Is clinging/sustenance… Is craving…. Is feeling…. Is contact…. Are the six sense media self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or—without self-making or other-making—spontaneously arisen?”

“It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that the six sense media are self-made, that they are other-made, that they are both self-made & other-made, or that— without self-making or other-making—they’re spontaneously arisen. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.”

“Now tell me, friend S›riputta: Is name-&-form self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or—without self-making or other-making— spontaneously arisen?”

“It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that—without selfmaking or other-making—it’s spontaneously arisen. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.”

“Now tell me, friend S›riputta: Is consciousness self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or—without self-making or other-making— spontaneously arisen?”

“It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that—without selfmaking or other-making—it’s spontaneously arisen. However, from name-&form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.”

“Just now, friend S›riputta, I understood your statement as, ‘It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that—without self-making or other-making— it’s spontaneously arisen. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.’ But then I understood your statement as, ‘It’s not the case, Ko˛˛hita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that—without self-making or other-making— it’s spontaneously arisen. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’ Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?”

Ven. S›riputta: “Very well then, Ko˛˛hita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that observant people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

“If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.” — SN 12:67

§ 171. Then a brahman cosmologist went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?”

“‘Everything exists’ is the senior form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”

“‘Everything does not exist’ is the second form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a Oneness?”

“‘Everything is a Oneness’ is the third form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a plurality?”

“‘Everything is a plurality is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications…. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” — SN 12:48 § 172. Then Ven. Kacc›yana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: “Lord, ‘Right view, right view,’ it is said. To what extent is there right view?”

“By & large, Kacc›yana, this world is supported by [takes as its object] a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world [cosmos] as it has come to be with right discernment, ‘non-existence’ with reference to the world doesn’t occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it has come to be with right discernment, ‘existence’ with reference to the world doesn’t occur to one.

“By & large, Kacc›yana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no doubt or uncertainty that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It’s to this extent, Kacc›yana, that there is right view.

“‘Everything exists’: That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist’: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications….” — SN 12:15

§ 173. Then B›hiya, hurriedly leaving Jeta’s Grove and entering S›vatthı, saw the Blessed One going for alms in S›vatthı—serene & inspiring serene confidence, calming, his senses at peace, his mind at peace, having attained the utmost tranquility & poise, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a Great One [n›ga]. Seeing him, he approached the Blessed One and, on reaching him, threw himself down, with his head at the Blessed One’s feet, and said, “Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term benefit & happiness.”

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, “This is not the time, B›hiya.

We have entered the town for alms.”

A second time, B›hiya said to the Blessed One: “But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One’s life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term benefit & happiness.”

A second time, the Blessed One said to him, “This is not the time, B›hiya. We have entered the town for alms.”

A third time, B›hiya said to the Blessed One: “But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One’s life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term benefit & happiness.”

“Then, B›hiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, B›hiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.”

Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of B›hiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from fermentations through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted B›hiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left. — Ud 1:10

DEPENDENT CO -ARISING: INVALID QUESTIONS

§ 174. “Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.”

When this was said, Ven. Mo˘iya Phagguna said to the Blessed One, “Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?“

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘feeds.’ If I were to say ‘feeds,’ then ‘Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that. When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘Consciousness-nutriment for what?’ And the valid answer is, ‘Consciousnessnutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.’”

“Lord, who makes contact?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘makes contact.’ If I were to say ‘makes contact,’ then ‘Who makes contact?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that. When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘From what as a requisite condition comes contact?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.’”

“Lord, who feels?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘feels.’ If I were to say ‘feels,’ then ‘Who feels?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that.

When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.’”

“Lord, who craves?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘craves.’ If I were to say ‘craves,’ then ‘Who craves?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that.

When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘From what as a requisite condition comes craving?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.’”

“Lord, who clings?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘clings.’ If I were to say ‘clings,’ then ‘Who clings?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that.

When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.1 “Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of the six sense media2 comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” — SN 12:12 NOTE: 1. An alternative translation for this exchange—and one that, in light of the topic of nutriment, might actually be more apt—is:

“Lord, who takes sustenance?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “I don’t say ‘takes sustenance.’ If I were to say ‘takes sustenance,’ then ‘Who takes sustenance?’ would be a valid question. But I don’t say that. When I don’t say that, the valid question is, ‘From what as a requisite condition comes sustenance?’ And the valid answer is, ‘From craving as a requisite condition comes sustenance. From sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”

2. This refers to the moment of awakening, when the six sense media are transcended.

See §198 and §208, and the discussion of “consciousness without surface” in The Mind Like Fire Unbound, chapter 1.

§ 175. The Blessed One said, “From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”

When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One: “Which is the aging-&-death, lord, and whose is the aging-&-death?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “If one were to ask, ‘Which is the aging-&-death, and whose is the aging-&-death?’ and if one were to say, ‘Aging-&-death is one thing, and the aging-&-death is something/someone else’s,’ both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From birth as a requisite condition comes aging-&-death.”

“Which is the birth, lord, and whose is the birth?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.”

“Which is the becoming, lord, and whose is the becoming?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.”

“Which is the clinging, lord, and whose is the clinging?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging.”

“Which is the craving, lord, and whose is the craving?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.”

“Which is the feeling, lord, and whose is the feeling?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.”

“Which is the contact, lord, and whose is the contact?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.”

“Which are the six sense media, lord, and whose are the six sense media?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.”

“Which is the name-&-form, lord, and whose is the name-&-form?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.”

“Which is the consciousness, lord, and whose is the consciousness?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said…. “From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.”

“Which are the fabrications, lord, and whose are the fabrications?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One said. “If one were to ask, ‘Which are the fabrications, and whose are the fabrications?’ and if one were to say, ‘Fabrications are one thing, and these fabrications are something/someone else’s,’ both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tath›gata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings—‘Which aging-&-death, and whose aging-&-death?’ or ‘Aging-&-death is one thing, and this aging-&death is something/someone else’s’ or ‘The soul is the same as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’—are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

“From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings—‘Which is the birth…. Which is the becoming…. Which is the clinging…. Which is the craving…. Which is the feeling…. Which is the contact…. Which are the six sense media…. Which is the name-&-form…. Which is the consciousness…. Which are the fabrications, and whose are the fabrications?’ or ‘Fabrications are one thing, and these fabrications are something/someone else’s’ or ‘The soul is the same as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’—are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.” — SN 12:35

THE TEN UNDECLARED ISSUES

§ 176. Then, when it was evening, Ven. M›luºkyaputta arose from seclusion and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down, he sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, just now, as I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: ‘These viewstandpoints that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One… I don’t approve, I don’t accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I’ll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that “The cosmos is eternal,” or “The cosmos is not eternal,” or “The cosmos is finite,” or “The cosmos is infinite,” or “The soul is the same thing as the body,” or “The soul is one thing and the body another,” or “After death a Tath›gata exists,” or “After death a Tath›gata does not exist,” or “After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,” or that “After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,” then I will live the holy life under him. If he doesn’t declare to me that “The cosmos is eternal,”… or that “After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,” then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.’

“Lord, if the Blessed One knows that

‘The cosmos is eternal,’ then may he

declare to me that ‘The cosmos is eternal.’ If he knows that ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ then may he declare to me that ‘The cosmos is not eternal.’ But if he doesn’t know or see whether the cosmos is eternal or not eternal, then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, ‘I don’t know. I don’t see.’ …. If he doesn’t know or see whether ‘After death a Tath›gata exists…

does not exist… both exists & does not exist… neither exists nor does not exist,’ then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, ‘I don’t know. I don’t see.’”

“M›luºkyaputta, did I ever say to you, ‘Come, M›luºkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’?”

“No, lord.”

“And did you ever say to me, ‘Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’?”

“No, lord.”

“Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances?

“M›luºkyaputta, if anyone were to say, ‘I won’t live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that “The cosmos is eternal,”… or that “After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tath›gata.

“It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city…

until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

“In the same way, if anyone were to say, ‘I won’t live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that “The cosmos is eternal,”… or that “After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tath›gata.

“M›luºkyaputta, it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ and when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

“It’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is finite,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, ‘The cosmos is finite,’ and when there is the view, ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

“It’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ and when there is the view, ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

“It’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ there is the living of the holy life. And it’s not the case that when there is the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’ there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata exists’…

‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist’… ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist’… ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,’ there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

“So, M›luºkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ is undeclared by me. ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ is undeclared by me. ‘The cosmos is finite’… ‘The cosmos is infinite’… ‘The soul is the same thing as the body’…

‘The soul is one thing and the body another’… ‘After death a Tath›gata exists’… ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist’… ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist’… ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,’ is undeclared by me.

“And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why they are undeclared by me.

“And what is declared by me? ‘This is stress,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the origination of stress,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the cessation of stress,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,’ is declared by me.

And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why they are declared by me.

“So, M›luºkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared.”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. M›luºkyaputta delighted in the Blessed One’s words. — MN 63

§ 177. On one occasion Ven. finanda was staying near R›jagaha, at Tapoda monastery. Then, as night was ending, he got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. Having bathed his limbs and having gotten out of the springs, he stood wearing only his lower robe, drying his limbs. Kokanuda the wanderer, as night was ending, also got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. He saw Ven. finanda from afar, and on seeing him said to him, “Who are you, my friend?”

“I am a monk, my friend.”

“Which kind of monk?”

“A son-of-the-Sakyan contemplative.”

“I would like to ask you about a certain point, if you would give me leave to pose a question.”

“Go ahead and ask. Having heard [your question], I’ll inform you.”

“How is it, my friend: ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

“No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

“Very well then: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

“No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

“Very well then: ‘The cosmos is finite… ’… ‘The cosmos is infinite… ’ … ‘The soul is the same thing as the body… ’ … ‘The soul is one thing and the body another… ’ …

‘After death a Tath›gata exists… ’… ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

“No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

“Then in that case, do you not know or see?”

“No, my friend. It’s not the case that I don’t know, I don’t see. I do know. I do see.”

“But on being asked, ‘How is it, my friend: “The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.” Is this the sort of view you have?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.’ On being asked, ‘Very well then: “The cosmos is not eternal… ”… “The cosmos is finite… ”… “The cosmos is infinite… ” … “The soul is the same thing as the body… ” … “The soul is one thing and the body another… ” … “After death a Tath›gata exists… ” … “After death a Tath›gata does not exist… ” … “After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist… ” … “After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.” Is this the sort of view you have?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.’ But on being asked, ‘Then in that case, do you not know or see?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend. It’s not the case that I don’t know or see. I do know. I do see.’ Now, how is the meaning of this statement to be understood?”

“‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,’ is a view-standpoint. ‘The cosmos is not eternal…’ … ‘The cosmos is finite… ’ … ‘The cosmos is infinite… ’ … ‘The soul is the same thing as the body… ’ … ‘The soul is one thing and the body another… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata exists… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist… ’ … ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,’ is a view-standpoint. The extent to which there are viewstandpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions with views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that’s what I know. That’s what I see.

Knowing that, I say ‘I know.’ Seeing that, I say ‘I see.’ Why should I say ‘I don’t know, I don’t see’? I do know. I do see.”

“What is your name, my friend? What do your fellows in the holy life call you?”

“My name is finanda, my friend, and that’s what my fellows in the holy life call me.”

“What? Have I been talking with the great teacher without realizing that he was Ven. finanda? Had I recognized that he was Ven. finanda, I would not have cross-examined him so much. May Ven. finanda please forgive me.” — AN 10:96 § 178. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why uncertainty doesn’t arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues?”

“Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn’t arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues. The viewstandpoint, ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ the view-standpoint, ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ the view-standpoint, ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ the view-standpoint, ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist’: The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern view, doesn’t discern the origination of view, doesn’t discern the cessation of view, doesn’t discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist.’ Thus knowing, thus seeing, he is thus of a nature not to declare the undeclared issues. Thus knowing, thus seeing, he isn’t paralyzed, doesn’t quake, doesn’t shiver or shake over the undeclared issues.

“‘After death a Tath›gata exists’

—this craving-standpoint, this perceptionstandpoint, this product of conceiving, this product of objectification, this clinging-standpoint: That’s [an expression of] anguish.1 ‘After death a Tath›gata doesn’t exist’: That’s anguish. ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist’:

That’s anguish. ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist’: That’s anguish.

“The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern anguish, doesn’t discern the origination of anguish, doesn’t discern the cessation of anguish, doesn’t discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of anguish, and so for him that anguish grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns anguish, discerns the origination of anguish, discerns the cessation of anguish, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of anguish, and so for him that anguish ceases.

He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ doesn’t declare that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist.’ Thus knowing, thus seeing, he is thus of a nature not to declare the undeclared issues. Thus knowing, thus seeing, he isn’t paralyzed, doesn’t quake, doesn’t shiver or shake over the undeclared issues.” — AN 7:51 NOTE: 1. “Anguish” here translates

vippa˛is›ra, which is usually rendered into

English as “remorse” or “regret.” Here, however, the feeling ofvippa˛is›ra relates to concerns about the future, rather than the past, and so neither remorse nor regret are appropriate to the context. The anguish alluded to in this passage is based either on the fear that awakening would entail an end to existence or on the contrary fear that it wouldn’t.

§ 179. When the night had passed, the senior monks put on their robes in the early morning and—taking their bowls & outer robes—went to Citta’s residence.

There they sat down on the appointed seats. Citta the householder went to them and, having bowed down to them, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the most senior monk:

“Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world:

‘The

cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmaj›la [DN 1: §152, §184]—when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?”

When this was said, the senior monk was silent. A second time… A third time Citta the householder asked, “Concerning the various views that arise in the world… when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?” A third time the senior monk was silent.

Now on that occasion Ven. Isidatta was the most junior of all the monks in that Community. Then he said to the senior monk, “Allow me, venerable sir, to answer Citta the householder’s question.”

“Go ahead & answer it, friend Isidatta.”

“Now, householder, are you asking this: ‘Concerning the various views that arise in the world… when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being’?”

“Yes, venerable sir.”

“Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder… when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don’t come into being.”

“But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?”

“There is the case, householder, where an ordinary uninstructed person— who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being.”

“And, venerable sir, how does self-identity view not come into being?”

“There is the case, householder, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma—doesn’t assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He doesn’t assume feeling to be the self…. He doesn’t assume perception to be the self…. He doesn’t assume fabrications to be the self…. He doesn’t assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view doesn’t come into being.” — SN 41:3

§ 180. [Vacchagotta the wanderer:] “Now, Master Moggall›na, what is the cause, what is the reason why—when wanderers of other sects are asked in this way, they answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,’ yet when Gotama the contemplative is asked in this way, he does not answer that ‘The

cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’?”

[Ven. Mah›Moggall›na:] “Vaccha, the members of other sects assume of the eye that ‘This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.’ They assume of the ear…

the nose… the tongue… the body… the intellect that ‘This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.’ That is why, when asked in this way, they answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal’… or that ‘After death Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist.’ But the Tath›gata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, doesn’t assume of the eye that ‘This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.’ He doesn’t assume of the ear…

the nose… the tongue… the body… the intellect that ‘This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.’ That is why, when asked in this way, he does not answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal’… or that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist.’”

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer, getting up from his seat, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he [addressed the same questions to the Blessed One and received exactly the same explanation].

“How amazing, Master Gotama! How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Just now, Master Gotama, I went to Moggall›na the contemplative and, on arrival, asked him about this matter, and he answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as Master Gotama. How amazing, Master Gotama! How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!” — SN 44:7 § 181. [Vacchagotta the wanderer:] “Now, Master Gotama, what is the cause, what is the reason why—when wanderers of other sects are asked in this way, they answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist,’ yet when Master Gotama is asked in this way, he does not answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul is the same thing as the body,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’?”

“Vaccha, the members of other sects assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“They assume feeling to be the self…

“They assume perception to be the self…

“They assume fabrications to be the self….

“They assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, they answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal’… or that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist.’ “But the Tath›gata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, doesn’t assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“He doesn’t assume feeling to be the self….

“He doesn’t assume perception to be the self….

“He doesn’t assume fabrications to be the self….

“He doesn’t assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, he does not answer that ‘The cosmos is eternal’…

or that ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist.’”

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer, getting up from his seat, went to Ven.

Mah›Moggall›na and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he [addressed the same questions to Ven. Mah›Moggall›na and received exactly the same explanation].

“How amazing, Master Moggall›na! How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Just now, Master Moggall›na, I went to Gotama the contemplative and, on arrival, asked him about this matter, and he answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as Master Moggall›na. How amazing, Master Moggall›na! How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!” — SN 44:8 § 182. Then An›thapi˚˜ika the householder went to the wanderers of other sects. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, “Tell us, householder, what views Gotama the contemplative has.”

“Venerable sirs, I don’t know entirely what views the Blessed One has.”

“Well, well. So you don’t know entirely what views Gotama the contemplative has. Then tell us what views the monks have.”

“I don’t even know entirely what views the monks have.”

“So you don’t know entirely what views Gotama the contemplative has or even that the monks have. Then tell us what views you have.”

“It wouldn’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his view-standpoint, and then it won’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have.”

When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to An›thapi˚˜ika the householder, “The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

Another wanderer said to An›thapi˚˜ika, “The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

Another wanderer said, “The cosmos is finite…”…”The cosmos is infinite…”…”The soul is the same thing as the body…”…”The soul is one thing and the body another…”…”After death a Tath›gata exists…”…”After death a Tath›gata does not exist…”…”After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist…”…”After death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

When this had been said, An›thapi˚˜ika the householder said to the wanderers, “As for the venerable one who says, ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,’ his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another.

Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently coarisen. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stressful. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress.”

[Similarly for the other view-standpoints.]

When this had been said, the wanderers said to An›thapi˚˜ika the householder, “We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own view-standpoints. Now tell us what views you have.”

“Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently coarisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stressful. Whatever is stressful is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have.”

“So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stressful. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress.”

“Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stressful.

Whatever is stressful is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be.”

When this was said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words.

An›thapi˚˜ika the householder, sensing that the wanderers were silent, abashed… at a loss for words, got up & went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his discussion with the wanderers.

[The Blessed One said,] “Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically & righteously refute those foolish men.” Then he instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged An›thapi˚˜ika the householder with a talk on Dhamma. When An›thapi˚˜ika the householder had been instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One and—keeping him to his right— departed. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Dhamma & Vinaya would do well, periodically & righteously, to refute the wanderers of other sects in just the way An›thapi˚˜ika the householder has done.” — AN 10:93 § 183. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he asked the Blessed One, “How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘The cosmos is eternal: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view,

‘The cosmos is not eternal: Only this

is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘The cosmos is finite: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘The cosmos is infinite: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘The soul is the same thing as the body: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘The soul is one thing and the body another: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata exists: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata does not exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“Then does Master Gotama hold the view, ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless’?”

“… no…”

“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view, ‘The cosmos is eternal…’ …. ‘After death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,’ he says ‘… no…’ in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten view-standpoints?”

“Vaccha, the view-standpoint that ‘the cosmos is eternal’ is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.

It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, selfawakening, unbinding.

“The view-standpoint that ‘the cosmos is not eternal’…

“…’the cosmos is finite’…

“…’the cosmos is infinite’…

“…’the soul is the same thing as the body’…

“…’the soul is one thing and the body another’…

“…’after death a Tath›gata exists’…

“…’after death a Tath›gata does not exist’…

“…’after death a Tath›gata both exists & does not exist’…

“…’after death a Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist’… does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, selfawakening, unbinding.”

“Does Master Gotama have any view-standpoint at all?”

“A ‘view-standpoint,’ Vaccha, is something that a Tath›gata has done away with. What a Tath›gata sees is this: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception… such are fabrications… such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.’ Because of this, I say, a Tath›gata—with the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all conceivings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit—is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.” — MN 72

VIEW -STANDPOINTS FROM DN 1

§ 184.

A categorical Yes to the eternity of the cosmos: “There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman—as a result of ardency, exertion, commitment, heedfulness, & right attention—attains the sort of awarenessconcentration whereby he recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., ten eons of cosmic contraction & expansion, twenty… thirty… forty eons of cosmic contraction & expansion, (recollecting,) ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes & details. He says, ‘The self & the cosmos are barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And even though beings roam, wander, fall [die], & reappear, it will stay just like that as long as eternity. Why is that? Because I… recollect my manifold past lives in their modes & details. By means of that, I know that the self & the cosmos are barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And even though beings roam, wander, fall [die], & reappear, there is just that which will be like that as long as eternity.’”

Another categorical Yes:

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is a logician, an inquirer. He states his own imagining, hammered out by logic, deduced from his inquiries: ‘The self & the cosmos are barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And even though beings roam, wander, fall [die], & reappear, there is just that which will be like that as long as eternity.’”

An analytical answer to the eternity/non-eternity of the cosmos:

“There ultimately

comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahm›s). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, selfluminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time. Then there ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos evolves. When the cosmos is evolving, an empty Brahm› palace appears. Then a certain being—from the exhaustion of his life span or the exhaustion of his merit—falls from the company of the Radiant and re-arises in the empty Brahm› palace. And there he still stays mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“After dwelling there alone for a long time, he experiences displeasure & agitation: ‘O, if only other beings would come to this world!’ “Then other beings, through the ending of their life span or the ending of their merit, fall from the company of the Radiant and reappear in the Brahm› palace, in the company of that being. And there they still stay mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“Then the thought occurs to the being who reappeared first: ‘I am Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, AllPowerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by me.

Why is that? First the thought occurred to me, “O, if only other beings would come to this world!” And thus my direction of will brought these beings to this world.’ As for the beings who reappeared later, this thought occurs to them:

‘This is Brahm›… Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. We were created by this Brahm›. Why is that? We saw that he appeared here before, while we appeared after.’ The being who reappeared first is of longer life span, more beautiful, & more influential, while the beings who reappeared later are of shorter life span, less beautiful, & less influential.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—as a result of ardency, exertion, commitment, heedfulness, & right attention—attains the sort of awareness-concentration whereby he recollects that former life, but nothing beyond that. He says, ‘We were created by Brahm›, the Great Brahm›, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just like that as long as eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’”

Another analytical answer:

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is a logician, an inquirer. He states his own imagining, hammered out by logic, deduced from his inquiries: ‘That which is called “eye” & “ear” & “nose”

& “tongue” & “body”: That self is inconstant, impermanent, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called “mind” or “intellect” or “consciousness”: That self is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just like that as long as eternity.’”

A categorical No to the eternity of the cosmos:

“There are Devas called Beings

without Perception. But, with the arising of perception, they fall from that company. Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—as a result of ardency, exertion, commitment, heedfulness, & right attention—attains the sort of awareness-concentration whereby he recollects the arising of perception, but nothing beyond that. He says, ‘The self & the cosmos are spontaneously arisen. Why is that? Because before I wasn’t, now I am. Not having been, I sprang into being.’”

Theories on the finitude/infinitude of the cosmos:

“There is the case where a

certain contemplative or brahman—as a result of ardency, exertion, commitment, heedfulness, & right attention—attains the sort of awarenessconcentration whereby he remains with the perception of ‘finite’ with regard to the cosmos. He says, ‘This cosmos is finite, encircled. Why is that? Because I…

have attained the sort of awareness-concentration whereby I remain with the perception of “finite” with regard to the cosmos. By means of that, I know that the cosmos is finite, encircled….’

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman… attains the sort of awareness-concentration whereby he remains with the perception of ‘infinite’ with regard to the cosmos. He says, ‘This cosmos is infinite, unencircled.

Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is finite, encircled, are lying. This cosmos is infinite, unencircled. Why is that? Because I… have attained the sort of awareness-concentration whereby I remain with the perception of “infinite” with regard to the cosmos. By means of that, I know that the cosmos is infinite, unencircled….’

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman… attains the sort of awareness-concentration whereby he remains with the perception of ‘finite’ with regard to the cosmos above & below, but with the perception of ‘infinite’ all around. He says, ‘This cosmos is finite & infinite. Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is finite, encircled, are lying. Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is infinite, unencircled, are lying. This cosmos is finite & infinite. Why is that? Because I…

have attained the sort of awareness-concentration whereby I remain with the perception of “finite” with regard to the cosmos above & below, but with the perception of “infinite” all around. By means of that, I know that the cosmos is finite & infinite….’

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is a logician, an inquirer. He states his own imagining, hammered out by logic, deduced from his inquiries: ‘The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite. Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is finite, encircled, are lying. Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is infinite, unencircled, are lying. Those contemplatives & brahmans who say that this cosmos is finite & infinite are lying. The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite.’”

Refrain:

“This, monks, the Tath›gata discerns. And he discerns that these standpoints, thus seized, thus grasped at, lead to such & such a destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond. And he discerns what is higher than this. And yet discerning that, he does not grasp at that act of discerning. And as he is not grasping at it, unbinding [nibbuti] is experienced right within. Knowing, as they have come to be, the origination, ending, allure, & drawbacks of feelings, along with the emancipation from feelings, the Tath›gata, monks—through lack of clinging/sustenance—is released.”

Final analysis:

“When those contemplatives & brahmans assert various types of theories… on 62 grounds, that is an agitation & vacillation to be felt by those contemplatives & brahmans who, not knowing, not seeing, are immersed in craving…. That comes from contact as a requisite condition…. That they would experience that other than through contact: That isn’t possible…. [Compare §168] They all experience that through repeated contact at the six sense media.

For them, from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“But when a monk discerns the origination, ending, allure, drawbacks of, & emancipation from the six sense media, he discerns what is higher than all of this.” — DN 1

THE TETRALEMMA

§ 185. “Cunda, whatever in this world—with its deva, M›ras, & Brahm›s, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people—is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect, that has been fully awakened to by the Tath›gata [§46]. Thus he is called the Tath›gata.

“From the night the Tath›gata fully awakens to the unsurpassed Right Selfawakening until the night he is totally unbound in the unbinding property with no fuel remaining, whatever the Tath›gata has said, spoken, explained is just so (tatha) and not otherwise. Thus he is called the Tath›gata.

“The Tath›gata is one who does in line with

(tatha) what he teaches, one who

teaches in line with what he does. Thus he is called the Tath›gata.

“In this world with its devas, M›ras, & Brahm›s, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people, the Tath›gata is the unconquered conqueror, all-seeing, the wielder of power. Thus he is called the Tath›gata.

“It’s possible, Cunda, that wanderers of other sects might say, ‘How is it, friends? Is it the case that “after death a Tath›gata exists: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless”?’ The wanderers of other sects who say this should be told, ‘Friends, it is undeclared by the Tath›gata that “after death a Tath›gata exists: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless.”’ “It’s possible that wanderers of other sects might say, ‘How is it, friends? Is it the case that “after death a Tath›gata does not exist…”… “both exists & does not exist…”… “neither does nor doesn’t exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless”?’ The wanderers of other sects who say this should be told, ‘Friends, it is undeclared by the Tath›gata that “after death a Tath›gata neither does nor does not exist: Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless.”’ “It’s possible that wanderers of other sects might say, ‘But why, friends, is this undeclared by Gotama the contemplative?’ The wanderers of other sects who say this should be told, ‘Friends, it isn’t connected with the goal, isn’t connected with the Dhamma, isn’t fundamental to the holy life. It doesn’t lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why it’s undeclared by the Blessed One.’ “It’s possible that wanderers of other sects might say, ‘But what, friends, is declared by Gotama the contemplative?’ The wanderers of other sects who say this should be told, ‘“This is stress,” is declared by the Blessed One. “This is the origination of stress,” is declared by the Blessed One. “This is the cessation of stress,”

is declared by the Blessed One. “This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,” is declared by the Blessed One.’

“It’s possible that wanderers of other sects might say, ‘And why, friends, is this declared by Gotama the contemplative?’ The wanderers of other sects who say this should be told, ‘This is connected with the goal, is connected with the Dhamma, is fundamental to the holy life. It leads to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why it’s declared by the Blessed One.’” — DN 29

§ 186. [Ven. Mah›Ko˛˛hita:] “Now, friend S›riputta, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That has not been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death… both exists & does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?”

[Ven. S›riputta:] “‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ is [a view] immersed in form. ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ is immersed in form. ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ is immersed in form. ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ is immersed in form.

“‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ is immersed in feeling….

“‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ is immersed in perception….

“‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ is immersed in fabrication….

“‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ is immersed in consciousness. ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ is immersed in consciousness. ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ is immersed in consciousness.

‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist death’ is immersed in consciousness.

“This is the cause, this is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One.” — SN 44:3

§ 187. [Ven. Mah›Ko˛˛hita:] “Now, friend S›riputta, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death… both exists & does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

[Ven. S›riputta:] “For one who doesn’t know & see form as it has come to be, who does not know & see the origination of form… the cessation of form… the path of practice leading to the cessation of form as it has come to be, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ “For one who doesn’t know & see feeling as it has come to be….

“For one who doesn’t know & see perception as it has come to be….

“For one who doesn’t know & see fabrications as they have come to be….

“For one who doesn’t know & see consciousness as it has come to be, who does not know & see the origination of consciousness… the cessation of consciousness… the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness as it has come to be, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’

“But for one who knows & sees form as it has come to be, who knows & sees the origination of form… the cessation of form… the path of practice leading to the cessation of form as it has come to be, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“For one who knows & sees feeling as it has come to be….

“For one who knows & sees perception as it has come to be….

“For one who knows & sees fabrications as they have come to be….

“For one who knows & sees consciousness as it has come to be, who knows & sees the origination of consciousness… the cessation of consciousness… the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness as it has come to be, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This is the cause, this is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.” — SN 44:4

§ 188. [Ven. Mah›Ko˛˛hita:] “Now, friend S›riputta, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death… both exists & does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

[Ven. S›riputta:] “For one whose passion for form has not been removed, whose desire… affection… thirst… fever… craving for form has not been removed, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ “For one whose passion for feeling has not been removed.…

“For one whose passion for perception has not been removed.…

“For one whose passion for fabrication has not been removed.…

“For one whose passion for consciousness has not been removed, whose desire… affection… thirst… fever… craving for consciousness has not been removed, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ “But for one whose passion for form has been removed, whose desire…

affection… thirst… fever… craving for form has been removed, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“For one whose passion for feeling has been removed.…

“For one whose passion for perception has been removed.…

“For one whose passion for fabrication has been removed.…

“For one whose passion for consciousness has been removed, whose desire… affection… thirst… fever… craving for consciousness has been removed, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This is the cause, this is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.” — SN 44:5

§ 189. [Ven. S›riputta:] “Now, friend Ko˛˛hita, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death… both exists & does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One:

“The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

[Ven. Mah›Ko˛˛hita:] “For one who loves form, who is fond of form, who cherishes form, who does not know or see, as it has come to be, the cessation of form, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ “For one who loves feeling.…

“For one who loves perception.…

“For one who loves fabrication.…

“For one who loves consciousness, who is fond of consciousness, who cherishes consciousness, who does not know or see, as it has come to be, the cessation of consciousness, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’

“But for one who doesn’t love form, who isn’t fond of form, who doesn’t cherish form, who knows & sees, as it has come to be, the cessation of form, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“For one who doesn’t love feeling.…

“For one who doesn’t love perception.…

“For one who doesn’t love fabrication.…

“For one who doesn’t love consciousness, who isn’t fond of consciousness, who doesn’t cherish consciousness, who knows & sees, as it has come to be, the cessation of consciousness, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This is the cause, this is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.”

“But, my friend, would there another line of reasoning, in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

“There would, my friend. For one who loves becoming, who is fond of becoming, who cherishes becoming, who does not know or see, as it has come to be, the cessation of becoming, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’

“But for one who doesn’t love becoming, who isn’t fond of becoming, who doesn’t cherish becoming, who knows & sees, as it has come to be, the cessation of becoming, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This too is a line of reasoning in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.”

“But, my friend, would there another line of reasoning, in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

“There would, my friend. For one who loves clinging/sustenance, who is fond of clinging/sustenance, who cherishes clinging/sustenance, who does not know or see, as it has come to be, the cessation of clinging/sustenance, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ “But for one who doesn’t love clinging/sustenance, who isn’t fond of clinging/sustenance, who doesn’t cherish clinging/sustenance, who knows & sees, as it has come to be, the cessation of clinging/sustenance, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This too is a line of reasoning in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.”

“But, my friend, would there another line of reasoning, in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

“There would, my friend. For one who loves craving, who is fond of craving, who cherishes craving, who does not know or see, as it has come to be, the cessation of craving, there occurs the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’

“But for one who doesn’t love craving, who isn’t fond of craving, who doesn’t cherish craving, who knows & sees, as it has come to be, the cessation of craving, the thought, ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.

“This too is a line of reasoning in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One.”

“But, my friend, would there another line of reasoning, in line with which that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

“Now, what more do you want, friend S›riputta? When a monk has been freed from the classification of craving, there exists no cycle for describing him.”

— SN 44:6

THE TETRALEMMA DECLA RED MEA NINGLESS

§ 190. [Vacchagotta the wanderer:] “Does Master Gotama have any viewstandpoint at all?”

“A ‘view-standpoint,’ Vaccha, is something that a Tath›gata has done away with. What a Tath›gata sees is this: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception… such are fabrications… such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.’ Because of this, I say, a Tath›gata—with the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all conceivings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit—is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.”

“But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released:1 Where does he reappear?”

“‘Reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“Very well then, Master Gotama, does he not reappear?”

“‘Does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“Very well then, Master Gotama, does he both reappear & not reappear?”

“‘Both reappears & does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“Very well then, Master Gotama, does he neither reappear nor not reappear?”

“‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘… doesn’t apply’ in each case? At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier discussion is now obscured.”

“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will counter-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha? If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”

“… yes…”

“And if someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in front of you:

Dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“… I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.’”

“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”

“… yes…”

“And if someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you:

In which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass & timber, being unnourished—from having consumed (that sustenance) and not being offered any other—is classified simply as ‘out’ [unbound].”

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which one describing the Tath›gata would describe him: That form the Tath›gata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tath›gata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.

“Any feeling…. Any perception…. Any fabrication….

“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tath›gata would describe him: That consciousness the Tath›gata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tath›gata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.” — MN 72

NOTE: 1. The fact that the terminology here switches from the Tath›gata to a monk whose mind is released shows that, in this context at least, the two terms are interchangeable. This is one of the few passages in the Canon where the term Tath›gata has this meaning. (For another, see §193.)

§ 191. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near S›vatthı at Jeta’s Grove, An›thapi˚˜ika’s monastery. And on that occasion the bhikkhunı Khem›, wandering on tour among the Kosalans, had taken up residence between S›vatthı and S›keta at Tora˚avatthu. Then King Pasenadi Kosala, while traveling from S›keta to S›vatthı, took up a one-night residence between S›vatthı and S›keta at Tora˚avatthu. Then he addressed a certain man, “Come, now, my good man. Find out if in Tora˚avatthu there’s the sort of contemplative or brahman I might visit today.”

“As you say, sire,” the man replied to the king, but having roamed all over Tora˚avatthu he did not see the sort of contemplative or brahman the king might visit. But he did see the bhikkhunı Khem› residing in Tora˚avatthu. On seeing her, he went to King Pasenadi Kosala and on arrival said to him, “Sire, in Tora˚avatthu there is no contemplative or brahman of the sort your majesty might visit. But there is a bhikkhunı named Khem›, a disciple of the Blessed One, worthy and rightly self-awakened. And of this lady, this admirable report has spread about: ‘She is wise, competent, intelligent, learned, a fluent speaker, admirable in her ingenuity.’ Let your majesty visit her.”

Then King Pasenadi Kosala went to the bhikkhunı Khem› and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to her, “Now then, lady, does the Tath›gata exist after death?”

“That, great king, hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tath›gata exists after death.’”

“Well then, lady, does the Tath›gata not exist after death?”

“Great king, that too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death.’”

“Then does the Tath›gata both exist and not exist after death?”

“That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death.’”

“Well then, does the Tath›gata neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

“Now, lady, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death… both exists & does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One?”

“Very well then, great king, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, great king? Do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as ‘so many grains of sand’ or ‘so many hundreds of grains of sand’ or ‘so many thousands of grains of sand’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand’?”

“No, lady.”

“Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as ‘so many buckets of water’ or ‘so many hundreds of buckets of water’ or ‘so many thousands of buckets of water’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water’?”

“No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom.”

“Even so, great king, any form by which one describing the Tath›gata would describe him: That form the Tath›gata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, great king, the Tath›gata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t apply.

“Any feeling…. Any perception…. Any fabrication….

“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tath›gata would describe him: That consciousness the Tath›gata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, great king, the Tath›gata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘The Tath›gata exists after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t apply.”

Then King Pasenadi Kosala, delighting in & approving of the bhikkhunı Khem›’s words, got up from his seat, bowed down to her and—keeping her to his right—departed.

Then at another time he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, [he asked the Blessed One the same questions he had asked the bhikkhunı Khem›, and received precisely the same responses and analogies. Then he exclaimed:] “How amazing, lord! How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Recently, lord, I went to the bhikkhunı Khem› and, on arrival, asked her about this matter, and she answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as the Blessed One. How amazing, lord!

How astounding!—how the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!

“Now, lord, we must go. Many are our duties, many our responsibilities.”

“Then do, great king, what you think it is now time to do.”

So King Pasenadi Kosala, delighting in and approving of the Blessed One’s words, got up from his set, bowed down to the Blessed One and—keeping him to his right—departed. — SN 44:1

§ 192. Then Ven. Anur›dha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and…. said to me, ‘Friend Anur›dha, the Tath›gata—the supreme person, the superlative person, attainer of the superlative attainment—being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: After death the Tath›gata exists; after death he does not exist; after death he both exists & does not exist; after death he neither exists nor does not exist.’

“When this was said, I said to them, ‘Friends, the Tath›gata—the supreme person, the superlative person, attainer of the superlative attainment—being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: After death the Tath›gata exists; after death he does not exist; after death he both exists & does not exist; after death he neither exists nor does not exist.’ “When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, ‘This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.’ So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left.

“Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me, ‘If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that the legitimate implications of what I say give no grounds for criticism?’”

“What do you think, Anur›dha? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:

‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord”….

“Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord”….

“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord”….

“Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:

‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Now, what do you think, Anur›dha? Do you regard form as the Tath›gata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tath›gata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tath›gata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard fabrications as the Tath›gata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tath›gata?”

“No, lord.”

“Now, what do you think, Anur›dha? Do you regard the Tath›gata as being in form?… Elsewhere than form?… In feeling?… Elsewhere than feeling?… In perception?… Elsewhere than perception?… In fabrications?… Elsewhere than fabrications?… In consciousness?… Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anur›dha? Do you regard the Tath›gata as formfeeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anur›dha? Do you regard the Tath›gata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“And so, Anur›dha—when you can’t pin down the Tath›gata as a truth or reality even in the present life—is it proper for you to declare, ‘Friends, the Tath›gata—the supreme person, the superlative person, attainer of the superlative attainment—being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: After death the Tath›gata exists; after death he does not exist; after death he both exists & does not exist; after death he neither exists nor does not exist’?”

“No, lord.”

“Very good, Anur›dha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.” — SN 44:2 § 193. Then in the evening Ven. S›riputta left his seclusion, went to Ven.

Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more fermentations, with the breakup of the body, is annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death.’

“Yes, my friend. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more fermentations, with the breakup of the body, is annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death.”

“Now, what do you think, my friend Yamaka? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, my friend.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:

‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, my friend.”

“Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend”….

“Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend”….

“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend”….

“Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, my friend.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:

‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, my friend.”

“Now, what do you think? Do you regard form as the Tath›gata?”1 “No, my friend.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tath›gata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tath›gata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard fabrications as the Tath›gata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tath›gata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Now, what do you think? Do you regard the Tath›gata as being in form?….

Elsewhere than form?… In feeling?… Elsewhere than feeling?… In perception?…

Elsewhere than perception?… In fabrications?… Elsewhere than fabrications?…

In consciousness?… Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“What do you think? Do you regard the Tath›gata as form-feelingperception-fabrications-consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“What do you think? Do you regard the Tath›gata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“And so, my friend Yamaka—when you can’t pin down the Tath›gata as a truth or reality even in the present life—is it proper for you to declare, ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more fermentations, with the breakup of the body, is annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death’?”

“Previously, my friend S›riputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition and have broken through to the Dhamma.”

“Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are asked, ‘A monk, a worthy one, with no more fermentations: What is he with the breakup of the body, after death?’”

“Thus asked, my friend, I would answer, ‘Form is inconstant… Feeling…

Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”

“Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.” — SN 22:85 NOTE: 1. The fact that the terminology here switches from the monk whose mind is released to the Tath›gata shows that, in this context at least, the two terms are interchangeable. This is one of the few passages in the Canon where the term Tath›gata has this meaning. (For another, see §190.)

§ 194. [Vacchagotta the wanderer:] “Now, Master Kacc›yana, when asked if the Tath›gata exists after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata does not exist after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death, you say, ‘That hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death.”’ When asked if the Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too hasn’t been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that hasn’t been declared by Gotama the contemplative?”

[Ven. Sabhiya Kacc›yana:] “Vaccha, whatever cause, whatever reason there would be for describing him as ‘possessed of form’ or ‘formless’ or ‘percipient’ or ‘non-percipient’ or ‘neither percipient nor non-percipient’: If that cause, that reason, were to cease totally everywhere, totally in every way without remainder, then describing him by what means would one describe him as ‘possessed of form’ or ‘formless’ or ‘percipient’ or ‘non-percipient’ or ‘neither percipient nor non-percipient’?”

“How long has it been since you went forth, Master Kacc›yana?”

“Not long, my friend. Three years.”

“Whoever has gained just this much in this much time has gained a great deal, my friend—to say nothing of what he has thus gone beyond.” — SN 44:11 § 195. “Now, finanda, insofar as a monk doesn’t assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that ‘My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,’ then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything [does not cling to anything] in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’ “If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that ‘The Tath›gata exists after death,’ is his view, that would be mistaken; that ‘The Tath›gata does not exist after death’… that ‘The Tath›gata both exists & does not exist after death’… that ‘The Tath›gata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. The view that, ‘Having directly known that, the monk released does not see, does not know’:

That would be mistaken.”1 — DN 15

NOTE: 1. The various readings for this sentence all seem corrupt. The sense of the paragraph, read in light of AN 10:96 [§177], demands that the view expressed in the last sentence be about the monk released, unlike the four earlier views, which are wrongly attributed to the monk released. In other words, the monk released has no opinion on the question of whether the Tath›gata does, doesn’t, etc., exist after death. This might lead to the supposition that his lack of opinion comes from a lack of knowledge or vision. The description of what he comes to know in the course of gaining release shows that this supposition is inappropriate. He does know, he does see, and what he knows and sees about the limitations of language and concepts shows him that the question of the existence of the Tath›gata after death should be set aside.

Thus I would reconstruct the Pali of the final sentence in this paragraph as:Tad-abhiññ› vimutto bhikkhu na j›n›ti na passati iti s› di˛˛hi tad-akallaª.

§ 196. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:

“There are these three times. Which three? Past time, future time, & present time. These are the three times.”

Perceiving in terms of signs, beings

take a stand on signs.

Not fully comprehending signs, they

come into the bonds

of death.

But fully comprehending signs, one

doesn’t construe a signifier.

Touching liberation with the heart,

the state of peace unsurpassed,

consummate in terms of signs,

peaceful,

enjoying the peaceful state,

judicious,

an attainer-of-wisdom

makes use

but can’t

of classifications

be classified.1 — Iti 63

NOTE: 1. At first glance, the verses here don’t bear much relationship to the prose introduction. However, when viewed in the context of MN 2 [§25], their relationship becomes clear: The person who applies appropriate attention to the notion of past, present, and future time does not define him or herself in those terms, and so does not cling to any sense of self in those terms. Without clinging, one is liberated from birth and death.

This verse is almost identical with one in SN 1:20:

Perceiving in terms of signs, beings

take a stand on signs.

Not fully comprehending signs, they

come into the bonds

of death.

But fully comprehending signs, one

doesn’t construe

a signifier.

Yet nothing exists for him

by which one would say,

‘To him no thought occurs.’

The point of this version of the verse is that the mind of the awakened one is so unknowable that one cannot say whether he or she thinks or not. See AN 11:10.

§ 197. “Monks, I will teach you the all. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, “What is the all? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas.

This, monks, is called the all.1 Anyone who would say, ‘Repudiating this all, I will describe another,’ if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.

Why? Because it lies beyond range.” — SN 35:23 NOTE: 1. The Commentary’s treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three additional “all’s,” one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the allness of the Buddha’s omniscience (literally, All-knowingness).

This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation.

Secondly, the Commentary includes nibb›na (unbinding) within the scope of the all described here—as a dhamma, or object of the intellect—even though many other discourses in the Canon specifically state that nibb›na lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5:6 [§202], for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibb›na has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamm›), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 [§204] discusses a “consciousness without surface” (viññ›˚aª anidassanaª) that does not partake of the “allness of the all.” AN 9:36 [§139] states that full awakening occurs only when passion and delight for the dhamma of deathlessness—i.e., the perception of the deathless as a dhamma—is abandoned. Furthermore, SN 35:24 says that the “all” is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibb›na is to be abandoned. Nibb›na follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibb›na is realized, there are no further tasks to be done.

Thus a better interpretation would be to read this discourse’s discussion of “all” as intended to limit the use of the word “all” throughout the Buddha’s teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As SN 35:24 and SN 35:28 both show, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibb›na would lie outside of the word, “all.” This interpretation coincides with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4:6; Sn 4:10).

This raises the question, if the word “all” does not include nibb›na, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, “all phenomena are not-self” that nibb›na is self? The answer is No. As AN 4:173 [§208] states, even to ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to objectify what is by nature not objectified. The range of objectification goes only as far as the “all.”

Perceptions of self or no self, which would count as objectification, would not apply beyond the “all.” When the cessation of the “all” is experienced, all objectification is allayed.

§ 198. “Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye ceases and the perception of form fades. That dimension is to be experienced where the ear ceases and the perception of sound fades… where the nose ceases and the perception of aroma fades… where the tongue ceases and the perception of flavor fades… where the body ceases and the perception of tactile sensation fades… where the intellect ceases and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades:

That dimension should be experienced.” — SN 35:117 § 199. As he was sitting there, Ven. R›dha said to the Blessed One: “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, R›dha: When one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’ “Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception…

fabrications…

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, R›dha: When one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’ “Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles [lit: dirt houses]:

As long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that’s how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

“In the same way, R›dha, you too should smash, scatter, demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

“You should smash, scatter, demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play.

Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

“You should smash, scatter, demolish perception, and make it unfit for play.

Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

“You should smash, scatter, demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

“You should smash, scatter, demolish consciousness, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness—because the ending of craving, R›dha, is unbinding.” — SN 23:2

§ 200. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: “It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute.”

“Monk, whatever one stays obsessed with, that’s what one is measured by.

Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified. Whatever one doesn’t stay obsessed with, that’s not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.”

“I understand, O Blessed One! I understand, O One Well-gone!”

“And how, monk, do you understand the detailed meaning of what I have said in brief?”

“If one stays obsessed with form, lord, that’s what one is measured by.

Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“If one stays obsessed with feeling….

“If one stays obsessed with perception….

“If one stays obsessed with fabrications….

“If one stays obsessed with consciousness, that’s what one is measured by.

Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“But if one doesn’t stay obsessed with form, lord, that’s not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with feeling….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with perception….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with fabrications….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with consciousness, that’s not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.

“Lord, this is how I understand the detailed meaning of what you have said in brief.”

“Good, monk. Very good. It’s good that this is how you understand the detailed meaning of what I have said in brief.

“If one stays obsessed with form, monk, that’s what one is measured by.

Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“If one stays obsessed with feeling….

“If one stays obsessed with perception….

“If one stays obsessed with fabrications….

“If one stays obsessed with consciousness, that’s what one is measured by.

Whatever one is measured by, that’s how one is classified.

“But if one doesn’t stay obsessed with form, monk, that’s not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with feeling….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with perception….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with fabrications….

“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with consciousness, that’s not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn’t measured by, that’s not how one is classified.

“This is how the detailed meaning of what I have said in brief should be seen.”

Then the monk, delighting in and approving of the Blessed One’s words, got up from his seat and bowed down to the Blessed One, circled around him, keeping the Blessed One to his right, and departed. Then, dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute, he in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He knew, “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.” And thus he became another one of the arahants. — SN 22:36

§ 201. “Freed, disjoined, & released from ten things, B›huna, the Tath›gata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, disjoined, & released from form, the Tath›gata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, disjoined, & released from feeling… Freed, disjoined, & released from perception… Freed, disjoined, & released from fabrications… Freed, disjoined, & released from consciousness… Freed, disjoined, & released from birth… Freed, disjoined, & released from aging… Freed, disjoined, & released from death… Freed, disjoined, & released from stress… Freed, disjoined, & released from defilement, the Tath›gata dwells with unrestricted awareness.

“Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tath›gata—freed, disjoined, & released from these ten things— dwells with unrestricted awareness.” — AN 10:81 § 202. Upasıva:

One free from passion

for all sensual pleasures

relying on nothingness, letting go of all else, released in the highest emancipation of perception:

Does he stay there unaffected?

The Buddha:

One free from passion

for all sensual pleasures

relying on nothingness, letting go of all else, released in the highest emancipation of perception:

He stays there unaffected.

Upasıva:

If he stays there, O All-around Eye,

unaffected for many years,

right there

would he be cooled & released?

Would his consciousness be like that?

The Buddha:

As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end

that cannot be classified,

so the sage free from naming activity

goes to an end

that cannot be classified.

Upasıva:

He who has reached the end:

Does he not exist,

or is he for eternity

free from dis-ease?

Please, sage, declare this to me

as this phenomenon [dhamma]

has been known by you.

The Buddha:

One who has reached the end

has no criterion

by which anyone would say that—

for him it doesn’t exist.

When all phenomena are done away with,

all means of speaking

are done away with as well. — Sn 5:6

DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO SIMILAR QUESTIONS

§ 203. M›ra:

“By whom

was this being created?

Where

is the being’s maker?

Where

has the being originated?

Where

does the being cease?”

Sister Vajir›:

“What? Do you assume a ‘being,’ M›ra?

Have you gone to a view-standpoint?

This is purely a pile of fabrications.

Here no being

can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,

there’s the word,

chariot,

even so when aggregates are present,

there’s the convention of

a being.

For only stress

stress,

Nothing but stress

Nothing ceases

is what comes to be;

what remains & falls away.

comes to be.

but stress.”

Then M›ra the Evil One—sad & dejected at realizing, “Vajir› the bhikkhunı knows me”—vanished right there. — SN 5:10

§ 204. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Master Gotama, a few days ago a large number of contemplatives, brahmans, & wanderers of various sects were sitting together in the Debating Hall when this discussion arose among them: ‘This PÒra˚a Kassapa—the leader of a community, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored and famous, esteemed as holy by the mass of people—describes a disciple who has died and passed on in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.” Even when the disciple is a supreme person, a superlative person, attained to the superlative attainment, PÒra˚a Kassapa describes him, when he has died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.”

“‘This Makkhali Gos›la… This Niga˚˛ha N›˛aputta… This Sañjaya Vela˛˛haputta… This Pakudha Kacc›yana… This Ajita Kesakambalin—the leader of a community, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored and famous, esteemed as holy by the mass of people—describes a disciple who has died and passed on in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.” Even when the disciple is a supreme person, a superlative person, attained to the superlative attainment, Ajita Kesakambalin describes him, when he has died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.”

“‘This contemplative Gotama—the leader of a community, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored and famous, esteemed as holy by the mass of people—describes a disciple who has died and passed on in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.” But when the disciple is a supreme person, a superlative person, attained to the superlative attainment, Gotama the contemplative does not describe him, when he has died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth: “That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there.” Instead, he describes him thus: “He has cut through craving, severed the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit has made an end of suffering & stress.”’

“So I was simply befuddled. I was uncertain: How is the teaching of Gotama the contemplative to be understood?”

“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re uncertain. When there is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises. I designate the rebirth of one who has clinging/sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without clinging/sustenance. Just as a fire burns with clinging/sustenance and not without clinging/sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has clinging/sustenance and not of one without clinging/sustenance.”

“But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its clinging/sustenance then?”

“Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its clinging/sustenance at that time.”

“And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its clinging/sustenance then?”

“Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its clinging/sustenance at that time.” — SN 44:9