Sacred and Related Texts
Buddhist Texts
This Text should be seen as textually merely a mirror of the Text at
dhammatalks.org,
The reason for duplicating those pages here is simply
for future cross-referencing with other Texts held at MiscellanieSutta Nipāta | The Discourse Group
The Octet Chapter (Aṭṭhaka Vagga)
Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Sutta
The
Aṭṭhaka Vagga[
1] is a set of sixteen poems on the theme of non-clinging. The poems cover all four types of clinging — clinging to sensuality, to views, to habits and practices, and to doctrines of the self (
MN 44) — with a special emphasis on the first three. They touch the issues of what constitutes the nature of the clinging in each particular case, the drawbacks of the clinging, the advantages of abandoning clinging, ways to abandon clinging, and the subtle paradoxes of what it means not to cling.
This last point is discussed in many
suttas in the
Pali Canon, as the Buddha’s teachings on non-clinging all contain a central paradox: Some of the objects of clinging that must ultimately be abandoned nevertheless form part of the path to their abandoning. A certain amount of sensual pleasure in terms of adequate food and shelter is needed to follow the path to go beyond sensuality; right view is needed to overcome attachment to views; a regimen of precepts and practices is needed to overcome attachment to habits and practices; a strong sense of self-responsibility is needed to overcome attachment to doctrines of the self.[
2]
Other passages in the
Pali Canon offer clear analogies to explain these paradoxes, often in terms of movement toward a goal — taking a raft across a river, walking to a park, taking a series of relay coaches from one city to another,[
3] — in which the motive and means of transport are abandoned on reaching the goal. AN 4:194 states explicitly that release occurs only when, after having endowed oneself with right virtue, right concentration, and right discernment, one makes the mind dispassionate toward phenomena that are conducive to passion, and liberates the mind from phenomena that are conducive to liberation.
The Canon also contains passages that state in fairly specific language how the views and habits of the path are right not only because they are true, but also — and especially — because they allow for their own transcendence. AN 10:93 is particularly enlightening on this point. In it, Anāthapiṇḍika visits a group of sectarians who ask him what views the Buddha has. Anāthapiṇḍika — who was a stream-enterer at the time — states that he doesn’t know the full extent of the Buddha’s views. This reflects the fact that the Buddha’s awakening was not defined by his views, so that even a stream-enterer, who is consummate in view (diṭṭhi-sampanna) needed for the path, would still not know the full extent of what views a fully awakened person might have.
At Anāthapiṇḍika’s request, the sectarians tell him their views, after which he criticizes them for clinging to views that are “brought into being, fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen,” and therefore inconstant and stressful. In clinging to those views, he says, they are thus clinging to stress.
The sectarians then ask Anāthapiṇḍika his view, and he states it in these terms: “Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently co-arisen: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have.” The sectarians then accuse Anāthapiṇḍika of clinging to this view, and thus clinging to stress, but he responds that in seeing this view well with right discernment he also discerns the escape from it. In other words, right view teaches him not only the way things are, but also encourages him to develop dispassion to all things fabricated, including right view itself. This answer leaves the sectarians speechless. Anāthapiṇḍika then goes to report this conversation to the Buddha, who approves of what he said.
In simple terms, the message of
Anāthapiṇḍika’s statement is that right view includes a correct understanding of what to do with right view. This point is conveyed by the simile of the water-snake in
MN 22: There are right and wrong ways of grasping the
Dhamma, but before letting it go, one must grasp it correctly in order to get the best use out of it. One of the wrong ways of grasping right view is to engage in formal debates with those who want to argue in defense of wrong view.
MN 60 and AN 4:24 show why these kinds of debates are best avoided both by people on the path to awakening and by those who are fully awakened.
MN 60 points out that one of the implications of the four noble truths is that there exists cessation of becoming. This is in direct opposition to the wrong view that there is no cessation of becoming. But as long as one has not seen and known for oneself that there is cessation of becoming, it would not be fitting to argue that there is cessation of becoming, saying, “Only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless.” One is not yet fully qualified to make that statement. But even when one has verified the truth that there is cessation of becoming, AN 4:24 points out one would no longer be defined by or “fastened to” a view about that fact, in which case one feel no personal need to enter into debate on the topic.
The
Aṭṭhaka contains many passages that agree with
MN 60 and AN 2:24 on these points. However, its primary argument for avoiding debates is that they give rise to conceit, and that conceit in turn leads to becoming and non-becoming. In fact, this is the
Aṭṭhaka’s main strategy for avoiding clinging to all aspects of the path: Follow the path, it says in essence, but don’t develop conceit around it. Renounce sexual intercourse, but don’t suppose yourself to be better than others because you do (
4:7). Don’t boast of your habits and practices (
4:3), and don’t despise others for theirs (
4:14). These points are in line with the passage in
MN 78 that defines the “cessation of skillful habits” as the case where one is virtuous but not fashioned of virtue — i.e., one does not define oneself in terms of one’s virtue.
Similarly with views:
4:9 states that an attainer-of-knowledge isn’t fashioned of views, and so isn’t measured or made proud by them. For a person still on the path, it’s easy to get entrenched in one’s views (
4:3), so it’s best not to get involved in debates. Even winning a debate doesn’t establish the truth, and one risks falling into the trap of regarding oneself as inferior, equal, or superior on the basis of view (
4:8).
These teachings on the first three forms of clinging are summed up in the
Aṭṭhaka’s simple statements about avoiding the fourth form of clinging, to doctrines of the self: Don’t theorize about self (
4:14), don’t display “self” in any realm (
4:6), and remove all sense of “mine-ness” or “mine” (
4:2,
4:6,
4:11,
4:14–15).
So the Aṭṭhaka’s teachings on these points fall in line with those in the rest of the Canon in resolving the paradox around the topic of clinging. Nevertheless, the poems in the Aṭṭhaka also contains a handful of passages that present these paradoxes in a mystifying way. In fact, some of the paradoxes — particularly in the discussions of abandoning clinging to views and habits and practices — are stated in terms so stark that, on the surface, they are hard to reconcile with teachings in other Pali suttas or with other passages in the Aṭṭhaka itself. Taken out of context, they seem to say that the path consists of no views, that it is a practice of no fixed practices and no goals, and that it is not even aimed at knowledge.
The question is thus whether these paradoxes should be taken at face value or further interpreted. Or, to put the question in terms used by the Buddha himself (AN 2:25): Is their meaning, as stated, already fully drawn out or does it have to be inferred? Readers of the poems have offered arguments for both sides.
The argument for taking the paradoxes at face value is based on two major assumptions: that the Aṭṭhaka is historically prior to the rest of the Pali Canon and that it contains a complete statement of the Buddha’s early teachings. From these assumptions, the argument goes on to conclude that if these poems conflict with other passages in the Canon, that is simply because those other passages are less true to the Buddha’s original message.
Both of the assumptions on which this argument is based, however, contain several weaknesses.
• To begin with the assumption about the age of the poems: Five pieces of evidence are offered as proof that they predate the rest of the Canon—
1) The
Aṭṭhaka Vagga, as a set, is mentioned at three other points in the Canon, at
Ud 5:6, Mv V, and SN 22:3.4
2) Another book in the Canon, the Mahāniddesa (Nd I), is devoted to offering detailed commentaries on each of the poems, an honor that is extended to only two other sections in the Canon: the
Pārāyana Vagga (
Sn 5) and the Rhinoceros
Sutta (
Sn 1:3).
3) Although poems in different parts of the Canon borrow passages from one another without mentioning the fact, no other passage in the Canon borrows any of the verses in the Aṭṭhaka without mentioning their source.
4) The language of the poems is more archaic than that used in other suttas.
5) A complete version of the Aṭṭhaka, along with several additions, is found in the Chinese Canon. No other book of the Pali Canon has such a direct correspondence in the Chinese Canon.
However, none of these pieces of evidence can carry the weight of what they are supposed to prove.
1) The first piece shows simply that an Aṭṭhaka Vagga predates the three passages in question, not necessarily that the Aṭṭhaka Vagga as we have it is identical to the one they mention or that it predates the entire remainder of the Canon. In the three passages in question, only one verse from the Aṭṭhaka Vagga is actually quoted, which is not enough to establish the identity of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga as a whole.
It’s not even possible to determine with any certainty which poems in the
vagga (chapter) were composed before the others. Because four of the poems in the
vagga —
4:2–5 — have “
Aṭṭhaka” in their
Pali names, it has been argued that they may have formed the original core of the
vagga. But a common feature of the
Pali Canon is that a
vagga will often be named after the most prominent
suttas or rules in the
vagga, but that these are not necessarily placed first in the
vagga. Nor were they necessarily composed first. The poems in the first half of the
Aṭṭhaka are arranged in order of increasing length, and the
vagga may have taken its name from the simple fact that, given this arrangement, the “Octets” became prominent.
2) The existence of Nd I shows simply that the Aṭṭhaka Vagga, from early on, was regarded as a difficult text, one that required thorough explanation. It’s no proof that the Aṭṭhaka predated everything else in the Canon. In fact, there’s always the possibility that Nd I—and its partner, the Cullaniddesa (Nd II), the text explaining 1:1 and 5 — were part of a planned effort to explain the entire Sutta Nipāta, an effort that, for one reason or another, was never completed.
3) The fact that none of the passages of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga were borrowed by other poems in the Canon without mentioning the source may simply be due to the fact that its most striking passages carried a meaning strongly shaped by context, and the Buddha or the compilers of the Canon realized that if they were taken out of context they could have been easily misunderstood.
4) The version of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga in the Chinese Canon was translated many centuries after the Buddha passed away. So its existence proves nothing about what may have predated the Pali Canon.
5) As for the archaic nature of the language, that is common to a great deal of the poetry throughout the Pali Canon. Just as Tennyson’s poetry contains more archaisms than Dryden’s prose, the fact that a Pali poem uses archaic language is no proof of its actual age. It’s easy for a poet writing at a later age to affect the language and poetic styles of an earlier age to give an air of venerability to the message of a poem. And considering that the audience to whom these poems were addressed included brahmans, and — as we noted in the Introduction — brahmans may have preferred archaic modes of expression, there is good reason to believe that the Buddha may have deliberately adopted archaic forms in order to appeal to that segment of his audience.
• However, even if the Aṭṭhaka Vagga actually was composed early in the Buddha’s teaching career, that does not mean that it contains a complete statement of his early teachings. In fact, internal evidence in the Aṭṭhaka strongly suggests otherwise.
To begin with, the discussions on clinging throughout the
Aṭṭhaka state that clinging is caused by craving, and that it should be abandoned so as to avoid becoming and not-becoming. Anyone familiar with dependent co-arising will notice that these three factors, in this order, form a part of that larger teaching. However, nowhere in the
Aṭṭhaka Vagga is there any explanation about what kind of becoming and non-becoming the Buddha is talking about, or what their drawbacks are. Only in
suttas that provide the larger context of dependent co-arising — which shows how becoming leads to repeated birth, and so to suffering and stress; and how even the desire for non-becoming leads to becoming — are these points explained. (See, for instance, SN 12:2 and
MN 49.) Anyone listening to the
Aṭṭhaka without any knowledge of that larger context would naturally question why becoming and non-becoming should be avoided, and why clinging is thus inherently bad.
Similarly, the
Aṭṭhaka states that inner peace cannot be found except through views, learning, and knowledge (
4:9), and that one should train for the path of knowledge (4:11), but nowhere does it state clearly what kind of views, learning, and knowledge it’s talking about. Again, anyone unaware of the Buddha’s teachings elsewhere on these topics would surely ask for clarification on these points.
In addition, the
Aṭṭhaka recommends avoiding objectification (
4:11,
4:14), being mindful (
4:1,
4:10,
4:14,
4:16), practicing
jhāna (
4:14,
4:16), and aiming for unbinding (
4:7,
4:14–15), but never explains what these terms mean.
It’s hard to believe that, in delivering the teachings in the Aṭṭhaka, the Buddha would not be asked these questions on these topics. And it’s harder to believe that he would not answer them. Yet that’s what we’re asked to assume if we are to believe that the Aṭṭhaka was a complete statement of his early teachings.
In AN 2:46, the Buddha divides assemblies into two sorts: those trained in bombast, and those trained in cross-questioning. An assembly trained in bombast is eager to hear teachings that are elegant in their terms and expression, but they are not encouraged to ask the meaning of the terms or how the terms are to be applied in practice. An assembly trained in cross-questioning, however, is trained to ask these questions and to expect clear and practical answers. To believe that the Aṭṭhaka is a complete statement of the Buddha’s early teachings is to assume that he was training his followers in bombast — an assumption that is hard to accept.
• Finally, there is the issue of consistency. As we have noted, the starker expressions of the paradoxes in the
Aṭṭhaka have been interpreted to teach a view of no views, and a practice of no fixed practices and no goals, not even aimed at knowledge. Yet these interpretations are inconsistent with other passages in the
Aṭṭhaka itself, such as the clear-cut view explaining the sources of conflict, presented in
4:11, the long descriptions of how a monk should and shouldn’t practice (such as those in
4:14 and
4:16), the statement that one should train for the path of knowledge (
4:11), and the frequent references to unbinding (
nibbāna/nibbuti) as the goal of the practice. So even if the
Aṭṭhaka is appreciably older than the other
Pali suttas, we would have to assume gross inconsistencies in its message if we were to take its paradoxes at face value.
The argument that the meaning of the
Aṭṭhaka’s paradoxes must be inferred — that they were intentionally stated in obscure terms — is based on firmer ground. First is the simple fact that they make better sense, when taken as a whole, if the paradoxes are explored for meanings not obvious on the surface. A prime example is the passage toward the beginning of
4:9, in which the Buddha in one sentence seems to be saying that an awakened person would regard purity as not being found by means of views, habits and practices, etc., and then in the next sentence says that it is not found through lack of views, habits and practices, etc.
Māgandiya, the Buddha’s listener, responds understandably that such a teaching is confused.
Readers who have acquired a taste for Mahāyāna non-dualities, and who would take the Buddha’s statement at face value, might scoff at Māgandiya’s narrow-mindedness. But, if the words are taken at face value, Māgandiya would be right. The words on the surface are very unhelpful, for they give no idea of what one should do.
It turns out, however, that there is a grammatical pun at stake. The terms in the Buddha’s initial statement are put in the instrumental case — which can be interpreted literally as “through” or “by means of,” but idiomatically as “in terms of” or “in connection with.” The second sentence puts the words for lack of view, etc., in the ablative case, which carries the meaning “because of” or “from.” If we interpret the instrumental in the first sentence in its idiomatic sense, the two sentences make sense in and of themselves, and fit with the rest of the
Aṭṭhaka — and the Canon as a whole: An awakened person would not define purity in terms of views, habits and practices, etc., but would also realize that purity cannot be attained through a lack of these things. This fits with the position taken throughout the
suttas, that the goal is unfabricated, but the path to the goal must of necessity be fabricated. Therefore the path requires developing qualities that are not contained in the goal and that will have to be abandoned when the goal is reached (see, for example,
MN 22,
MN 24, and
Iti 90).
This case shows that there is a lot to be gained by looking under the surface of paradoxes so that, unlike Māgandiya, we won’t be confused by them.
A second reason for regarding the paradoxes as requiring interpretation is one that we have already noted in the Introduction. In their use of puns and grammatical wordplay, they follow an ancient Indian genre — the philosophical enigma — that by its very nature called for extensive interpretation. Evidence in the
Ṛgveda shows that ancient
Vedic ritual included contests in which elder
brahmans used puns and other wordplay to express philosophical teachings as riddles that contestants were then challenged to solve.[
5] The purpose of these contests was to teach the contestants to use their powers of ingenuity in thinking “outside the box,” in the justified belief that the process of searching for inspiration and being illuminated by the answer would transform the mind in a much deeper way than would be achieved simply by absorbing information.[
6]
Although the
Aṭṭhaka poems advise against engaging in intellectual contests, they occasionally imitate the
Vedic enigmas in the way they use language to challenge the reader. Individual words — sometimes whole lines and verses — in the poems can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and it’s up to the reader to explore and consider all the various meanings to decide which are most helpful. Although our culture at present associates wordplay with jokes, the
Aṭṭhaka stands at the head of a long line of Buddhist texts — both
Theravādin and not — that use wordplay with a serious purpose: to teach the reader to think independently, to see through the uncertainties of language, and so to help loosen any clinging to the structures that language imposes on the mind.[
7] This type of rhetoric also rewards anyone who takes the text seriously enough to re-read and re-think what it has to say.
These points suggest that the obscurity of some of the Aṭṭhaka’s language can be regarded as a function, not of the poems’ age, but of the genre to which they belong. The proper reading of a text like this requires that you question your assumptions about its message and clarify the intention behind your efforts at reaching an understanding. In this way, the act of reading is meant not only to inform but also to transform. The more you give to it, the more it opens up new possibilities in the mind.
Translating wordplay of this sort presents enormous challenges; even when those challenges are surmounted, the act of reading such word games in translation can never be quite the same as reading them in the original language and cultural setting. Fortunately, aside from the more controversial passages, much of the
Aṭṭhaka is perfectly straightforward — although Ven.
Mahā Kaccāna’s commentary in SN 22:3 on one of the simpler verses in
4:9 should serve as warning that even the straightforward passages can contain hidden meanings. In passages where I have detected multiple meanings, I’ve included all the detected meanings in the translation — although I’m sure that there are instances of double meanings that I may have missed. Wherever the
Pali seems ambiguous, I’ve tried to use English equivalents that convey the same ambiguity. Wherever this has proven beyond my abilities, I’ve resorted to explanatory notes. I have also used the notes to cite interpretations from Nd I and other passages from earlier parts of the Canon that help explain paradoxes, puns, and other obscure points — both as an aid to the serious reader and as a way of showing that the gulf assumed to separate the
Aṭṭhaka from the rest of the
sutta collection is more imagined than real.
Two final notes on reading the Aṭṭhaka:
• Although these poems were originally composed for an audience of wandering, homeless monks, they offer valuable lessons for lay people as well. Even the passages referring directly to the homeless life can be read as symbolic of a state of mind. Ven. Mahā Kaccāna’s commentary, mentioned above, shows that this has been done ever since canonical times. Addressing a lay person, and commenting on a verse describing the behavior of a sage who has abandoned home and society, he interprets “home” as the aggregates, and “society” as sense impressions. Thus in his hands the verse develops an internal meaning that lay people can apply to their lives without necessarily leaving their external home and society. Other verses in the poems can be interpreted in similar ways.
• The poems center on descriptions of sages (muni) and enlightened people (dhīra), but these words don’t have fixed meanings from verse to verse. In some contexts, they denote arahants; in others, nothing more than intelligent run-of-the-mill people. So be alert to context when reading descriptions about sages and enlightened people, to see whether they’re describing people following the path or those who have already reached the goal.
| 4 : 1 |
Sensual Pleasure |
| The drawbacks of sensual desires |
SN4 : 1
vv. 766–771
If one, longing for sensual pleasure,
achieves it, yes,
he’s enraptured at heart.
The mortal gets what he wants.
But if for that person
— longing, desiring —
the pleasures diminish,
he’s afflicted,
as if shot with an arrow.
Whoever avoids sensual desires
— as he would, with his foot,
the head of a snake —
goes beyond, mindful,
this attachment in the world.
A man who is greedy
for fields, land, gold,
cattle, horses,
servants, employees,
women, relatives,
many sensual pleasures,
is overpowered with weakness
and trampled by trouble,
for pain invades him
as water, a cracked boat.[
8]
So one, always mindful,
should avoid sensual desires.
Letting them go,
he’d cross over the flood
like one who, having bailed out the boat,
has reached the far shore.[
9]
| 4 : 2 |
The Cave Octet |
| Those who remain attached to the body, to sensuality, and to their sense of “mine” will have a hard time freeing themselves from fear of death and from further becoming |
SN4:2
vv. 772–779
Staying attached to the cave,
covered heavily over,[
10]
a person sunk in confusion
is far from seclusion —
for sensual pleasures
sensual desires[
11]
in the world
are not lightly let go.
Those chained by desire,
bound by becoming’s allure,
aren’t easily released
for there’s no liberation by others.
Intent, in front or behind,[
12]
on hunger for sensual pleasures
here or before —
greedy
for sensual pleasures,
busy, deluded, ungenerous,
entrenched in the discordant way,[
13]
they — impelled into pain — lament:,
“What will we be
when we pass on from here?”
So a person should train
right here-&-now.
Whatever you know
as discordant in the world,
don’t, for its sake, act discordantly,
for that life, the enlightened say,
is short.
I see them,
in the world, floundering around,
people immersed in craving
for states of becoming.
Base people moan in the mouth of death,
their craving, for states of becoming & not -,[
14]
unallayed.
See them,
floundering in their sense of mine,
like fish in the puddles
of a dried-up stream —
and, seeing this,
live with no mine,
not forming attachment
for states of becoming.
Subdue desire
for both sides,[
15]
comprehending[
16] sensory contact,
with no greed.
Doing nothing for which
he himself
would rebuke himself,
the enlightened person doesn’t adhere
to what’s seen,
to what’s heard.
Comprehending perception,
he’d cross over the flood —
the sage not stuck
on possessions.
Then, with arrow removed,
living heedfully, he longs for neither —
this world,
the next.
| 4 : 3 |
The Corrupted Octet |
| Freedom isn’t to be found by boasting of your precepts and practices or by debating your views |
SN4:3
vv. 780–787
There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn’t enter
a dispute that’s arisen,
which is why he has no rigidity
anywhere at all.
Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He’d dispute in line
with the way that he knows.
Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, habits,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature —
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.
But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
not boasting of his habits
— ”That’s how I am” —
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature —
he with no vanity
anywhere in the world.
One whose doctrines aren’t clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on the provoked.[
17]
Because entrenchments[
18] in views
aren’t easily overcome
when considering what’s grasped
among doctrines,
that’s why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed[
19]
has no theorized view
about states of becoming
or not -
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit[
20] & illusion,
by what means would he go?[
21]
He isn’t involved,
for one who’s involved
enters into disputes
over doctrines.
But how — in connection with what[
22] —
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,[
23]
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.
| 4 : 4 |
The Pure Octet |
| How to avoid the trap of letting go of one thing only to cling to something more subtle |
SN4:4
vv. 788–795
“I see the pure, the supreme,
free from disease.
It’s in connection
with what’s seen
that a person’s purity
is.”[
24]
Understanding thus,
having known the “supreme,”
& remaining focused
on purity,
one falls back on that knowledge.
If it’s in connection
with what is seen
that a person’s purity is,
or if stress is abandoned
in connection with knowledge,
then a person with acquisitions
is purified
in connection with something else,[
25]
for his view betrays that
in the way he asserts it.
No
brahman[
26]
says purity
comes in connection
with anything else.
Unsmeared with regard
to what’s seen, heard, sensed,
habits or practices,
merit or evil,
not creating
anything here,
he’s let go
of what he’d embraced.[
27]
Abandoning what’s first,
they depend on what’s next.[
28]
Following perturbation,[
29]
they don’t cross over the bond.
They embrace & reject
— like a monkey releasing a branch
to seize at another[
30 —
a person undertaking practices on his own,
goes high & low,
latched onto perception.
But having clearly known
through
vedas,[
31] having encountered
the
Dhamma,
one deeply discerning
doesn’t go
high & low.
He’s enemy-free[
32]
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.
By whom, with what,[
33]
should he
be pigeonholed
here in the world?
— one who has seen in this way,
who goes around
open.[
34]
They don’t theorize, don’t yearn,
don’t proclaim “utter purity.”
Untying the tied-up knot of grasping,
they don’t form a desire
anywhere in the world.
The
brahman
gone beyond territories,[
35]
has nothing that
— on knowing or seeing —
he’s grasped.
Unimpassionate for passion,
not impassioned for dispassion,[
36]
he has nothing here
that he’s grasped as supreme.
| 4 : 5 |
The Supreme Octet |
| The conceit that comes from clinging to practices or views — even if they’re supreme — is a fetter preventing full freedom |
SN4:5
vv. 796–803
When dwelling on views
as “supreme,”
a person makes them
the utmost thing in the world,
&, from that, calls
all others inferior
and so he’s not gone beyond disputes.
When he sees his own advantage
in what’s seen, heard, sensed,
or in habits & practices,
seizing it there
he sees all else, all others,
as inferior.
That, too, say the skilled,
is a binding knot: that
in dependence on which
you regard another
as inferior.
So a monk shouldn’t be dependent
on what’s seen, heard, or sensed,
or on habits & practices;
nor should he theorize a view in the world
in connection with knowledge
or habits & practices;
shouldn’t take himself
to be “equal”;
shouldn’t think himself
inferior or superlative.
Abandoning what he’d embraced,
not clinging,
he doesn’t make himself dependent
even in connection with knowledge;
doesn’t follow a faction
among those who are split;
doesn’t fall back
on any view whatsoever.
One who isn’t inclined
toward either side
— becoming or not -,
here or beyond —
who has no entrenchment
when considering what’s grasped among doctrines,
hasn’t the least
theorized perception
with regard to what’s seen, heard, or sensed.
By whom, with what,
should he be pigeonholed
here in the world?
— this brahman
who hasn’t adopted views.
They don’t theorize, don’t yearn,
don’t adhere even to doctrines.
A brahman not led
by habits or practices,
gone to the beyond
— Such —
doesn’t fall back.
| 4 : 6 |
Old Age |
| Life is short. Possessiveness brings grief. Freedom comes from abandoning any sense of “mine.” |
SN 4:6
vv. 804–813
How short this life!
You die this side of a century,
but even if you live past,
you die of old age.
People grieve
for what they see as mine,
for nothing possessed is constant,
nothing is constantly possessed.[
37]
seeing this separation
simply as it is,
one shouldn’t follow the household life.
At death a person abandons
what he supposes as mine.
Realizing this, the wise
shouldn’t incline
to be devoted to mine-ness.
Just as a man doesn’t see
on awakening
what he met in a dream,
even so he doesn’t see,
when they are dead
— their time done —
those he held dear.
When they are seen & heard,
people are called by this name or that,
but only the name remains
to be pointed to
when they are dead.
Grief, lamentation, & selfishness
are not let go
by those greedy for mine,
so sages
letting go of possessions,
go about
seeing the Secure.
A monk, living withdrawn,
enjoying a dwelling secluded:
They say it’s congenial for him,
he who wouldn’t, in any realm,
display self.
Everywhere
the sage
independent
makes nothing dear or undear.
In him
lamentation & selfishness,
like water on a white lotus,
do not adhere.
As a water bead on a lotus leaf,
as water on a red lily,
doesn’t adhere,
so the sage
doesn’t adhere
to the seen, the heard, or the sensed;
for, cleansed,
he doesn’t suppose
in connection
with the seen, the heard, or the sensed.
In no other way
does he wish for purity,
for he neither takes on passion
nor puts it away.[
38]
| 4 : 7 |
To Tissa-metteyya |
| The drawbacks of falling away from the celibate life |
SN4:7
vv. 814–823
Tissa-metteyya:
“Tell the damage, dear sir,
for one given over
to sexual intercourse.
Having heard your teaching,
we’ll train in seclusion.”
The Buddha:
“In one given over
to sexual intercourse,
the teaching is muddled
and he practices wrongly:
This is ignoble
in him.
Whoever once went alone,
but then resorts
to sexual intercourse
— like a carriage out of control —
is called vile in the world,
a person run-of-the-mill.
His earlier honor & dignity:
lost.
Seeing this,
he should train himself
to abandon sexual intercourse.
Overcome by resolves,
he broods
like a miserable wretch.
Hearing the scorn of others,
he’s chagrined.
He makes weapons,
attacked by the words of others.
This, for him, is a great entanglement.
He
sinks
into lies.
They thought him wise
when he committed himself
to the life alone,
but now that he’s given
to sexual intercourse
they declare him a dullard.
Knowing these drawbacks, the sage
here — before &after —
stays firm in the life alone;
doesn’t resort to sexual intercourse;
would train himself
in seclusion —
this, for the noble,
is highest.
He wouldn’t, because of that,
suppose himself
to be better than others:
He’s on the verge
of unbinding.
People enmeshed
in sensual pleasures,
envy him:
a sage remote,
leading his life
unconcerned for sensual pleasures
— one who’s crossed over the flood.”
| 4 : 8 |
To Pasūra |
| The drawbacks of engaging in debates, for winners and losers alike |
SN4:8
vv. 824–834
“‘Only here is there purity’
— that’s what they say —
‘No other doctrines are pure’
— so they say.
Insisting that what they depend on is good,
they are deeply entrenched
in idiosyncratic truths.[
39]
Seeking controversy, they plunge into an assembly,
regarding one another as fools.
Relying on others’ authority,
they speak in debate.
Desiring praise, they claim to be skilled.
Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
— anxious, desiring praise —
the one defeated is
chagrined.
Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening.
He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
defeated, by those judging the issue:
He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
‘He beat me,’ he mourns.
These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
In them are
elation,
dejection.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
for they have no other goal
than the gaining of praise.
While he who is praised there
for expounding his doctrine
in the midst of the assembly,
laughs on that account & grows haughty,
attaining his heart’s desire.
That haughtiness will be grounds for his damage,
for he’ll speak in pride & conceit.
Seeing this, one should abstain from debates.
No purity is attained by them, say the skilled.
Like a strong man nourished on royal food,
you prowl about, roaring, searching out an opponent.
Wherever the battle is,
go there, strong man.
As before, there’s none here.
Those who dispute, taking hold of a view,
saying, “This, and this only, is true,”
those you can talk to.
Here there is nothing—
no confrontation
at the birth of disputes.[
40Whom would you gain as opponent, Pasūra,
among those who live above confrontation —
not pitting view against view —
who have nothing here grasped as supreme?
So here you come,
conjecturing,
your mind thinking up
viewpoints.
You’re paired off with a pure one
and so cannot proceed.”
| 4 : 9 |
To Māgandiya |
| Māgandiya offers the Buddha his daughter in marriage. The Buddha refuses and further subdues Māgandiya’s pride by describing a state of peace that Māgandiya doesn’t understand |
SN4:9
vv. 835–847
[
Māgandiya, a
brahman, offers his daughter to the Buddha, who replies:]
[41]“On seeing [the daughters of
Māra]
— Discontent, Craving, & Passion —
there wasn’t even the desire for sex.
So what would I want with this,
filled with urine & excrement?
I wouldn’t want to touch it
even with my foot.”[
42]
Māgandiya:
“If you don’t want
this gem of a woman, coveted
by many kings,
then for what sort of viewpoint,
habit, practice, life,
attainment of [further] becoming
do you argue?”
The Buddha:
“‘I argue for this’
doesn’t occur to one
when considering what’s grasped
among doctrines.
Looking for what is ungrasped
with regard to views,[
43]
and detecting inner peace,
I saw.”
Māgandiya:
“Sage, you speak
of not grasping
at any theorized judgments.
This ‘inner peace’:
What does it mean?
How is it,
by the enlightened,
proclaimed?”
The Buddha:
“He doesn’t speak of purity
in connection with view,
learning,
knowledge,
habit or practice.
Nor is it found by a person
through lack of view,
of learning,
of knowledge,
of habit or practice.[
44]
Letting these go, without grasping,
at peace,
independent,
one wouldn’t long for becoming.”
Māgandiya:
“Well, if he doesn’t speak of purity
in connection with view,
learning,
knowledge,
habit or practice.
and it isn’t found by a person
through lack of view,
of learning,
of knowledge,
of habit or practice,[
45]
it seems to me that this teaching’s
simply confused,
for some assume a purity
in terms of
— by means of[
46] —
a view.”
The Buddha:
“Asking questions
dependent on view,
you’re confused
by the things you have grasped.
And so you don’t glimpse
even
the slightest
notion
[of what I am saying].
That’s why you think
it’s confused.
Whoever supposes
‘equal,’
‘superior,’ or
‘inferior,’
by that he’d dispute;
whereas to one unaffected
by these three,
‘equal,’
‘superior,’
do not occur.
Of what would the brahman say ‘true’
or ‘false,’
with whom would he dispute?
With whom would he join in dispute,
he in whom ‘equal,’ ‘unequal’ are not?
Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage
in villages
creates no intimacies.
Remote from sensuality, not
preferring,
he wouldn’t engage with people
in quarrelsome debate.[
47]
Those things
aloof from which
he should go about in the world:
The
Nāga
wouldn’t take them up
& argue for them.
As the prickly lotus
is unsmeared by water & mud,
so the sage,
an exponent of peace,
without greed,
is unsmeared by sensuality &
the world.
An attainer-of-knowledge isn’t measured
made proud[
48]
by views or what’s thought,
for he isn’t fashioned[
49] of them.
He wouldn’t be led
by action,[
50] learning;
doesn’t reach a conclusion
in any entrenchments.
For one dispassionate toward perception
there are no snares;
for one released by discernment,
no
delusions.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views
go about clashing in the world.”
| 4 : 10 |
Before the Break-up (of the Body) |
| How to live at peace |
SN4 : 10
vv. 848–861
“Seeing how,
behaving how,
is one said to be
at peace?
Gotama, tell me about
— when asked about —
the ultimate person.”
The Buddha:
“Free from craving
before the break-up
[of the body],
independent
of before
& the end, [
51]
not classified in between,[
52]
no preference is his
Un-angered,
un-startled,
un-boastful,
un-anxious,
giving counsel unruffled,
he is a sage,
his speech
under control.
Free from attachment
with regard to the future,
not sorrowing
over the past,
he sees seclusion
in the midst of sensory contacts.[
53]
He can’t be led
in terms of views.[
54]
Withdrawn, un-
deceitful, not
stingy, not
miserly, not
insolent, in-
offensive,
he doesn’t engage in
divisive speech.
Not drunk on enticements,
nor given to pride,
he’s gentle, quick-witted,
beyond conviction & dispassion.[
55]
Not in hopes of material gain
does he take on the training;
when without material gain
he isn’t upset.
Unobstructed by craving,
he doesn’t through craving[
56]
hunger for flavors.
Equanimous — always—mindful,
he doesn’t suppose himself
equal,
superior,
inferior,
in the world.
No swellings of pride
are his.
Whose dependencies
don’t exist
when, on knowing the Dhamma,
he’s in-
dependent;
in whom no craving is found
for becoming or not -:
He is said
to be at peace,
un-intent
on sensual pleasures,
with nothing at all
to tie him down:
one who’s crossed over attachment.
He has no
children
cattle,
fields,
land.
In him you can’t pin down
what’s embraced
or rejected.[
57]
He has no preference
for that which people run-of-the-mill
or brahmans & contemplatives
might blame —
which is why
he is unperturbed
with regard to their words.
His greed gone,
not miserly,
the sage
doesn’t speak of himself
as among those who are higher,
equal,
or lower.
He,
theory-free,
goes to no theory.
For whom
nothing in the world
is his own,
who doesn’t grieve
over what is not,
who doesn’t enter into
doctrines
phenomena[
58]:
He is said
to be
at peace.”
| 4 : 11 |
Quarrels & Disputes |
| The Buddha is questioned on the source of quarrels and disputes, and on the highest level of spiritual attainment |
SN4 : 11
vv. 862–877
“From where have there arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with stinginess,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me.”
“From what is dear
there have arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with stinginess,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.
Tied up with stinginess
are quarrels & disputes.
In the arising of disputes
is divisiveness.”
“Where is the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world?
And where is the cause
of the hopes & aims
for the sake of a person’s next life?”
“Desires are the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world.
And here too is the cause
of the hopes & aims
for the sake of a person’s next life.”
“Now where is the cause
of desire in the world?
And from where have there arisen
decisions, anger, lies, & perplexity,
and all the qualities
described by the Contemplative?”
“What they call
‘appealing’ &
‘unappealing’
in the world:
In dependence on that,
desire arises.
Having seen becoming & not -
with regard to forms,
a person gives rise to decisions in the world;
anger, lies, & perplexity:
these qualities, too,
when there exists
that very pair.
A person perplexed
should train for the path of knowledge,
for it’s in having known
that the Contemplative has spoken
of qualities/
dhammas.”[
59]
“Where is the cause
of appealing & un-?
When what isn’t
do they not exist?
And whatever is meant
by becoming & not- :
Tell me,
Where is their cause?”
“Contact is the cause
of appealing & un-.
When contact isn’t,
they do not exist,
along with what’s meant
by becoming & not - :
I tell you,
from here is their cause.”
“Now where is the cause
of contact in the world,
and from where have graspings,
possessions, arisen?
When what isn’t
does there not exist mine-ness?
When what has disappeared
do contacts not touch?”
“Conditioned by name-&-form
is contact.
In longing do graspings,
possessions have their cause.
When longing isn’t,
mine-ness doesn’t exist.
When forms have disappeared
contacts don’t touch.”
“For one how - arriving
does form disappear?
How do pleasure & pain disappear?
Tell me this.
My heart is set
on knowing how
they disappear.”
“One not percipient of perceptions
not percipient of aberrant perceptions,
not unpercipient,
nor percipient of what’s disappeared[
60]:
For one thus - arriving,
form disappears[
61] —
for objectification-classifications[
62]
have their cause in perception.”
“What we have asked,
you’ve expounded to us.
We ask one thing more.
Please tell it.
Do some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
that purity of spirit[
63] is here?
Or do they say
that it’s other than this?”
“Some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
that purity of spirit is here.
But some of them,
who say they are skilled,
say it’s the moment
with no clinging remaining.
But knowing,
‘Having known, they still are dependent,’[
64]
the sage ponders dependencies.
On knowing them, released,
he doesn’t get into disputes,
doesn’t meet with becoming & not -
: He’s enlightened.”
| 4 : 12 |
The Lesser Array |
| If the truth is one, how should a person behave in a world where many different truths are taught? |
SN 4 : 12
vv. 878–894
“Dwelling on
their own views,
quarreling,
different skilled people say:
‘Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.
Whoever rejects this, is
imperfect.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute:
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
Which of these statements is true
when all of them say they are skilled?”
“If, in not accepting
an opponent’s doctrine,
one’s a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,
then all are fools of inferior discernment —
all of these
who dwell on their views.
But if, in siding with a view,
one’s cleansed,
with discernment made pure,
sensible, skilled,
then none of them
are of inferior discernment,
for all of them
have their own views.
I don’t say, ‘That’s how it is,’
the way fools tell one another.
They each make out their views to be true
and so regard their opponents as fools.”
“What some say is true
— ’That’s how it is’ —
others say is ‘falsehood, a lie.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can’t contemplatives
say one thing & the same?”
“The truth is one,[
65]
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various own truths,
that’s why they don’t say
one thing & the same.”
“But why do they say
various truths,
those who say they are skilled?
Have they learned many various truths
or do they follow conjecture?”
“Apart from their perception
there are no
many
various
constant truths
in the world.[
66]
Theorizing conjectures
with regard to views,
they speak of a pair: true
& false.
Dependent on what’s seen,
heard,
& sensed,
dependent on habits & practices,
one shows disdain [for others].
Taking a stance on his decisions,
praising himself, he says,
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
That by which
he regards his opponents as fools
is that by which
he says he is skilled.
Calling himself skilled,
he despises another
who speaks the same way.
Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,
drunk with conceit, imagining himself perfect,
he has consecrated, with his own mind,
himself
as well as his view.
If, by an opponent’s word,
one’s inferior,
the opponent’s
of inferior discernment as well.
But if, by one’s own word
one’s an attainer-of-knowledge, enlightened,
no one
among contemplatives
is a fool.
‘Those who approve of a doctrine other than this
are lacking in purity,
imperfect.’
That’s what the many sectarians say,
for they’re smitten with passion
for their own views.
‘Only here is there purity,’
that’s what they say.
‘In no other doctrine
is purity,’ they say.
That’s how the many sectarians
are entrenched,
speaking firmly there
concerning their own path.
Speaking firmly concerning your own path,
what opponent here would you take as a fool?
You’d simply bring strife on yourself
if you said your opponent’s a fool
with an impure doctrine.
Taking a stance on your decisions,
& yourself as your measure,
you dispute further down
into the world.
But a person who’s abandoned
all decisions
creates no strife
in the world.”
| 4 : 13 |
The Great Array |
| How to maintain freedom in a world full of disputes |
SN 4 : 13
vv. 895–914
“Those who, dwelling on views,
dispute, saying, ‘Only this is true’:
Do they all incur blame,
or also earn praise there?”
“[The praise:] It’s such a small thing,
not at all appeasing.[
67]
I speak of two fruits of dispute;
and seeing this, you shouldn’t dispute —
seeing the state
where there’s no dispute
as secure.
One who knows
doesn’t enter into
any conventions
born of the run-of-the mill
at all.
One who’s uninvolved:
When he’s forming no predilection
for what’s seen, for what’s heard,
why would he get
involved?[
68]
Those for whom habits
are ultimate
say that purity’s
a matter of self-restraint.
Undertaking a practice,
they devote themselves to it:
‘Let’s train just in this,
and then there would be purity.’
Those who say they are skilled
are [thus] led on to becoming.
But if one of them falls
from his habits or practice,
he trembles,
having failed in his actions.
He hopes for, longs for, purity,
like a caravan leader lost
far from home.
But one who’s abandoned
habits & practices[
69]
— all —
things that are blamable, blameless,[
70]
not hoping for ‘pure’ or ‘impure,’[
71]
would live in kindness & peace,
without taking up peace,[
72]
detached.
Dependent
on taboos, austerities,
or what’s seen, heard, or sensed,
they speak of purity
through wandering further on
through becoming & not -,
their craving not gone
for becoming & not -.[
73]
For one who aspires has longings
& trembling with regard to theorizings.
But one who here
has no passing away & arising:
Why would he tremble?
For what would he long?”
“The teaching some say is ‘supreme,’
is the very one others call ‘lowly.’
Which statement is true
when all of these claim to be skilled?”
“They say their own teaching is perfect
while the doctrine of others is lowly.
Thus quarreling, they dispute,
each saying his agreed-on opinion
is true.
If something, because of an opponent’s say-so,
were lowly,
then none among teachings would be
superlative,
for many say
that another’s teaching’s inferior
when firmly asserting their own.
If their worship of their teaching were true,
in line with the way they praise their own path,
then all doctrines
would be true —
for purity’s theirs, according to each.
The brahman has nothing
led by another,
when considering what’s grasped
among doctrines.
Thus he has gone
beyond disputes,
for he doesn’t regard as best
the knowledge of a doctrine,
any other doctrine.[
74]
‘I know. I see. That’s just how it is!’ —
Some believe purity’s in terms of view.
But even if a person has seen,
what good does it do him?
Having slipped past,
they speak of purity
in connection with something
or somebody else.
A person, in seeing,
sees name-&-form.
Having seen, he’ll know
only these things.
No matter if he’s seen little, a lot,
the skilled don’t say purity’s
in connection with that.
A person entrenched in his teachings,
preferring a theorized view,
isn’t easy to discipline.
Whatever he depends on
he describes it as lovely,
says that it’s purity,
that there he saw truth.
The brahman, evaluating,
doesn’t enter into a theory,
doesn’t follow views,
isn’t tied even to knowledge.[
75]
And on knowing
whatever’s conventional, commonplace,
he remains equanimous:
‘That’s what others hold onto.’
Having untied the knots
here in the world,
the sage here in the world[
76]
doesn’t follow a faction
when disputes have arisen.
At peace among those not at peace,
he’s equanimous, doesn’t hold on:
‘That’s what others hold onto.’
Giving up old effluents,
not forming new,
neither pursuing desire,
nor entrenched in his teachings,
he’s totally released
from viewpoints,
enlightened.
He doesn’t adhere to the world,
is without self-rebuke;
is enemy-free[
77]
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.
His burden laid down,
the sage totally released
is improper :: is theory-free
hasn’t stopped :: isn’t impassioned
isn’t worth wanting :: doesn’t
desire,”[
78]
the Blessed One said.
| 4 : 14 |
Quickly |
| The attitudes and behavior of a monk training for the sake of total release |
SN 4 : 14
vv. 915–934
“I ask the Kinsman of the Sun, the Great Seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?”
“He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
‘I am the thinker.’[
79]
He should train, always mindful,
to subdue any craving inside him.
Whatever truth he may know,
within or without,
he shouldn’t, because of it,
make himself hardened,
for that isn’t called
unbinding by the good.
He shouldn’t, because of it, think himself
better,
lower, or
equal.
Touched by contact in various ways,
he shouldn’t keep theorizing about self.
Stilled right within,
a monk shouldn’t seek peace from another,
from anything else.
For one stilled right within,
there’s nothing embraced,
so how rejected?[
80]
As in the middle of the sea
it is still,
with no waves upwelling,
so the monk — unperturbed, still —
should not swell himself
anywhere.”
“He whose eyes are open has described
the Dhamma he’s witnessed,
subduing danger.
Now tell us, sir, the practice:
the Pāṭimokkha & concentration.”
“One shouldn’t be careless with his eyes,
should close his ears to village-talk,
shouldn’t hunger for flavors,
or view anything in the world
as mine.
When touched by contact,
he shouldn’t lament,
shouldn’t covet anywhere any
states of becoming,
or tremble at terrors.
When gaining food & drink,
staples & cloth,
he should not make a hoard.
Nor should he be upset
when receiving no gains.
Doing jhāna, not footloose,
he should refrain from restlessness,
shouldn’t be heedless,
should live in a noise-less abode.
Not making much of sleep,
ardent, given to wakefulness,
he should abandon weariness, deception,
laughter, sports,
sexual intercourse,
& all that goes with it;
should not practice casting spells,[
81]
interpret dreams, physical marks,
the stars, animal cries;
should not be devoted to
doing cures or inducing fertility.
A monk shouldn’t tremble at blame
or grow haughty with praise;
should dispel stinginess, greed,
divisive speech, anger;
shouldn’t buy or sell
or revile anyone anywhere;
shouldn’t linger in villages,
or flatter people in hope of gains.
A monk shouldn’t boast
or speak with ulterior motive,
shouldn’t train in insolence
or speak quarrelsome words;
shouldn’t engage in lies
or knowingly cheat;
shouldn’t despise others for their
life,
discernment,
habits,
or practices.
Annoyed on hearing many words
from contemplatives
or ordinary people,
he shouldn’t respond harshly,
for those who retaliate
aren’t calm.
Knowing this teaching,
a monk inquiring
should always
train in it mindfully.
Knowing unbinding as peace,
he shouldn’t be heedless
of
Gotama’s message —
for he, the Conqueror unconquered,
witnessed the
Dhamma,
not by hearsay,
but directly, himself.
So, heedful, you
should always do homage & train
in line with that Blessed One’s message,”
the Blessed One said.[
82]
| 4 : 15 |
The Rod Embraced |
| The Buddha speaks in poignant terms of the saṁvega that led him to leave the household life. He concludes with recommendations for practice and a description of the person who has attained the goal of true peace and security |
SN4 : 15
vv. 935–954
“When embraced,
the rod of violence[
83]
breeds danger & fear:
Look at people in strife.
I will tell how
I experienced
terror:
Seeing people floundering
like fish in small puddles,
competing with one another —
as I saw this,
fear came into me.
The world was entirely
without substance.
All the directions
were knocked out of line.
Wanting a haven for myself,
I saw nothing that wasn’t laid claim to.
Seeing nothing in the end
but competition,
I felt discontent.
And then I saw
an arrow here,
so very hard to see,
embedded in the heart.
Overcome by this arrow
you run in all directions.
But simply on pulling it out
you don’t run,
you don’t sink.[
84]
[
Here the trainings are recited.] [
85]
Whatever things are tied down in the world,
you shouldn’t be set on them.
Having totally penetrated
sensual pleasures,
sensual passions,[
86]
you should train for your own
unbinding.
Be truthful, not insolent,
not deceptive, remote
from divisiveness.
Without anger, the sage
should cross over the evil
of greed & avarice.
He should conquer drowsiness,
weariness,
sloth;
shouldn’t consort with heedlessness,
shouldn’t stand firm in his pride —
the man with his heart set
on unbinding.
He shouldn’t engage in lying,
shouldn’t create affection for form,
should fully fathom conceit,
and live refraining from impulsiveness;
shouldn’t delight in what’s old,
prefer what’s new,[
87]
grieve over decline,
get entangled in
what’s dazzling & bright.[
88]
I call greed
a great flood;
hunger, a swift current.
Preoccupations are ripples;
sensuality, a bog
hard to cross over.
Not deviating from truth,
a sage stands on high ground
: a brahman.[
88]
Having relinquished
in every way,
he is said to be
at peace;
having clearly known, he
is an attainer-of-knowledge;
knowing the Dhamma, he’s
independent.
Moving rightly through the world,
he doesn’t envy
anyone here.
Whoever here has gone beyond
sensual passions —
an attachment hard
to transcend in the world —
doesn’t sorrow,
doesn’t fret.
He, his stream8 cut, is free
from bonds.
Burn up what’s before,
and have nothing for after.
If you don’t grasp
at what’s in between,[
91]
you will go about, calm.
For whom, in name-&-form,
in every way,
there’s no sense of mine,
and who doesn’t grieve
over what is not:
He, in the world,
isn’t defeated,
suffers no loss.[
92]
To whom there doesn’t occur
‘This is mine,’
for whom nothing is others’:
He, feeling no sense of mine-ness,
doesn’t grieve at the thought
‘I have nothing.’
Not harsh,
not greedy,
not perturbed,[
93]
everywhere
concordant[
94]:
This is the reward
— I say when asked —
for those who are free
from theorizing.
For one unperturbed
— who knows —
there’s no accumulating.
Abstaining, unaroused,
he everywhere sees
security.[
95]
The sage
doesn’t speak of himself
as among those who are higher,
equal,
or lower.
At peace, free of stinginess,
he doesn’t embrace, doesn’t
reject,”
the Blessed One said.
| 4 : 16 |
To Sāriputta |
| When a monk, disaffected with the world, takes up the life of seclusion, what fears should he overcome? What dangers should he beware of? How should he train to blow away the impurities in his heart |
SN4:16
vv. 955–975
Ven. Sāriputta:
“Never before
have I seen or heard
from anyone
of a teacher with such lovely speech
come, together with his following
from
Tusita heaven,[
96
as the One with Eyes
who appears to the world with its
devas,
having dispelled all darkness,
having arrived at delight
all alone.
To that One Awakened —
unentangled, Such, un-
deceptive,
come with his following—
I have come desiring a question
on behalf of the many
here who are fettered:
For a monk disaffected,
frequenting a place remote —
the root of a tree,
a cemetery,
in mountain caves
various places to stay —
how many are the fears there
at which he shouldn’t tremble
— there in his noiseless abode —
how many the dangers in the world
for the monk going the direction
he never has gone
over which he should prevail
there in his isolated abode?
What should be
the ways of his speech?
What should be
his range there of action?
What should be
a resolute monk’s
habits & practices?
97]
Undertaking what trainings
— mindful, astute, alone —
would he blow away
his own impurities
as a silver smith,
those in molten silver?”
The Buddha:
“I will tell you
as one who knows,
what is comforts
for one disaffecteds
if he’s resorting to a place remote,
desiring self-awakenings
in line with the Dhamma.
An enlightened monk,
living circumscribed,
mindful,
shouldn’t fear the five fears:
of horseflies, mosquitoes, snakes,
human contact, four-footed beings;
shouldn’t be fazed
by those following another’s teaching
even on seeing their manifold
threats;
should prevail over still other
further dangers
as he seeks what is skillful.
Touched
by the touch
of disease, hunger,
he should endure cold
& inordinate heat.
He with no home,
in many ways touched by these things,
striving, should make firm his persistence.
He shouldn’t commit a theft,
shouldn’t speak a lie,
should touch with thoughts of goodwill
beings firm & infirm.
Conscious of when
his mind is stirred up & turbid,
he should dispel it:
‘It’s on the side
of the Dark One.’
He shouldn’t come under the sway
of anger or pride.
Having dug up their root
he would stand firm.
Then, when prevailing
— yes —
he’d prevail over notions of dear & undear.
Deferring to discernment
enraptured with what’s admirable,
he should overcome these dangers,
should conquer
discontent
in his isolated spot,
should conquer
these four
thoughts of lament:
‘What will I eat,
or where will I eat?
How badly I slept.
Tonight where will I sleep?’
These lamenting thoughts
he should subdue —
one under training,
wandering without home.
Receiving food & cloth
at appropriate times,
he should have a sense of enough
for the sake of contentment.[
98]
Guarded in regard to these things
going restrained into a village,
even when harassed
he shouldn’t say a harsh word.
With eyes downcast,
& not footloose,
committed to
jhāna,
he should be continually wakeful.[
99]
Arousing equanimity,
centered within,
he should cut off any penchant
to conjecture or worry.
When reprimanded with words,
he should — mindful —
rejoice;[
100]
should smash any rigidity
toward his fellows in the holy life;
should utter skillful words
that are not untimely;
should give no mind
to the gossip people might say.
And then there are in the world
the five kinds of dust
for whose subduing, mindful,
he should train:
With regard to forms, sounds, tastes,
smells, & tactile sensations
he should conquer passion;
with regard to these things
he should subdue his desire.
A monk, mindful,
his mind well released,
contemplating the right
Dhamma
at the right times,
on coming
to oneness[
101]
should annihilate
darkness,”
the Blessed One said.