mn.1 Majjhima Nikāya (Middle Discourses)

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in Ukkaṭṭhā in the Subhaga Grove at the root of a royal sāla tree. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, I shall teach you a discourse on the root of all things. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

The Ordinary Person

“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives water as water. Having perceived water as water, he conceives himself as water, he conceives himself in water, he conceives himself apart from water, he conceives water to be ‘mine,’ he delights in water. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he conceives himself as fire, he conceives himself in fire, he conceives himself apart from fire, he conceives fire to be ‘mine,’ he delights in fire. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives air as air. Having perceived air as air, he conceives himself as air, he conceives himself in air, he conceives himself apart from air, he conceives air to be ‘mine,’ he delights in air. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings, he conceives himself in beings, he conceives himself apart from beings, he conceives beings to be ‘mine,’ he delights in beings. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives gods as gods. Having perceived gods as gods, he conceives gods, he conceives himself in gods, he conceives himself apart from gods, he conceives gods to be ‘mine,’ he delights in gods. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives Pajāpati as Pajāpati. Having perceived Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he conceives Pajāpati, he conceives himself in Pajāpati, he conceives himself apart from Pajāpati, he conceives Pajāpati to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Pajāpati. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives Brahmā as Brahmā. Having perceived Brahmā as Brahmā, he conceives Brahmā, he conceives himself in Brahmā, he conceives himself apart from Brahmā, he conceives Brahmā to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Brahmā. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the gods of Streaming Radiance as the gods of Streaming Radiance. Having perceived the gods of Streaming Radiance as the gods of Streaming Radiance, he conceives the gods of Streaming Radiance, he conceives himself in the gods of Streaming Radiance, he conceives himself apart from the gods of Streaming Radiance, he conceives the gods of Streaming Radiance to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the gods of Streaming Radiance. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the gods of Refulgent Glory as the gods of Refulgent Glory. Having perceived the gods of Refulgent Glory as the gods of Refulgent Glory, he conceives the gods of Refulgent Glory, he conceives himself in the gods of Refulgent Glory, he conceives himself apart from the gods of Refulgent Glory, he conceives the gods of Refulgent Glory to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the gods of Refulgent Glory. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the gods of Great Fruit as the gods of Great Fruit. Having perceived the gods of Great Fruit as the gods of Great Fruit, he conceives the gods of Great Fruit, he conceives himself in the gods of Great Fruit, he conceives himself apart from the gods of Great Fruit, he conceives the gods of Great Fruit to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the gods of Great Fruit. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the Overlord as the Overlord. Having perceived the Overlord as the Overlord, he conceives the Overlord, he conceives himself in the Overlord, he conceives himself apart from the Overlord, he conceives the Overlord to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the Overlord. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the base of infinite space as the base of infinite space. Having perceived the base of infinite space as the base of infinite space, he conceives himself as the base of infinite space, he conceives himself in the base of infinite space, he conceives himself apart from the base of infinite space, he conceives the base of infinite space to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of infinite space. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the base of infinite consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness. Having perceived the base of infinite consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself in the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself apart from the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives the base of infinite consciousness to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of infinite consciousness. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the base of nothingness as the base of nothingness. Having perceived the base of nothingness as the base of nothingness, he conceives himself as the base of nothingness, he conceives himself in the base of nothingness, he conceives himself apart from the base of nothingness, he conceives the base of nothingness to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of nothingness. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Having perceived the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he conceives himself as the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he conceives himself in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he conceives himself apart from the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he conceives the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the seen as the seen. Having perceived the seen as the seen, he conceives himself as the seen, he conceives himself in the seen, he conceives himself apart from the seen, he conceives the seen to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the heard as the heard. Having perceived the heard as the heard, he conceives himself as the heard, he conceives himself in the heard, he conceives himself apart from the heard, he conceives the heard to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the heard. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the sensed as the sensed. Having perceived the sensed as the sensed, he conceives himself as the sensed, he conceives himself in the sensed, he conceives himself apart from the sensed, he conceives the sensed to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the sensed. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives the cognized as the cognized. Having perceived the cognized as the cognized, he conceives himself as the cognized, he conceives himself in the cognized, he conceives himself apart from the cognized, he conceives the cognized to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the cognized. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives unity as unity. Having perceived unity as unity, he conceives himself as unity, he conceives himself in unity, he conceives himself apart from unity, he conceives unity to be ‘mine,’ he delights in unity. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives diversity as diversity. Having perceived diversity as diversity, he conceives himself as diversity, he conceives himself in diversity, he conceives himself apart from diversity, he conceives diversity to be ‘mine,’ he delights in diversity. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in all, he conceives himself apart from all, he conceives all to be ‘mine,’ he delights in all. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

The Disciple in Higher Training

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal, and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he should not conceive himself as earth, he should not conceive himself in earth, he should not conceive himself apart from earth, he should not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say. 28–49. “He directly knows water as water…He directly knows all as all…

“He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.

The Arahant—I

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

The Arahant—Ii

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from lust through the destruction of lust.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from lust through the destruction of lust.

The Arahant—Iii

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from hate through the destruction of hate.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from hate through the destruction of hate.

The Arahant—Iv

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.

The Tathāgata—I

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.

The Tathāgata—Ii

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.”

That is what the Blessed One said, but those bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One’s words.

Thus have I heard:

At one time the Lord was staying near Ukkatthā in the Subhaga Grove close to the great sāl-tree. While he was there the Lord addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks.”

“Revered One,” these monks answered the Lord in assent. The Lord spoke thus:

“I will teach you, monks, the synopsis of the fundamentals of all things. Listen, attend carefully, and I will speak.”

“Yes, Lord,” these monks answered the Lord in assent. The Lord spoke thus:

“This in this case, monks, where an uninstructed average person, taking no count of the pure ones, unskilled in the Dhamma of the pure ones, untrained in the Dhamma of the pure ones, taking no count of the true men, unskilled in the Dhamma of the true men, untrained in the Dhamma of the true men, recognises extension as extension; having recognised extension as extension, he thinks of extension, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) extension, he thinks (of self as) extension, he thinks, ‘Extension is mine.’ He rejoices in extension. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises liquid as liquid; having recognised liquid as liquid, he thinks of liquid, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he thinks (of self as) liquid, he thinks, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He rejoices in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises heat as heat; having recognised heat as heat, he thinks of heat, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) heat, he thinks (of self as) heat, he thinks, ‘Heat is mine.’ He rejoices in heat. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises motion as motion; having recognised motion as motion, he thinks of motion, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) motion, he thinks (of self as) motion, he thinks, ‘Motion is mine.’ He rejoices in motion. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises beings as beings; having recognised beings as beings, he thinks of beings, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) beings, he thinks (of self as) beings, he thinks, ‘Beings are mine.’ He rejoices in beings. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises devas as devas; having recognised devas as devas, he thinks of devas, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) devas, he thinks (of self as) devas, he thinks, ‘Devas are mine.’ He rejoices in devas. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises Pajāpati as Pajāpati; having recognised Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he thinks of Pajāpati, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he thinks (of self as) Pajāpati, he thinks, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He rejoices in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises Brahmā as Brahmā; having recognised Brahmā as Brahmā, he thinks of Brahmā, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he thinks (of self as) Brahmā, he thinks, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He rejoices in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; having recognised the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he thinks of the Radiant ones, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he thinks (of self as) the Radiant ones, he thinks, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He rejoices in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; having recognised the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he thinks of the Lustrous ones, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he thinks (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he thinks, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He rejoices in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); having recognised the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he thinks of the Vehapphalā (devas), he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he thinks (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he thinks, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He rejoices in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the Overlord as the Overlord; having recognised the Overlord as the Overlord, he thinks of the Overlord, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he thinks (of self as) the Overlord, he thinks, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He rejoices in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; having recognised the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he thinks of the plane of infinite ether, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he thinks (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he thinks, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He rejoices in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; having recognised the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he thinks of the plane of infinite consciousness, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he thinks (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he thinks, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He rejoices in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; having recognised the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he thinks of the plane of no-thing, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he thinks (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he thinks, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He rejoices in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; having recognised the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he thinks of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he thinks (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he thinks, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He rejoices in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the seen as the seen; having recognised the seen as the seen, he thinks of the seen, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he thinks (of self as) the seen, he thinks, ‘The seen is mine.’ He rejoices in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the heard as the heard; having recognised the heard as the heard, he thinks of the heard, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he thinks (of self as) the heard, he thinks, ‘The heard is mine.’ He rejoices in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the sensed as the sensed; having recognised the sensed as the sensed, he thinks of the sensed, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he thinks (of self as) the sensed, he thinks, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He rejoices in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises the cognised as the cognised; having recognised the cognised as the cognised, he thinks of the cognised, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he thinks (of self as) the cognised, he thinks, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He rejoices in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises unity as unity; having recognised unity as unity, he thinks of unity, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) unity, he thinks (of self as) unity, he thinks, ‘Unity is mine.’ He rejoices in unity. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises diversity as diversity; having recognised diversity as diversity, he thinks of diversity, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he thinks (of self as) diversity, he thinks, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He rejoices in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises universality as universality; having recognised universality as universality, he thinks of universality, he thinks (of self) in (regard to) universality, he thinks (of self as) universality, he thinks, ‘Universality is mine.’ He rejoices in universality. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

He recognises Nibbāna as Nibbāna; having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he thinks of Nibbāna, he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna, he thinks, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He rejoices in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

Monks, whatever monk is a learner, not attained to perfection, but who lives striving for the incomparable security from bondage, he intuitively knows extension as extension; from intuitively knowing extension as extension, let him not think of extension, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, let him not think (of self) as extension, let him not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, let him not think of liquid, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, let him not think (of self as) liquid, let him not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, let him not think of heat, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, let him not think (of self as) heat, let him not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, let him not think of motion, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, let him not think (of self as) motion, let him not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, let him not think of beings, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, let him not think (of self as) beings, let him not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ Let him not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, let him not think of devas, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, let him not think (of self as) devas, let him not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ Let him not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, let him not think of Pajāpati, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, let him not think (of self as) Pajāpati, let him not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, let him not think of Brahmā, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, let him not think (of self as) Brahmā, let him not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, let him not think of the Radiant ones, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, let him not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, let him not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, let him not think of the Lustrous ones, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, let him not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, let him not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), let him not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), let him not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), let him not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, let him not think of the Overlord, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, let him not think (of self as) the Overlord, let him not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, let him not think of the plane of infinite ether, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, let him not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, let him not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, let him not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, let him not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, let him not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, let him not think of the plane of no-thing, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, let him not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, let him not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, let him not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, let him not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, let him not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, let him not think of the seen, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, let him not think (of self as) the seen, let him not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, let him not think of the heard, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, let him not think (of self as) the heard, let him not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, let him not think of the sensed, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, let him not think (of self as) the sensed, let him not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, let him not think of the cognised, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, let him not think (of self as) the cognised, let him not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, let him not think of unity, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, let him not think (of self as) unity, let him not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, let him not think of diversity, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, let him not think (of self as) diversity, let him not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, let him not think of universality, let him not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, let him not think (of self as) universality, let him not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, let him not think of Nibbāna, let him not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, let him not think (of self as) Nibbāna, let him not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ Let him not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

Monks, whatever monk is one perfected, canker-waned, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away, who is freed by perfect profound knowledge. He too intuitively knows extension as extension; from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

Monks, whatever monk is one perfected, canker-waned, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away, who is freed by perfect profound knowledge. He too intuitively knows extension as extension from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

Monks, whatever monk is one perfected, canker-waned, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away, who is freed by perfect profound knowledge. He too intuitively knows extension as extension from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

Monks, whatever monk is one perfected, canker-waned, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away, who is freed by perfect profound knowledge. He too intuitively knows extension as extension from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

The Tathāgata, monks, perfected one, fully Self-awakened One, also intuitively knows extension as extension; from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think ’Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

And, monks, the Tathāgata also, perfected one, fully Self-awakened One, intuitively knows extension as extension; from intuitively knowing extension as extension, he does not think of extension, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension, he does not think (of self) as extension, he does not think, ‘Extension is mine.’ He does not rejoice in extension. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid; from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid, he does not think of liquid, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid, he does not think (of self as) liquid, he does not think, ‘Liquid is mine.’ He does not rejoice in liquid. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows heat as heat; from intuitively knowing heat as heat, he does not think of heat, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat, he does not think (of self as) heat, he does not think, ‘Heat is mine.’ He does not rejoice in heat. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows motion as motion; from intuitively knowing motion as motion, he does not think of motion, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion, he does not think (of self as) motion, he does not think, ‘Motion is mine.’ He does not rejoice in motion. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows beings as beings; from intuitively knowing beings as beings, he does not think of beings, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings, he does not think (of self as) beings, he does not think, ‘Beings are mine.’ He does not rejoice in beings. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows devas as devas; from intuitively knowing devas as devas, he does not think of devas, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas, he does not think (of self as) devas, he does not think, ‘Devas are mine.’ He does not rejoice in devas. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows Pajāpati as Pajāpati; from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati, he does not think of Pajāpati, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati, he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati, he does not think, ‘Pajāpati is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Pajāpati. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā; from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā, he does not think of Brahmā, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā, he does not think (of self as) Brahmā, he does not think, ‘Brahmā is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Brahmā. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones; from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones, he does not think of the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones, he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones, he does not think, ‘The Radiant ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones; from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones, he does not think of the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones, he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones, he does not think, ‘The Lustrous ones are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas); from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas), he does not think, ‘The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas). What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord; from intuitively knowing the Overlord as the Overlord, he does not think of the Overlord, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, he does not think (of self as) the Overlord, he does not think, ‘The Overlord is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the Overlord. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether, he does not think of the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite ether is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness; from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness, he does not think, ‘The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing; from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing, he does not think of the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing, he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing, he does not think, ‘The plane of no-thing is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he does not think, ‘The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen; from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen, he does not think of the seen, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen, he does not think (of self as) the seen, he does not think, ‘The seen is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the seen. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard; from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard, he does not think of the heard, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard, he does not think (of self as) the heard, he does not think, ‘The heard is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the heard. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed; from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed, he does not think of the sensed, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed, he does not think (of self as) the sensed, he does not think, ‘The sensed is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the sensed. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised; from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised, he does not think of the cognised, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised, he does not think (of self as) the cognised, he does not think, ‘The cognised is mine.’ He does not rejoice in the cognised. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows unity as unity; from intuitively knowing unity as unity, he does not think of unity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity, he does not think (of self as) unity, he does not think, ‘Unity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in unity. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity; from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity, he does not think of diversity, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity, he does not think (of self as) diversity, he does not think, ‘Diversity is mine.’ He does not rejoice in diversity. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows universality as universality; from intuitively knowing universality as universality, he does not think of universality, he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality, he does not think (of self as) universality, he does not think, ‘Universality is mine.’ He does not rejoice in universality. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna; from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not think of Nibbāna, he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna, he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna, he does not think, ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ He does not rejoice in Nibbāna. What is the reason for this? It is because he, having known that delight is the root of anguish, knows that from becoming there is birth, and that there is old age and dying for the being. Consequently I say, monks, that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings, by dispassion, by stopping, by abandoning, by completely renouncing, is wholly self-awakened to the incomparable full self-awakening.”

Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said.

Discourse on the Synopsis of Fundamentals: The First

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Ukkaṭṭha, in the Subhaga Grove, at the root of a Sāla-Rāja tree. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks!” “Auspicious sir,” those monks replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this: “Monks, I will teach you a discourse on the root of all phenomena. Listen and carefully pay attention: I will speak.” “Yes, Bhante,” those monks replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this:

“Monks, here an unlearned ordinary person – one who does not see noble ones, who has not mastered the teaching of the noble ones, who is undisciplined in the teaching of the noble ones, does not see good people, has not mastered the teaching of good people, and who is undisciplined in the teaching of good people – perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, such a one conceives of earth, conceives in terms of earth, conceives from a basis of earth, conceives of earth as ‘me’, and delights in earth. For what reason? ‘A lack of complete understanding,’ I say.

“Such a one perceives water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind… devas as devas… Pajāpati¹ as Pajāpati… Brahma as Brahma… ābhassara² devas as ābhassara devas… vehapphala³ devas as vehapphala devas… a higher being⁴ as a higher being… the dimension of infinite space as the dimension of infinite space… the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized… unity as unity… variety as variety… all as all… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, such a one conceives of Nibbāna, conceives in terms of Nibbāna, conceives from a basis of Nibbāna, conceives of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and delights in Nibbāna. For what reason? ‘A lack of complete understanding,’ I say.

“Monks, a monk who is a trainee – one who has not yet achieved his purpose, who is still yearning for unsurpassable safety⁵ – understands earth as earth. Having understood earth as earth, do not conceive of earth, do not conceive in terms of earth, do not conceive from a basis of earth, do not conceive of earth as ‘me’, and do not delight in earth. For what reason? ‘It is to be completely understood,’ I say.

“He understands water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind… devas as devas… Pajāpati as Pajāpati… Brahma as Brahma… ābhassara devas as ābhassara devas… vehapphala devas as vehapphala devas… a higher being as a higher being… the dimension of infinite space as the dimension of infinite space… the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized… unity as unity… variety as variety… all as all… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, do not conceive of Nibbāna, do not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, do not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, do not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and do not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? ‘It is to be completely understood,’ I say.

“Monks, a monk who is an Arahant – one who has eliminated his corruptions, who has lived the spiritual life, who has completed the task, who has put down the burden, who has reached the true goal, who has completely eliminated the fetter of existence, who is liberated by right knowledge – understands earth as earth. Having understood earth as earth, he does not conceive of earth, does not conceive in terms of earth, does not conceive from a basis of earth, does not conceive of earth as ‘me’, and does not delight in earth. For what reason? ‘It has been completely understood,’ I say.

“He understands water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind… devas as devas… Pajāpati as Pajāpati… Brahma as Brahma… ābhassara devas as ābhassara devas… vehappala devas as vehapphala devas… a higher being as a higher being… the dimension of infinite space as the dimension of infinite space… the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception as the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized… unity as unity… variety as variety… all as all… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? ‘It has been completely understood,’ I say.

“Monks, a monk who is an Arahant – one who has eliminated his corruptions, who has lived the spiritual life, who has completed the task, who has put down the burden, who has reached the true goal, who has completely eliminated the fetter of existence, who is liberated by right knowledge – understands earth as earth… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? The elimination of lust⁶, the absence of lust.

“Monks, a monk who is an Arahant – one who has eliminated his corruptions, who has lived the spiritual life, who has completed the task, who has put down the burden, who has reached the true goal, who has completely eliminated the fetter of existence, who is liberated by right knowledge – understands earth as earth… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? The elimination of hatred, the absence of hatred.

“Monks, a monk who is an Arahant – one who has eliminated his corruptions, who has lived the spiritual life, who has completed the task, who has put down the burden, who has reached the true goal, who has completely eliminated the fetter of existence, who is liberated by right knowledge – understands earth as earth… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? The elimination of delusion, the absence of delusion.

“Monks, a Tathāgata – an Arahant, a fully self-enlightened one – understands earth as earth… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? ‘It has been completely understood by the Tathāgata,’ I say.

“Monks, a Tathāgata – an Arahant, a fully self-enlightened one – understands earth as earth… Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having understood Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive of Nibbāna, does not conceive in terms of Nibbāna, does not conceive from a basis of Nibbāna, does not conceive of Nibbāna as ‘me’, and does not delight in Nibbāna. For what reason? He knows that delight is the root of suffering, that from existence comes birth, and that anyone who comes into being experiences decay and dieing. Therefore, monks: ‘From the complete elimination, fading, cessation, relinquishment, and release of craving, a Tathāgata has attained the unsurpassable right awakening,’ I say.”

This is what the Blessed One said. Those monks did not delight in the Blessed One‘s speech.