mn.22 Majjhima Nikāya (Middle Discourses)

Thus have I heard:

At one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Now at that time a pernicious view had arisen like this in a monk named Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer: “In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Several monks heard: “A pernicious view has arisen to the monk named Ariṭṭha, who was formerly a vulture-trainer, like this: ‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.’” Then these monks approached the monk Ariṭṭha, who had formerly been a vulture-trainer; having approached, they spoke thus to the monk Ariṭṭha, who had formerly been a vulture-trainer:

“Is it true, as is said, reverend Ariṭṭha, that a pernicious view has arisen in you, like this: ‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all’?”

“Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Then these monks, anxious to dissuade the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer from that pernicious view, questioned him, cross-questioned him, and pressed for the reasons, and said:

“Do not speak thus, reverend Ariṭṭha, do not misrepresent the Lord; misrepresentation of the Lord is not at all seemly, and the Lord certainly would not speak thus. For, in many a figure, reverend Ariṭṭha, are things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, and in following these there is a veritable stumbling-block.

Sense-pleasures are said by the Lord to be of little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a lump of meat, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a torch of dry grass, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a pit of glowing embers, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to something borrowed, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to the fruits of a tree, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a slaughterhouse, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to an impaling stake, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a snake's head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.”

Yet the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer even while being questioned, cross-questioned and pressed for his reasons by these monks, expressed that pernicious view as before, obstinately holding and adhering to it:

“Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Since these monks were unable to dissuade the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer from that pernicious view, then these monks approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. While they were sitting down at a respectful distance, these monks spoke thus to the Lord:

“Lord, a pernicious view like this arose in the monk called Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer: ‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.’ And we heard, Lord, that a pernicious view like this had arisen in the monk called Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer: ‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.’

Then we, Lord, approached the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer; having approached, we spoke thus to the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer:

“Is it true, as is said, reverend Ariṭṭha, that a pernicious view has arisen in you like this:

‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all’?”

When this had been said, Lord, the monk Ariṭṭha, who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, spoke thus to us:

“Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Then we, Lord, anxious to dissuade the monk Ariṭṭha, who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, from that pernicious view, questioned him, cross-questioned him, pressed him for reasons, and said:

“Do not speak thus, reverend Ariṭṭha, do not misrepresent the Lord; misrepresentation of the Lord is not at all seemly, and the Lord certainly would not speak thus. For in many a figure, reverend Ariṭṭha, are things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, and in following these there is a veritable stumbling-block.

Sense-pleasures are said by the Lord to be of little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a lump of meat, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a torch of dry grass, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a pit of glowing embers, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to something borrowed, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to the fruits of a tree, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a slaughterhouse, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to an impaling stake, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a snake's head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.”

Yet, Lord, the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, even while being questioned, cross-questioned and pressed for his reasons by us, expressed that pernicious view as before, obstinately holding and adhering to it:

“Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Since we, Lord, were unable to dissuade the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer from that pernicious view, we are therefore telling this matter to the Lord.”

Then the Lord addressed a certain monk, saying:

“Come you, monk, summon the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer in my name, saying:

‘The Lord is summoning you, Ariṭṭha.’”

“Very well, Lord,” and this monk, having answered the Lord in assent, approached the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, and having approached, spoke thus to the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer:

“The Lord is summoning you, reverend Ariṭṭha.”

“Very well, your reverence,” and the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, having answered this monk in assent, approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance.

As the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer was sitting down at a respectful distance, the Lord spoke thus to him:

“Is it true, as is said, that in you, Ariṭṭha, a pernicious view arose like this:

‘In so far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all’?”

“Undoubtedly, Lord, as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

“To whom then do you, foolish man, understand that Dhamma was taught thus by me? Have not things that are tumbling-blocks been spoken of by me in many a figure, and in following these is there not a veritable stumbling-block?

Sense-pleasures are said by me to be of little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a lump of meat, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a torch of dry grass, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a pit of glowing embers, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to something borrowed, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to the fruits of a tree, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a slaughterhouse, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to an impaling stake, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a snake's head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

And yet you, foolish man, not only misrepresent me because of your own wrong grasp, but also injure yourself and give rise to much demerit which will be for a long time, foolish man, for your woe and sorrow.”

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying:

“What do you think about this, monks?

Has the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer even a glimmering of this Dhamma and Discipline?”

“How could this be, Lord? It is not so, Lord.”

When this had been said, the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer sat down silent, ashamed, his shoulders drooped, his head lowered, brooding, speechless. Then the Lord, understanding why the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer was silent, ashamed, his shoulders drooped, his head lowered, brooding, speechless, spoke thus to the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer:

“You, foolish man, will be known through this pernicious view of your own, for I will now interrogate the monks.”

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying:

“Do you too, monks, understand that Dhamma was taught by me thus, so that the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer not only misrepresents me because of his own wrong grasp, but is also injuring himself and giving rise to much demerit?”

“No, Lord. For, Lord, in many a figure are things that are stumbling-blocks spoken of to us by the Lord, and in following these there is a veritable stumbling-block.

Sense-pleasures are said by the Lord to be of little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a lump of meat, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a torch of dry grass, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a pit of glowing embers, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to something borrowed, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to the fruits of a tree, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a slaughterhouse, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to an impaling stake, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by the Lord to a snake's head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.”

“It is good, monks, it is good that you, monks, have thus understood Dhamma taught by me. For in many a figure have things that are stumbling-blocks been spoken of by me to you, monks, and in following these there is a veritable stumbling-block.

Sense-pleasures are said by me to be of little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a lump of meat, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a torch of dry grass, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a pit of glowing embers, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to something borrowed, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to the fruits of a tree, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a slaughterhouse, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to an impaling stake, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

Sense-pleasures are likened by me to a snake's head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.

But when this monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer not only misrepresents me, but also injures himself and gives rise to much demerit, this will be for a long time for the woe and sorrow of this foolish man. Indeed, monks, this situation does not occur when one could follow sense-pleasures apart from sense-pleasures themselves, apart from perceptions of sense-pleasures, apart from thoughts of sense-pleasures.

Herein, monks, some foolish men master Dhamma: the Discourses in prose, in prose and verse, the Expositions, the Verses, the Uplifting Verses, the ‘As it was Saids,’ the Birth Stories, the Wonders, the Miscellanies. These, having mastered that Dhamma, do not test the meaning of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these things whose meaning is untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at that goal for the sake of which they mastered Dhamma. These things, badly grasped by them conduce for a long time to their woe and sorrow. What is the reason for this? Monks, it is because of a wrong grasp of things.

Monks, it is like a man walking about aiming after a water-snake, searching for a water-snake, looking about for a water-snake. He might see a large water-snake, and he might take hold of it by a coil or by its tail; the water-snake, having rounded on him, might bite him on his hand or arm or on another part of his body; from this cause he might come to dying or to pain like unto dying. What is the reason for this? Monks, it is because of his wrong grasp of the water-snake.

Even so, monks, do some foolish men here master Dhamma: the Discourses in prose, in prose and verse, the Expositions, the Verses, the Uplifting Verses, the ‘As it was Saids,’ the Birth Stories, the Wonders, the Miscellanies. These, having mastered that Dhamma, do not test the meaning of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these things whose meaning is untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at that goal for the sake of which they mastered Dhamma. These things, badly grasped by them conduce for a long time to their woe and sorrow. What is the reason for this? Monks, it is because of a wrong grasp of things.

In this case, monks, some young men of family master Dhamma; the discourses in prose, in prose and verse, the Expositions, the Verses, the Uplifting Verses, the ‘As it was Saids,’ the Birth Stories, the Wonders, the Miscellanies. These, having mastered that Dhamma, test the meaning of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these things whose meaning is tested by intuitive wisdom become clear to them. They master Dhamma neither for the advantage of reproaching others nor for the advantage of gossiping, and they arrive at the goal for the sake of which they mastered Dhamma. These things, being well grasped by them, conduce for a long time to their welfare and happiness. What is the reason for this? It is, monks, because of a right grasp of things.

Monks, it is like a man walking about aiming after a water-snake, searching for a water-snake, looking about for a water-snake. He might see a large water-snake, and he might hold it back skilfully with a forked stick; having held it back skilfully with a forked stick, he might grasp it properly by the neck. However that water-snake, monks, might wind its coils round that man's hand or arm or round another part of his body, he would not come to dying or to pain like unto dying. What is the reason for this? Monks, it is because of his right grasp of the water-snake.

In this case, monks, some young men of family master Dhamma; the discourses in prose, in prose and verse, the Expositions, the Verses, the Uplifting Verses, the ‘As it was Saids,’ the Birth Stories, the Wonders, the Miscellanies. These, having mastered that Dhamma, test the meaning of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these things whose meaning is tested by intuitive wisdom become clear to them. They master Dhamma neither for the advantage of reproaching others nor for the advantage of gossiping, and they arrive at the goal for the sake of which they mastered Dhamma. These things, being well grasped by them, conduce for a long time to their welfare and happiness. What is the reason for this? It is, monks, because of a right grasp of things.

Wherefore, monks, understand the meaning of what I have said, then learn it. But in case you do not understand the meaning of what I have said, I should be questioned about it by you, or else those who are experienced monks.

Monks, I will teach you Dhamma—the Parable of the Raft—for crossing over, not for retaining. Listen to it, pay careful attention, and I will speak.”

“Yes, Lord,” these monks answered the Lord in assent.

“Monks, as a man going along a highway might see a great stretch of water, the hither bank dangerous and frightening, the further bank secure, not frightening, but if there were not a boat for crossing by or a bridge across for going from the not-beyond to the beyond, this might occur to him:

‘This is a great stretch of water, the hither bank dangerous and frightening, the further bank secure and not frightening, but there is not a boat for crossing by or a bridge across for going from the not-beyond to the beyond. Suppose that I, having collected grass, sticks, branches and foliage, and having tied a raft, depending on that raft, and striving with hands and feet, should cross over safely to the beyond?’

Then, monks, that man, having collected grass, sticks, branches and foliage, having tied a raft, depending on that raft and striving with his hands and feet, might cross over safely to the beyond. To him, crossed over, gone beyond, this might occur:

‘Now, this raft has been very useful to me. I, depending on this raft, and striving with my hands and feet, crossed over safely to the beyond. Suppose now that I, having put this raft on my head, or having lifted it on to my shoulder, should proceed as I desire?’

What do you think about this, monks? If that man does this, is he doing what should be done with that raft?”

“No, Lord.”

“What should that man do, monks, in order to do what should be done with that raft? In this case, monks, it might occur to that man who has crossed over, gone beyond:

‘Now, this raft has been very useful to me. Depending on this raft and striving with my hands and feet, I have crossed over safely to the beyond. Suppose now that I, having beached this raft on dry ground or having submerged it under the water, should proceed as I desire?’

In doing this, monks, that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. Even so, monks, is the Parable of the Raft Dhamma taught by me for crossing over, not for retaining. You, monks, by understanding the Parable of the Raft, should get rid even of (right) mental objects, all the more of wrong ones.

Monks, there are these six views with causal relations. What are the six? In this connection, monks, 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,

regards material shape as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

He regards feeling as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

He regards perception as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

He regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘These are mine, this am I, this is my self.’

He regards consciousness as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

Also whatever view with causal relation says: ‘This the world, this the self; after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal.’ He regards this as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’

But, monks, an instructed disciple of the pure ones, taking count of the pure ones, skilled in the Dhamma of the pure ones, well trained in the Dhamma of the pure ones, taking count of the true men, skilled in the Dhamma of the true men, well trained in the Dhamma of the true men,

regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

He regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

He regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

He regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘These are not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

He regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

Also whatever view with causal relation says: ‘This the world this the self, after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal.’ He regards this as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’

He, regarding thus that which does not exist, will not be anxious.”

When this had been said, a certain monk spoke thus to the Lord:

“But Lord, might there not be anxiety about something objective that does not exist?”

“There might be, monk,” the Lord said.

“In this case, monk, it occurs to somebody:

‘What was certainly mine is certainly not mine (now); what might certainly be mine, there is certainly no chance of my getting.’

He grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, and falls into disillusionment.

Even so, monks, does there come to be anxiety about something objective that does not exist.”

“But might there be, Lord, no anxiety about something objective that does not exist?”

“There might be, monk,” the Lord said.

“In this case, monk, it does not occur to anybody:

‘What was certainly mine is certainly not mine (now); what might certainly be mine, there is certainly no chance of my getting.’

He does not grieve, mourn, lament, he does not beat his breast, he does not fall into disillusionment.

Even so, monk, does there come to be no anxiety about something objective that does not exist.”

“But, Lord, might there be anxiety about something subjective that does not exist?”

“There might be, monk,’ the Lord said.

“In this case, monk, the view occurs to someone:

‘This the world this the self; after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal.’

He hears Dhamma as it is being taught by the Tathāgata or by a disciple of the Tathāgata for rooting out all resolve for, bias, tendency and addiction to view and causal relation, for tranquillising all the activities, for casting away all attachment, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, stopping, nibbāna.

It occurs to him thus:

‘I will surely be annihilated, I will surely be destroyed, I will surely not be.’

He grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, and falls into disillusionment.

Thus, monk, there comes to be anxiety about something subjective that does not exist.”

“But, Lord, might there be no anxiety about something subjective that does not exist?”

“There might be, monk,” the Lord said.

“In this case, monk, the view does not occur to anyone:

‘This the world this the self, after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal.’

He hears Dhamma as it is being taught by the Tathāgata or by a disciple of the Tathāgata for rooting out all resolve for, bias, tendency and addiction to view and causal relation, for tranquillising all the activities, for casting away all attachment, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, stopping, nibbāna.

But it does not occur to him thus:

‘I will surely be annihilated, I will surely be destroyed, I will surely not be.’

So he does not grieve, mourn, lament, he does not beat his breast, he does not fall into disillusionment.

Thus, monk, does there come to be no anxiety about something subjective that does not exist.

Monks, could you take hold of some possession, the possession of which would be permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, that would stand fast like unto the eternal? But do you, monks, see that possession the possession of which would be permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, that would stand fast like unto the eternal?”

“No, Lord.”

“Good, monks. Neither do I, monks, see that possession the possession of which is permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, that would stand fast like unto the eternal.

Could you, monks, grasp that grasping of the theory of self, so that by grasping that theory of self, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair? But do you, monks, see that grasping of the theory of self, from the grasping of which theory of self, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair?”

“No, Lord.”

“Good, monks. Neither do I, monks, see that grasping of the theory of self from the grasping of which, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair.

Could you, monks, depend on that dependence on view, depending on which dependence on view, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair? But do you, monks, see that dependence on view, from depending on which dependence on view, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair?”

“No, Lord.”

“Good, monks. Neither do I, monks, see that dependence on view by depending on which dependence on view, there would not arise grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, despair.

If, monks, there were Self, could it be said: ‘It belongs to my self’?”

“Yes, Lord.”

“Or, monks, if there were what belongs to Self, could it be said: ‘It is my self’?”

“Yes, Lord.”

“But if Self, monks, and what belongs to Self, although actually existing, are incomprehensible, is not the view and the causal relation that: ‘This the world this the self, after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal’—is not this, monks, absolute complete folly?”

“Lord, how could it not be absolute complete folly?”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is material shape permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”

“Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, as ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’?”

“No, Lord.”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is feeling permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”

“Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, as ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’?”

“No, Lord.”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is perception permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”

“Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, as ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’?”

“No, Lord.”

“What do you think about this, monks: Are the habitual tendencies permanent or impermanent?

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”

“Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, as ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’?”

“No, Lord.”

What do you think about this, monks: Is onsciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“Is that which is impermanent painful or pleasant?”

“Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, as ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’?”

“No, Lord.”

“Wherefore, monks, whatever is material shape, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near—all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.

Whatever is feeling, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near—all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.

Whatever is perception, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near—all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.

Whatever are the habitual tendencies, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near—all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.

Whatever is consciousness, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near—all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.

Monks, the instructed disciple of the pure ones, seeing thus, disregards material shape, disregards feeling, disregards perception, disregards the habitual tendencies, disregards consciousness; disregarding, he is dispassionate; through dispassion he is freed; in freedom the knowledge comes to be that he is freed, and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close is the Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or such.

Monks, such a monk is said to have lifted the barrier, and he is said to have filled the moat, and he is said to have pulled up the pillar, and he is said to have withdrawn the bolts, and he is said to be a pure one, the flag laid low, the burden dropped, without fetters.

And how, monks, has a monk lifted the barrier? In this connection, monks, ignorance is got rid of by the monk, cut down to the roots, made like a palm-tree stump, made so that it can come to no future existence, not liable to rise again. In this way, monks, a monk comes to be one who has lifted the barrier.

And how, monks, does a monk come to be one who has filled the moat? In this connection, monks, again-becoming, faring on in births come to be got rid of by a monk, cut down to the roots, made like a palm-tree stump, made so that they can come to no future existence, not liable to rise again. In this way, monks, a monk comes to be one who has filled the moat.

And how, monks, does a monk come to be one who has pulled up the pillar? In this connection, monks, craving comes to be got rid of by a monk, cut down to the roots, made like a palm-tree stump, made so that they can come to no future existence, not liable to rise again. In this way, monks, is a monk one who has pulled up the pillar.

And how, monks, does a monk come to be one who has withdrawn the bolts? In this connection, monks, the five fetters binding to the lower (shore) come to be got rid of by a monk, cut down to the roots, made like a palm-tree stump, made so that they can come to no future existence, not liable to rise again. In this way, monks, does a monk come to be one who has withdrawn the bolts.

And how, monks, does a monk come to be a pure one, the flag laid low, the burden dropped, without fetters? In this connection, monks, the conceit ‘I am’ comes to be got rid of by the monk, cut down to the roots, made like a palm-tree stump, made so that they can come to no future existence, not liable to rise again. In this way, monks, a monk comes to be a pure one, the flag laid low, the burden dropped, without fetters.

Monks, when a monk's mind is freed thus, the devas—those with Inda, those with Brahmā, those with Pajāpati, do not succeed in their search if they think: ‘This is the discriminative consciousness attached to a Tathāgata.’ What is the reason for this? I, monks, say here and now that a Tathāgata is untraceable.

Although I, monks, am one who speaks thus, who points out thus, there are some recluses and brahmans who misrepresent me untruly, vainly, falsely, not in accordance with fact, saying: ‘The recluse Gotama is a nihilist, he lays down the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existent entity. But as this, monks, is just what I am not, as this is just what I do not say, therefore these worthy recluses and brahmans misrepresent me untruly, vainly, falsely, and not in accordance with fact when they say: ‘The recluse Gotama is a nihihst, he lays down the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existent entity.’

Formerly I, monks, as well as now, lay down simply anguish and the stopping of anguish. If, in regard to this, monks, others revile, abuse, annoy the Tathāgata, there is in the Tathāgata no resentment, no distress, no dissatisfaction of mind concerning them. If, in regard to this, monks, others revere, esteem, respect and honour the Tathāgata, there is in the Tathāgata no joy, no gladness, no elation of mind concerning them. If, in regard to this, monks, others revere, esteem, respect and honour the Tathāgata, it occurs to the Tathāgata, monks, concerning them: ‘This that was formerly thoroughly known, such kind of duties are to be done by me to it.’

Wherefore, monks, even if others should revile, abuse, annoy you, there should be in you no resentment, distress, dissatisfaction of mind concerning them. And wherefore, monks, even if others should revere, esteem, respect, honour you, there should not be in you joy, gladness, elation of mind concerning them. And wherefore, monks, even if others should revere, esteem, respect, honour you, it should occur to you: ‘This that was formerly thoroughly known, such kind of duties are to be done by us to it.’

Wherefore, monks, what is not yours, put it away. Putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. And what, monks, is not yours? Material shape, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Feeling, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Perception, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. The habitual tendencies, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Consciousness, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness.

What do you think about this, monks? If a person were to gather or burn or do as he pleases with the grass, twigs, branches and foliage in this Jeta Grove, would it occur to you: The person is gathering us, he is burning us, he is doing as he pleases with us?”

“No, Lord. What is the reason for this? It is that this, Lord, is not our self nor what belongs to self.”

“Even so, monks, what is not yours, put it away; putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. And what, monks, is not yours? Material shape, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Feeling, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Perception, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. The habitual tendencies, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. Consciousness, monks, is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for yourwelfare and happiness.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, those monks who are perfected ones, the cankers destroyed, who have lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained their own goal, the fetter of becoming utterly destroyed, and who are freed by perfect profound knowledge—the track of these cannot be discerned.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, those monks in whom the five fetters binding the lower (shore) are got rid of—all these are of spontaneous uprising, they are attainers of utter nibbāna there, not liable to return from that world.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, those monks in whom the three fetters are got rid of, in whom attachment, aversion and confusion are reduced, all these are once-returners who, having come back to this world once, will make an end of anguish.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, those monks in whom the three fetters are got rid of, all these are stream-attainers who, not liable to the Downfall, are assured, bound for awakening.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, all those monks who are striving for Dhamma, striving for faith are bound for awakening.

Thus, monks, is Dhamma well taught by me, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings. Because Dhamma has been well taught by me thus, made manifest, opened up, made known, stripped of its swathings, all those who have enough faith in me, enough affection, are bound for heaven.”

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

Discourse on the Parable of the Water-snake: The Second

Setting

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, thus: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.

Several bhikkhus, having heard about this, went to the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha and asked him: “Friend Ariṭṭha, is it true that such a pernicious view has arisen in you?”

“Exactly so, friends. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.”

Then these bhikkhus, desiring to detach him from that pernicious view, pressed and questioned and cross-questioned him thus: “Friend Ariṭṭha, do not say so. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. For in many ways the Blessed One has stated how obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them. The Blessed One has stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the piece of meat…with the simile of the grass torch…with the simile of the pit of coals…with the simile of the dream…with the simile of the borrowed goods…with the simile of fruits on a tree…with the simile of the butcher’s knife and block…with the simile of the sword stake…with the simile of the snake’s head, the Blessed One has stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more.”

Yet although pressed and questioned and cross-questioned by those bhikkhus in this way, the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, still obstinately adhered to that pernicious view and continued to insist upon it.

Since the bhikkhus were unable to detach him from that pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred, adding: “Venerable sir, since we could not detach the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, from this pernicious view, we have reported this matter to the Blessed One.”

Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: “Come, bhikkhu, tell the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, in my name that the Teacher calls him.”— “Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha and told him: “The Teacher calls you, friend Ariṭṭha.”

“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked him: “Ariṭṭha, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them’?”

“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.”

“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways how obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them? I have stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the piece of meat…with the simile of the grass torch…with the simile of the pit of coals…with the simile of the dream…with the simile of the borrowed goods…with the simile of fruits on a tree…with the simile of the butcher’s knife and block…with the simile of the sword stake…with the simile of the snake’s head, I have stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. But you, misguided man, by your wrong grasp have misrepresented us, injured yourself, and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, kindled even a spark of wisdom in this Dhamma and Discipline?”

“How could he, venerable sir? No, venerable sir.”

When this was said, the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, dismayed, with shoulders drooping and head down, glum, and without response. Then, knowing this, the Blessed One told him: “Misguided man, you will be recognised by your own pernicious view. I shall question the bhikkhus on this matter.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, do you understand the Dhamma taught by me as this bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, does when by his wrong grasp he misrepresents us, injures himself and stores up much demerit?”

“No, venerable sir. For in many ways the Blessed One has stated how obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them. The Blessed One has stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the snake’s head, the Blessed One has stated…that the danger in them is still more.”

“Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated how obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them. I have stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the snake’s head, I have stated…that the danger in them is still more. But this bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, formerly of the vulture killers, by his wrong grasp misrepresents us, injures himself, and stores up much demerit; for this will lead to this misguided man’s harm and suffering for a long time.

“Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire—that is impossible.

The Simile of the Snake

“Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma—discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions—but having learned the Dhamma, they do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma only for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.

“Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tail. It would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his limbs, and because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering. Why is that? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. So too, here some misguided men learn the Dhamma…Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.

“Here, bhikkhus, some clansmen learn the Dhamma—discourses…answers to questions—and having learned the Dhamma, they examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them. They do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that? Because of the right grasp of those teachings.

“Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and caught it rightly with a cleft stick, and having done so, grasped it rightly by the neck. Then although the snake might wrap its coils round his hand or his arm or his limbs, still he would not come to death or deadly suffering because of that. Why is that? Because of his right grasp of the snake. So too, here some clansmen learn the Dhamma… Why is that? Because of the right grasp of those teachings.

“Therefore, bhikkhus, when you understand the meaning of my statements, remember it accordingly; and when you do not understand the meaning of my statements, then ask either me about it or those bhikkhus who are wise.

The Simile of the Raft

“Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.

“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to the teachings.

Standpoints for Views

“Bhikkhus, there are these six standpoints for views. What are the six? 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, regards material form thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’

“Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent.”

Agitation

When this was said, a certain bhikkhu asked the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent externally?”

“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone thinks thus: ‘Alas, I had it! Alas, I have it no longer! Alas, may I have it! Alas, I do not get it!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent externally.”

“Venerable sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent externally?”

“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone does not think thus: ‘Alas I had it! Alas, I have it no longer! Alas, may I have it! Alas, I do not get it!’ Then he does not sorrow, grieve, and lament, he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. That is how there is no agitation about what is non-existent externally.”

“Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent internally?”

“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone has the view: ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbāna. He thinks thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally.”

“Venerable sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent internally?”

“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone does not have the view: ‘That which is the self is the world…I shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbāna. He does not think thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he does not sorrow, grieve, and lament, he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. That is how there is no agitation about what is non-existent internally.

Impermanence and not Self

“Bhikkhus, you may well acquire that possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity. But do you see any such possession, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity.

“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

“Bhikkhus, you may well take as a support that view that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes it as a support. But do you see any such support of views, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any support of views that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes it as a support.

“Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is material form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is feeling… Is perception… Are formations… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of material form whatever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Any kind of feeling whatever… Any kind of perception whatever… Any kind of formations whatever … Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with formations, disenchanted with consciousness.

“Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’

The Arahant

“Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is called one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose trench has been filled in, whose pillar has been uprooted, one who has no bolt, a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.

“And how is the bhikkhu one whose cross-bar has been lifted? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, done away with it, so that it is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one whose cross-bar has been lifted.

“And how is the bhikkhu one whose trench has been filled in? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the round of births that brings renewed being, has cut it off at the root…so that it is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one whose trench has been filled in.

“And how is the bhikkhu one whose pillar has been uprooted? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root…so that it is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one whose pillar has been uprooted.

“And how is the bhikkhu one who has no bolt? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root…so that they are no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one who has no bolt.

“And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.

“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now.

Misrepresentation of the Tathāgata

“So saying, bhikkhus, so proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’

“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no annoyance, bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account thinks thus: ‘They perform such services as these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’

“Therefore, bhikkhus, if others abuse, revile, scold, and harass you, on that account you should not entertain any annoyance, bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect, revere, and venerate you, on that account you should not entertain any delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others honour, respect, revere, and venerate you, on that account you should think thus: ‘They perform such services as these for us in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’

Not Yours

“Therefore, bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. What is it that is not yours? Material form is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Feeling is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Perception is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Formations are not yours. Abandon them. When you have abandoned them, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Consciousness is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? If people carried off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burned them, or did what they liked with them, would you think: ‘People are carrying us off or burning us or doing what they like with us’?”—“No, venerable sir. Why not? Because that is neither our self nor what belongs to our self.”—“So too, bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. What is it that is not yours? Material form is not yours…Feeling is not yours…Perception is not yours…Formations are not yours…Consciousness is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.

In This Dhamma

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork, there is no future round for manifestation in the case of those bhikkhus who are arahants with taints destroyed, who have lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and are completely liberated through final knowledge.

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who have abandoned the five lower fetters are all due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna, without ever returning from that world.

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who have abandoned three fetters and attenuated lust, hate, and delusion are all once-returners, returning once to this world to make an end of suffering.

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who have abandoned three fetters are all stream-enterers, no longer subject to perdition, bound for deliverance and headed for enlightenment.

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who are Dhamma-followers or faith-followers are all headed for enlightenment.

“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork, those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven.”

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

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthi, at Jeta‘s Grove, in Anāthapiṇḍika‘s Park. On that occasion there was a monk named Ariṭṭha, who had previously been a vulture-trapper, and in whom a harmful opinion had arisen to this effect: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.” Many monks heard, “Apparently there is a monk named Ariṭṭha, who was previously a vulture-trapper, and in whom a harmful opinion has arisen to this effect: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.’”

Then those monks approached Venerable Ariṭṭha and said to him, “Venerable Ariṭṭha, is it true that a harmful opinion that arisen in you to this effect: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them’?”

“Yes, Venerables. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.”

Then those monks, wishing to separate the monk Ariṭṭha from that harmful opinion, enjoined, pressured, and entreated him: “Venerable Ariṭṭha, do not speak in that way, do not slander the Blessed One; it is not good to slander the Blessed One, it is not good to speak about the Blessed One in that way. Venerable Ariṭṭha, in many ways obstructive things have been spoken about by the Blessed One as obstructive. They are obstructive for one who indulges in them. Sensuality has been spoken about by the Blessed One as bringing little gratification, much suffering, and much anguish; the drawback here is greater than the gratification. Sensuality has been spoken about by the Blessed One using the simile of the skeleton… the simile of the piece of meat… the simile of the charcoal pit… the simile of the dream… the simile of the borrower… the simile of the tree-fruit… the simile of the chopping-block… the simile of the spear… the simile of the serpent‘s head. It brings much suffering and much anguish; the drawback here is greater than the gratification.” But although the monk Ariṭṭha was enjoined, pressured, and entreated in this way by those monks, he still stubbornly held on to and professed that harmful opinion: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.”

When those monks were not able to separate the monk Ariṭṭha from that harmful opinion, they approached the Blessed One, paid respects to him, and sat to one side. While they were seated to one side, those monks said to the Blessed One, “Bhante, a harmful opinion has arisen in the monk named Ariṭṭha to this effect: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.’ Bhante, we heard that ‘A harmful opinion has arisen in the monk named Ariṭṭha…’ Then, Bhante, we went to the monk Ariṭṭha and said to him, ‘Venerable Ariṭṭha, is it true…?’ Then, Bhante, we enjoined, pressured, and entreated him in this way… Bhante, when we were not able to separate the monk Ariṭṭha from that harmful opinion, we reported this matter to the Blessed One.”

Then the Blessed One said to a certain monk, “Go, monk, and summon the monk Ariṭṭha using my words: ‘Venerable Ariṭṭha, the Teacher summons you.’”

“Yes, Bhante,” that monk replied to the Blessed One. He went to the monk Ariṭṭha and said to him, “Venerable Ariṭṭha, the Teacher summons you.”

“Yes, Venerable,” the monk Ariṭṭha replied to that monk. He approached the Blessed One, paid respects, and sat to one side.

When the monk Ariṭṭha was seated to one side, the Blessed One said to him, “Ariṭṭha, is it true that a harmful opinion has arisen in you to this effect: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them’?”

“Yes, Bhante. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things which are spoken of by the Blessed One as obstructive are not obstructive for one who indulges in them.”

“You foolish man, how could you understand in that way the Dhamma taught by me? Foolish man, isn‘t it true that in many ways obstructive things have been spoken about by me as obstructive? They are obstructive for one who indulges in them. Sensuality has been spoken about by me as bringing little gratification, much suffering, and much anguish; the drawback here is greater than the gratification. Sensuality has been spoken about by the Blessed One using the simile of the skeleton… the simile of the piece of meat… the simile of the charcoal pit… the simile of the dream… the simile of the borrower… the simile of the tree-fruit… the simile of the chopping-block… the simile of the spear… the simile of the serpent‘s head. It brings much suffering and much anguish; the drawback here is greater than the gratification. Then you, foolish man, slander me with your bad grasp of the teaching. You ruin yourself and accumulate much demerit. Foolish man, this will be for your long-term detriment and suffering.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “What do you think, monks? Has this monk Ariṭṭha produced even a spark of wisdom in this Dhamma-Vinaya?”

“How could that be, Bhante? Certainly not, Bhante.”

When this was said, the monk Ariṭṭha become silent and ashamed, and he sat with shoulders slumped and face downcast, sulky and unresponsive. Knowing that the monk Ariṭṭha was silent and ashamed, sitting with his shoulders slumped and face downcast, sulky and unresponsive, the Blessed One said to him, “Foolish man, you will be known by your own harmful opinion. I will question the monks about this.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, do you understand the Dhamma taught by me in the same way that the monk Ariṭṭha does, when he slanders me with his bad grasp of the teaching, ruining himself and accumulate much demerit?”

“Certainly not, Bhante. Bhante, in many ways obstructive things have been spoken about by the Blessed One as obstructive… the drawback here is greater than the gratification.”

“Good, good, monks. Monks, it is good that you understand in this way the Dhamma taught by me. Monks, in many ways obstructive things have been spoken about by me as obstructive… the drawback here is greater than the gratification. Then this monk Ariṭṭha slanders me with his bad grasp of the teaching, ruining himself and accumulating much demerit. That will be for this foolish man‘s long-term detriment and suffering. Monks, it is not possible for one to indulge in sensuality without sensual desires, sensual perceptions, and sensual thoughts.

The Simile of the Viper

“Monks, here some foolish person learns¹ the Dhamma – discourses, poems, explanations, verses, exclamations, reports, birth-stories, wonders, and discussions². Having learned the Dhamma, he does not wisely examine its meaning. Since the meaning of those teachings has not been wisely examined by him, they are not accepted³ by him. He just learns the Dhamma so he can argue, so he can refute other people‘s statements. He learns the Dhamma, but he does not manifest its benefit. His bad grasp of the teachings leads to his long-term detriment and suffering. For what reason? Monks, because of the bad grasp of the teachings.

“Monks, imagine that a man needed a viper, was seeking a viper, was going about searching for a viper. He might see a large viper, and grab it by its body or tail. Then that viper would curl around and bite his hand or arm or one of his other limbs. Because of that he would die, or experience death-like pain. For what reason? Monks, because of the bad grasp of the viper. In the same way, monks, here some foolish man learns the Dhamma… His bad grasp of the teachings leads to his long-term detriment and suffering. For what reason? Monks, because of the bad grasp of the teachings.

“Monks, here some gentleman learns the Dhamma – discourses, poems, explanations, verses, exclamations, reports, birth-stories, wonders, and discussions. Having learned the Dhamma, he wisely examines its meaning. Since the meaning of those teachings has been wisely examined by him, they are accepted by him. He does not learn the Dhamma just so he can argue, nor just so he can refute other people‘s statements. He learns the Dhamma and manifests its benefit. His good grasp of the teachings leads to his long-term benefit and happiness. For what reason? Monks, because of the good grasp of the teachings.

“Monks, imagine that a man needed a viper, was seeking a viper, was going about searching for a viper. He might see a large viper, and pin it down well using a forked stick. Having pinned it down well using a forked stick, he would grasp it well by the neck. Monks, even though that snake might wrap its body around his hand or arm or one of his other limbs, he would not die or experience death-like pain because of that. For what reason? Monks, because of the good grasp of the viper. In the same way, monks, here some gentleman learns the Dhamma… His good grasp of the teachings leads to his long-term benefit and happiness. For what reason? Monks, because of the good grasp of the teachings.

“Therefore, monks, understand the meaning of what I have said and remember it accordingly. And if you do not understand the meaning of what I have said, you should discuss it with me or with one of the other competent monks.

The Simile of the Raft

“Monks, I will teach you how the Dhamma is like a raft; it is to be used for the sake of escaping⁴, not for the sake of grasping. Listen to this and carefully pay attention; I will speak.”

“Yes, Bhante,” those monks replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this:

“Monks, imagine that a person was traveling on a road. He might see a large river, the near shore of which is risky and dangerous, and the far shore of which is safe and harmless; but there is no ferry-boat or bridge or any other way to cross. He would think, ‘The near shore of this large river is risky and dangerous, and the far shore is safe and harmless; but there is no ferry-boat or bridge or any other way to cross. Perhaps I will gather grass and wood and branches and leaves, bind them together into a raft, and then, relying on that raft, I will make an effort with my arms and legs to cross safely to the other side.’

“Then, monks, that person gathered grass and wood and branches and leaves, bound them together into a raft, and then, relying on that raft, he made an effort with his arms and legs to cross safely to the other side. When he reached the other side, he would think, ‘This raft has done much for me; relying on this raft and making an effort with my arms and legs, I crossed safely to the other side. Perhaps I will put this raft on my head or carry it on my shoulders as I go about doing what I wish to do.’ What do you think, monks – is this person doing what should be done with that raft?”

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“Monks, how could this person do what should be done with that raft? Here, monks, when he reached the other side, he would think, ‘This raft has done much for me; relying on this raft and making an effort with my arms and legs, I crossed safely to the other side. Perhaps I will leave it on the ground or floating in the water as I go about doing what I wish to do.’ Monks, this person is doing what should be done with that raft.

“In the same way, monks, I have taught you how the Dhamma is like a raft; it is for the purpose of escaping, not for the the purpose of grasping. Monks, I have taught you how the Dhamma is like a raft; those who understand this are to let go even of Dhamma, let alone non-Dhamma.

Six Standpoints of Wrong View

“Monks, there are six standpoints of wrong view. What six?

“Here, monks, an uneducated commoner – one who does not see the noble ones, has not mastered the teachings of the noble ones, is undisciplined in the teachings of the noble ones, does not see good people, has not mastered the teachings of good people, and is undisciplined in the teachings of good people – he sees the body as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; he sees identification as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; he sees mental objects as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; he sees whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or explored with the mind as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; or based on this view – ‘The world is the self, and after death I will be permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and will remain that way forever’ – he sees that as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self.’

“Monks, an educated disciple of the noble ones – one who sees the noble ones, has mastered the teachings of the noble ones, is well-disciplined in the teachings of the noble ones, sees good people, has mastered the teachings of good people, and is well-disciplined in the teachings of good people – does not see the body as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; does not see identification as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; does not see mental objects as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; does not see whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or explored with the mind as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self’; and regarding this view – ‘The world is the self, and after death I will be permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and will remain that way forever’ – he does not see that as ‘This is me, I am this, this is my self.’ Seeing in this way, he is not agitated about what does not exist.”

Bases of Agitation

When this was said, a certain monk asked the Blessed One, “Bhante, can there be agitation about something external that does not exist?”

“There can be, monk,” said the Blessed One. “Here a monk thinks about something, ‘Oh, it was mine, but now it is not! Oh, it could be mine, but I will not get it!’ He sorrows, frets, and laments, beating his chest and wailing, and becomes confused. Monk, in this way there is agitation about something external that does not exist.”

“Bhante, can there be no agitation about something external that does not exist?”

“There can be, monk,” said the Blessed One. “Here a monk does not think about something, ‘Oh, it was mine, but now it is not! Oh, it could be mine, but I will not get it!’ He does not sorrow, fret, lament, beat his chest, wail, or become confused. Monk, in this way there is no agitation about something external that does not exist.”

“Bhante, can there be agitation about something internal that does not exist?”

“There can be, monk,” said the Blessed One. “Here a monk has this opinion: ‘The world is the self, and after death I will be permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and will remain that way forever.’ He hears the Dhamma being taught by the Tathāgata or one of the Tathagata‘s disciples, for the complete uprooting of the tendency of settling on, obsessing with, and sticking to any viewpoint, for the pacification of all formations, for the relinquishing of all acquisitions, for the elimination of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for enlightenment. It occurs to him, ‘It seems I will be cut off! It seems I will be destroyed! It seems I will be lost!’ He sorrows, frets, and laments, beating his chest and wailing, and becomes confused. Monk, in this way there is agitation about something internal that does not exist.”

“Bhante, can there be no agitation about something internal that does not exist?”

“There can be, monk,” said the Blessed One. “Here a monk does not have this opinion: ‘The world is the self… It seems I will be lost!’ He does not sorrow, fret, lament, beat his chest, wail, or become confused. Monk, in this way there is no agitation about something internal that does not exist.”

“Monks, you could possess something which is permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and which will remain that way forever. Monks, do you see anything which is permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and which will remain that way forever?”

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“Good, monks. Monks, I also do not see anything which is permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and which will remain that way forever.

“Monks, you could cling to a belief in self-existence which, when clung to, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish. Monks, do you see any belief in self-existence which, when clung to, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish?”

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“Good, monks. Monks, I also do not see any belief in self-existence which, when clung to, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish.”

“Monks, you could rely on an opinion which, when relied upon, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish. Monks, do you see any opinion which, when relied upon, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish?”

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“Good, monks. Monks, I also do not see any opinion which, when relied upon, does not produce sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and anguish.”

Belief in Self-Existence

“Monks, if a self existed, would there be the concept ‘belongs to my self’?

“Yes, Bhante.”

“Monks, if ‘belongs to my self’ existed, would there be the concept ‘my self’?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

“Monks, since one cannot arrive at ‘self’ or ‘belongs to self’ as true and reliable, then isn‘t the viewpoint ‘The world is the self, and after death I will be permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and will remain that way forever’ utterly and completely foolish?”

“How could it not be, Bhante? Bhante, it is utterly and completely foolish.”

“What do you think, monks? Is the body permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Bhante.”

“Is that which is impermanent unsatisfying or satisfying?”

“Unsatisfying, Bhante.”

“Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, unsatisfying, and changeable as ‘this is mine, I am this, this is my self’?

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“What do you think, monks? Is feeling… recognition… mental formations… consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Bhante.”

“Is that which is impermanent unsatisfying or satisfying?”

“Unsatisfying, Bhante.”

“Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, unsatisfying, and changeable as ‘this is mine, I am this, this is my self’?

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“Therefore, monks, any body – past, future, or present, internal or external, obvious or subtle, inferior or excellent, far or near – all should be accurately seen with correct wisdom in this way: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ Any feeling… recognition… mental formations… consciousness – past, future, or present, internal or external, obvious or subtle, inferior or excellent, far or near – all should be accurately seen with correct wisdom in this way: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

“Seeing in this way, monks, an educated disciple of the noble ones becomes disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with recognition, disenchanted with mental formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchantment produces dispassion. Dispassion liberates. When there is liberation, there is knowing: ‘Liberated.’ One understands, ‘Birth is eliminated, the spiritual life has been completed, what was to be done has been done, there will not be another existence like this.’

“Monks, this is called a monk who has ‘removed the barrier’. who has ‘filled in the moat’, who has ‘demolished the pillar⁵’, who has ‘opened the lock’, who is ‘a noble being who has lowered the banner, put down the burden, and is unbound’.

“Monks, how is he a monk who has ‘removed the barrier’? Monks, ignorance has been abandoned by that monk, its root has been cut up, it has been made like a palm stump, rendered non-existent, not subject to future arising. Monks, in this way he is a monk who has ‘removed the barrier’.

“Monks, how is he a monk who has ‘filled in the moat’? Monks, wandering through birth from one state of existence to another has been abandoned by that monk, its root has been cut up, it has been made like a palm stump, rendered non-existent, not subject to future arising. Monks, in this way he is a monk who has ‘filled in the moat’.

“Monks, how is he a monk who has ‘demolished the pillar’? Monks, craving has been abandoned by that monk, its root has been cut up, it has been made like a palm stump, rendered non-existent, not subject to future arising. Monks, in this way he is a monk who has ‘demolished the pillar’.

“Monks, how is he a monk who has ‘opened the lock’? Monks, the five lower fetters have been abandoned by that monk, their roots have been cut up, they have been made like a palm stump, rendered non-existent, not subject to future arising. Monks, in this way he is a monk who has ‘opened the lock’.

“Monks, how is he a monk who is ‘a noble being who has lowered the banner, put down the burden, and is unbound’? Monks, the conceit ‘I am’ has been abandoned by that monk, its root has been cut up, it has been made like a palm stump, rendered non-existent, not subject to future arising. Monks, in this way he is a monk who is ‘a noble being who has lowered the banner, put down the burden, and is unbound’.

“Monks, when a monk‘s mind has been liberated in this way, then even an investigation by all the angels including Indra, Brahma, and Pajāpati would not be able to ascertain, ‘The consciousness of a Tathāgata⁶ is dependent on that.’ For what reason? Monks, I say that even here and now a Tathāgata cannot be found. But since I say this, some contemplatives and brahmins slander me – inaccurately, vainly, falsely, untruthfully – by saying, ‘The contemplative Gotama leads people astray; he declares the destruction, removal, and annihilation of an existing being.’ Monks, since I am not that way and I do not speak that way, then it is inaccurate, vain, false, and untruthful when those contemplatives and brahmins slander me by saying, ‘The contemplative Gotama leads people astray; he declares the destruction, removal, and annihilation of an existing being.’ Monks, previously and currently I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering.

“Monks, even when others condemn, criticize, revile, and insult the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata is not irritated, bothered, or dissatisfied. Monks, even when others praise, honor, and revere the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata is not delighted, elated, or overjoyed. Monks, when others praise, honor, and revere the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata thinks, ‘This is how I act towards what has been understood.’

“Therefore, monks, if others condemn, criticize, revile, and insult you, you should not be irritated, bothered, or dissatisfied. If others praise, honor, and revere you, you should not be delighted, elated, or overjoyed. Monks, when others praise, honor, and revere you, you should think, ‘This is how I act towards what has been understood.’

Abandoning What Is Not Yours

“Therefore, monks, abandon what is not yours; abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness. Monks, what is not yours?

“Monks, the body is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

“Monks, feeling is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

“Monks, recognition is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

“Monks, mental formations are not yours; abandon them. Abandoning them will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

“Monks, consciousness is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

“What do you think, monks? If people were to take or burn or do whatever they wished with all the grass and sticks and leaves and branches in Jeta‘s grove, would you think ‘The people are taking us, burning us, doing whatever they wish to us’?”

“Certainly not, Bhante.”

“For what reason?”

“Bhante, because it is not our self or belonging to our self.”

“In exactly the same way, monks, abandon what is not yours; abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness. Monks, what is not yours? Monks, the body… feeling… recognition… mental formations… consciousness is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will be for your long-term benefit and happiness.

Purity of the Dhamma

“Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are monks who are Arahants, who have eliminated their corruptions, who have lived completely, who have done what was to be done, who have put down the burden, who have reached the true goal, who have completely eliminated the fetter of existence, who are liberated through right knowledge; for them, there is no cycle of rebirth to be found. Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are monks who have abandoned the five lower fetters; all of them will be reborn as angels and will attain full enlightenment in that state, without returning from that world. Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are monks who have abandoned three fetters and attenuated lust and hate; all of them are once-returners, who will come to this world once more and put an end to their suffering. Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are monks who have abandoned three fetters; all of them are stream-enterers, exempt from the lower realms, certain to reach full awakening. Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are monks who are Dhamma-followers, faith-followers; all of them are certain to reach full awakening. Monks, the Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way is evident, apparent, manifest, flawless.

“Monks, in this Dhamma which has been well-explained by me in this way and which is evident, apparent, manifest, and flawless, there are those who have faith in me and affection in me; all of them will reach heaven.”

This is what the Blessed One said. Satisfied, those monks delighted in the Blessed One‘s speech.