mn.63 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. Then a reasoning of mind arose to the venerable Māluṅkyāputta as he was meditating in solitary seclusion, thus: “Those (speculative) views that are not explained, set aside and ignored by the Lord: the world is eternal, the world is not eternal, the world is an ending thing, the world is not an ending thing; the life-principle is the same as the body, the life-principle is one thing, the body another; the Tathāgata is after dying, the Tathāgata is not after dying, the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; the Lord does not explain these to me. That the Lord does not explain these to me does not please me, does not satisfy me, so I, having approached the Lord, will question him on the matter.

If the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord. But if the Lord will not explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I, disavowing the training, revert to secular life.”

Then the venerable Māluṅkyāputta, emerging from solitary meditation towards evening, approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Māluṅkyāputta spoke thus to the Lord: “Now, revered sir, as I was meditating in solitary seclusion, a reasoning of mind arose to me thus: ‘Those (speculative) views that are not explained, set aside, ignored by the Lord: the world is eternal, the world is not eternal, the world is an ending thing, the world is not an ending thing; the life-principle is the same as the body, the life-principle is one thing, the body another; the Tathāgata is after dying, the Tathāgata is not after dying, the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; the Lord does not explain these to me. That the Lord does not explain these to me does not please me, does not satisfy me, so I, having approached the Lord, will question him on the matter.

If the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord. But if the Lord will not explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I, disavowing the training, revert to secular life.”

If the Lord knows that the world is eternal, let the Lord explain to me that the world is eternal. If the Lord knows that the world is not eternal, let the Lord explain to me that the world is not eternal. If the Lord does not know whether the world is eternal or whether the world is not eternal, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the world is an ending thing, let the Lord explain to me that the world is an ending thing. If the Lord knows that the world is not an ending thing, let the Lord explain to me that the world is not an ending thing. If the Lord does not know whether the world is an ending thing or whether the world is not an ending thing, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the life-principle is the same as the body, let the Lord explain to me that the life-principle is the same as the body. If the Lord knows that the life-principle is one thing, the body another, let the Lord explain to me that the life-principle is one thing, the body another. If the Lord does not know whether the life-principle is the same as the body or whether the life-principle is one thing, the body another, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata is after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata is after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata is not after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying. If the Lord does not know that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

“But did I ever speak thus to you, Māluṅkyāputta: ‘Come you, Māluṅkyāputta, fare the Brahma-faring under me and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying?” “No, revered sir.”

“Or did you speak thus to me: ‘I, revered sir, will fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord if the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying’?” “No, revered sir.”

“So it is agreed, Māluṅkyāputta, that neither did I say: ‘Come you, Māluṅkyāputta, fare the Brahma-faring under me and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, and that neither did you say: ‘I, revered sir, will fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord if the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying’.”

This being so, foolish man, who are you that you are disavowing? Whoever, Māluṅkyāputta, should speak thus: ‘I will not fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord until the Lord explains to me whether the world is eternal, or whether the world is not eternal, or whether the world is an ending thing, or whether the world is not an ending thing; whether the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; or whether the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; this man might pass away, Māluṅkyāputta, or ever this was explained to him by the Tathāgata.

Māluṅkyāputta, it is as if a man were pierced by an arrow that was thickly smeared with poison and his friends and relations, his kith and kin, were to procure a physician and surgeon. He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me whether he is a noble or brahman or merchant or worker.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who pierced me.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me whether he is tall or short or middling in height.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me, whether he is black, or deep brown, or golden skinned.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me, to what village, or market town, or town he belongs.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the bow from which I was pierced whether it was a spring-bow, or a cross-bow.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow, until I know of the bow-string from which I was pierced whether it was of swallow-wort, or of reed, or sinew, or hemp, or a tree.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft by which I was pierced whether it was of reeds of this kind or that.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft from which I was pierced what kind of feathers it had: whether those of a vulture, or heron, or hawk, or peacock, or some other bird.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft from which I was pierced with what kind of sinews it was encased: whether those of a cow, or buffalo, or deer, or monkey.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the arrow by which I was pierced whether it was an (ordinary) arrow, or some other kind of arrow.’ Māluṅkyāputta, this man might pass away or ever this was known to him.

In the same way, Māluṅkyāputta, whoever should speak thus: ‘I will not fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord until the Lord explains to me whether the world is eternal, or whether the world is not eternal, or whether the world is an ending thing, or whether the world is not an ending thing; whether the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; or whether the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; this man might pass away, Māluṅkyāputta, or ever this was explained to him by the Tathāgata.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the world is eternal. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the world is not eternal. Whether there is the view that the world is eternal, or whether there is the view that the world is not eternal, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the world is an ending thing. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the world is not an ending thing. Whether there is the view that the world is an ending thing or whether there is the view that the world is not an ending thing, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the life-principle is the same as the body. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the life-principle is one thing, the body another. Whether there is the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, or whether there is the view that the life-principle is one thing, the body another, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata is after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata is not after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying. Whether there is the view that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

Wherefore, Māluṅkyāputta, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me. And what, Māluṅkyāputta, has not been explained by me? That the world is eternal has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is not eternal has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is an ending thing has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is not an ending thing has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the life-principle is the same as the body, has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the life-principle is one thing, the body another has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata is after dying, has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta. And why, Māluṅkyāputta, has this not been explained by me? It is because it is not connected with the goal, is not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening nor to nibbāna. Therefore it has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta.

And what has been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta? ‘This is anguish’ has been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta. ‘This is the arising of anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the course leading to the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. And why, Māluṅkyāputta, has this been explained by me? It is because it is connected with the goal, is fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and conduces to turning away from, to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening and nibbāna. Therefore it has been explained by me.

Wherefore, Māluṅkyāputta, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me.”

Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, the venerable Māluṅkyāputta rejoiced in what the Lord had said.

Lesser Discourse to Māluṅkya(putta): The Third

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

Then, while the venerable Mālunkyāputta was alone in meditation, the following thought arose in his mind:

“These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One, set aside and rejected by him, namely: ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’; ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’; ‘the soul is the same as the body’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’; and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’ The Blessed One does not declare these to me, and I do not approve of and accept the fact that he does not declare these to me, so I shall go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of this. If he declares to me either ‘the world is eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal’…or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ then I will lead the holy life under him; if he does not declare these to me, then I will abandon the training and return to the low life.”

Then, when it was evening, the venerable Mālunkyāputta rose from meditation and went to the Blessed One. After paying homage to him, he sat down at one side and told him:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”

“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta, lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided man, who are you and what are you abandoning?

“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow; …until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta, if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and meanwhile that person would die.

“Mālunkyāputta, if there is the view ‘the world is eternal,’ the holy life cannot be lived; and if there is the view ‘the world is not eternal,’ the holy life cannot be lived. Whether there is the view ‘the world is eternal’ or the view ‘the world is not eternal,’ there is birth, there is ageing, there is death, there are sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, the destruction of which I prescribe here and now.

“If there is the view ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is infinite, ’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’…‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived… If there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived; and if there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived. Whether there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ or the view ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ there is birth, there is ageing, there is death, there are sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, the destruction of which I prescribe here and now.

“Therefore, Mālunkyāputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared. And what have I left undeclared? ‘The world is eternal’—I have left undeclared. ‘The world is not eternal’—I have left undeclared. ‘The world is finite’—I have left undeclared. ‘The world is infinite’—I have left undeclared. ‘The soul is the same as the body’—I have left undeclared. ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’—I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata exists’—I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist’—I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’—I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’—I have left undeclared.

“Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared.

“And what have I declared? ‘This is suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the origin of suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the cessation of suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—I have declared.

“Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have declared it.

“Therefore, Mālunkyāputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared.”

That is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Mālunkyāputta was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.