sn.22.86 Saṁyutta Nikāya (Linked Discourses)

Anuradha

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Vesali in the Great Wood in the Hall with the Peaked Roof. Now on that occasion the Venerable Anuradha was dwelling in a forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then a number of wanderers of other sects approached the Venerable Anuradha and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, they sat down to one side and said to him:

“Friend Anuradha, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment —he describes him in terms of these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

When this was said, the Venerable Anuradha said to those wanderers: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

When this was said, those wanderers said to the Venerable Anuradha: ‘This bhikkhu must be newly ordained, not long gone forth; or, if he is an elder, he must be an incompetent fool.”

Then those wanderers of other sects, having denigrated the Venerable Anuradha with the terms “newly ordained” and “fool,” rose from their seats and departed.

Then, not long after those wanderers had left, it occurred to the Venerable Anuradha: “If those wanderers of other sects should question me further, how should I answer if I am to state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? And how should I explain in accordance with the Dhamma, so that no reasonable consequence of my assertion would give ground for criticism?”

Then the Venerable Anuradha approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and reported to the Blessed One everything that had happened, asking: “If those wanderers of other sects should question me further, how should I answer … so that no reasonable consequence of my assertion would give ground for criticism?”

“What do you think, Anuradha, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard form as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, Anuradha! Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

- Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi

- Editor: Blake Walsh

---

With Anurādha

At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof.
Now at that time Venerable Anurādha was staying not far from the Buddha in a wilderness hut.
Then several wanderers who follow other paths went up to Venerable Anurādha and exchanged greetings with him.
When the greetings and polite conversation were over, they sat down to one side and said to him:
“Reverend Anurādha, when a Realized One is describing a Realized One—a supreme person, highest of people, who has reached the highest point—they describe them in these four ways:
After death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist.”
When they said this, Venerable Anurādha said to those wanderers:
“Reverends, when a Realized One is describing a Realized One—a supreme person, highest of people, who has reached the highest point—they describe them other than these four ways:
After death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist.”
When he said this, the wanderers said to him:
“This mendicant must be junior, recently gone forth, or else a foolish, incompetent senior mendicant.”
Then, after rebuking Venerable Anurādha by calling him “junior” and “foolish”, the wanderers got up from their seats and left.
Soon after they had left, Anurādha thought:
“If those wanderers were to inquire further,
how should I answer them so as to repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? How should I explain in line with his teaching, so that there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
Then Venerable Anurādha went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and told him all that had happened.















“What do you think, Anurādha?
Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”
“Is feeling …
perception …
choices …
consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“So you should truly see …
Seeing this …
They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’
What do you think, Anurādha?
Do you regard the Realized One as form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling …
perception …
choices …
consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha?
Do you regard the Realized One as in form?”
“No, sir.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling …
or distinct from feeling …
as in perception …
or distinct from perception …
as in choices …
or distinct from choices …
as in consciousness …
or as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha?
Do you regard the Realized One as possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha?
Do you regard the Realized One as one who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“In that case, Anurādha, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is it appropriate to declare:
‘Reverends, when a Realized One is describing a Realized One—a supreme person, highest of people, who has reached the highest point—they describe them other than these four ways:
After death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist’?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, good, Anurādha!
In the past, as today, I describe suffering and the cessation of suffering.”