Majjhima Nikaya - Alagaddupama Sutta

MN 22
Alagaddupama Sutta
The Water-Snake Simile
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Alternate translation:NyanaponikaThanissaro
PTS: M i 130



Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator.



Copyright © 2004 Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Access to Insight edition © 2004
For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted,
reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish,
however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available
to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and
other derivative works be clearly marked as such.



Translator's Introduction
This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is
conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the
water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on
the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the
cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it
go when it has done its job.
The first section of the discourse, leading up to the simile of the water-snake,
focuses on the danger of misapprehending the Dhamma in general, and particularly
the teachings on sensuality. The discourse doesn't explain how the offending
monk, Arittha, formulated his misapprehension of the Dhamma, but the Commentary
suggests a plausible scenario:
"Here the monk... having gone into seclusion, reasons as follows: 'There are
people living the household life, enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who
are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners. As for monks, they see
pleasurable forms cognizable via the eye, hear... smell... taste... feel
(pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable via the body. They use soft carpets
and clothing. All this is proper. Then why shouldn't the sight, sound, smell,
taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!' Thus... comparing a
mustard seed with Mount Sineru, he gives rise to the pernicious viewpoint, 'Why
did the Blessed One — binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort —
formulate the first parajika training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There
is nothing wrong with that act.'"
Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's
suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically
inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful. The
Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2.25:
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse
whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully
drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully
drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred..."
Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of
the water-snake, which in turn is an introduction to the simile of the raft. It
is important to underline the connection between these two similes, for it is
often missed. Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft
simply that the Dhamma is to be let go. In fact, one major Mahayana text — the
Diamond Sutra — interprets the raft simile as meaning that one has to let go of
the raft in order to cross the river. However, the simile of the water-snake
makes the point that the Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it
properly. When this point is then applied to the raft simile, the implication is
clear: One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only
when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go.
Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the
discourse, which focuses on the teaching of not-self. This is one of the most
easily misapprehended teachings in the Canon largely because it is possible to
draw the wrong inferences from it.
Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the
range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha
usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling,
perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility
that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often
phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's
identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the
Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any
notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the
five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible
objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1)
all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered
by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In
fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching
of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this
discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is
obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos
that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to
as "me" or "mine."
The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the
Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self.
This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is
touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he
teaches.
In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self
that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, &
despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this
statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:
I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of self that I
perceive self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... It
is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or... This very self
of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good &
bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not
subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket
of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a
fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill
person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Thus the view "I have no self" is just as much a doctrine of self as the view "I
have a self." Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls
"I-making" — the creation of a sense of self — if one were to cling to the view
that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around
that view (see AN 4.24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for "the
elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, &
obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all
acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding."
Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most
thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing
the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self.
Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of
conceiving the self and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his
standard series of questions building on the logic of the inconstancy and stress
of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates are inconstant
and stressful there is no self. He simply asks, When they are inconstant and
stressful, is it proper to assume that they are "me, my self, what I am"? Now,
because the sense of self is a product of "I-making," this question seeks to do
nothing more than to induce disenchantment and dispassion for that process of
I-making, so as to put a stop to it. Once that is accomplished, the teaching has
fulfilled its purpose in putting an end to suffering and stress. That's the
safety of the further shore. As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both
formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." As
he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from
agitation; and as MN 140 points out, when one is truly unagitated one is
unbound. The raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there — free to go
where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced.



I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at
Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's park. Now on that occasion this pernicious
viewpoint (ditthigata) had arisen in the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in,
are not genuine obstructions." A large number of monks heard, "They say that
this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers: 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in,
are not genuine obstructions.'" So they went to the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers and on arrival said to him, "Is it true, friend
Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — 'As I understand the
Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are
obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions'?"
"Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and
those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not
genuine obstructions."
Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, quizzed him
back and forth and rebuked him, saying, "Don't say that, friend Arittha. Don't
misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed
One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the
Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are
genuine obstructions. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of
little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed
One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much
despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to
a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream...
borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block...
swords and spears... a snake's head: of much stress, much despair, & greater
drawbacks." 1 And yet even though he was quizzed back & forth and rebuked by
those monks, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through
stubbornness and attachment to that very same pernicious viewpoint, continued to
insist, "Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are
not genuine obstructions."
So when the monks were unable to pry the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, they went
to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As
they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened.]
So the Blessed One told a certain monk, "Come, monk. In my name, call the monk
Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, saying, 'The Teacher calls you, friend
Arittha.'"
"As you say, lord," the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you,
friend Arittha."
"As you say, my friend," the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers
replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is
it true, Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — 'As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says
are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions'?"
"Yes, indeed, lord. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those
acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine
obstructions."
"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a
way? Worthless man, haven't I in many ways described obstructive acts? And when
indulged in they are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures
are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I
have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much
despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of
flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed
goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and
spears... a snake' head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But
you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma], have both
misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for
yourself, for that will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."2
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk
Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm 3 in this Doctrine &
Discipline?"
"How could he be, lord? No, lord."
When this was said, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers sat silent,
abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.
Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders
drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless
man, you will be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will
cross-examine the monks on this matter."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you, too, understand the
Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers does when, through his own wrong grasp, both
misrepresents us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for
himself?"
"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has described obstructive acts to
us, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. The Blessed One has said
that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, &
greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of
bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has
compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of
glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a
butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake' head: of much
stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks."
"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for
in many ways I have described obstructive acts to you, and when indulged in they
are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little
satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared
sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater
drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass
torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a
tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake' head:
of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But this monk Arittha
Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through his own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma],
has both misrepresented us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much
demerit for himself, and that will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm &
suffering. For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion,
without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible. 4
The Water-Snake Simile
"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer
sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having
studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those
Dhammas 5 with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those
Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through
pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending
themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the
Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm &
suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake,
wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and grasp
it by the coils or by the tail. The water-snake, turning around, would bite him
on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs, and from that cause he would
suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the
wrong-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where
some worthless men study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they don't
ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having
ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come
to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking
others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for
which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to
their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness
of the Dhammas.
"But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having
studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their
discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their
discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the
Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They
reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those
Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because
of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake,
wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and pin
it down firmly with a cleft stick. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked
stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck. Then no matter how much the
water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs,
he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that?
Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is
the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they
ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having
ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an
agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking
others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which
people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their
long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of
the Dhammas. 6
"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of my statements, that is how
you should remember them. But when you don't understand the meaning of my
statements, then right there you should ask me or the experienced monks.
The Raft Simile
"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of
crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close
attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a
great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore
secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from
this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great
expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure
& free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this
shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves
and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on
the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands &
feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having
bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other
shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. 7
Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft
has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort
with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why
don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I
like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what
should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the
raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How
useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that,
making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the
further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the
water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done
with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a
raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.
Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of
Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
Six View-Positions
"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is
the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard
for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
assumes about form: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I
am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after,
pondered by the intellect: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. 8 After death
this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay
just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I
am.'
"Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who
has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma
assumes about form: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I
am.'
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not
what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not
what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is
not what I am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after,
pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not
what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this
I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just
like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not
what I am.'
"Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present." 9
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, might there
be agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone
thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't
obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows
delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not
present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone
doesn't think, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I
don't obtain it!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his
breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is
externally not present."
Agitation & Non-Agitation
"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has
this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant,
permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an
eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma
for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations,
& obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all
acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The
thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might
be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is
tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is
agitation over what is internally not present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is internally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone
doesn't have this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be
constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that
for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the
Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases,
inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the
relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
Unbinding. The thought doesn't occur to him, 'So it might be that I will be
annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not
exist!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or
grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is internally
not present."
Abandoning Possessions & Views
"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which
would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay
just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession
of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that
would stay just like that for an eternity?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which
would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay
just like that for an eternity.
"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self,
clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, &
despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which
there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self,
clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, &
despair.
"Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency (ditthi-nissaya),
depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, &
despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not
arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which
there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.
"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my
self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,]
'my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or
reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I
will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just
like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"
"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And
is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:
'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful,
subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or
external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be
seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not
my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or
external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness
is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine.
This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with
form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with
fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes
dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release,
there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, 10 whose moat is
filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with
banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.
"And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off? There is the case where a
monk's ignorance is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree,
deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. This
is how a monk is one whose cross-bar is thrown off.
"And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in? There is the case where a monk's
wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root
destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence,
not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose moat is filled
in.
"And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out? There is the case where a
monk's craving is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree,
deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. This
is how a monk is one whose pillar is pulled out.
"And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn? There is the case where a monk's
five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palm
tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising.
This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.
"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down,
unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its
root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of
existence, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one
with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.
"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for
the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness
of the one truly gone (tathagata) 11 is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one
truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. 12
"Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly,
falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who
say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the
annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not
that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely,
unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who
say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the
annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' 13
"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of
stress. 14 And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata
for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because
of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for
that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if
others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks,
'They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.' 15
"Therefore, monks, if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass you as well,
you should feel no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of
that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate you as well, you should
feel no joy, no gladness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others
honor, respect, revere, & venerate you, you should think, 'They do us 16 such
service at this that has already been comprehended.'
"Therefore, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it
will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't yours? Form
(body) isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your
long-term welfare & happiness. Feeling isn't yours... Perception... Thought
fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it
will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.
"What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes
with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove, would the thought
occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as
he likes'?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do they
belong to our self."
"Even so, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will
be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't yours? Form isn't
yours... Feeling isn't yours... Perception... Thought fabrications...
Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your
long-term welfare & happiness.
The Well-Proclaimed Dhamma
"The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped
of rags — there is for those monks who are arahants — whose mental effluents are
ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who are
released through right gnosis — no (future) cycle for manifestation. This is how
the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags. 17
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags — those monks who have abandoned the five lower fetters are all due to be
reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return
from that world. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open,
evident, stripped of rags.
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, with the attenuation of
passion, aversion, & delusion, are all once-returners who, on returning only one
more time to this world, will make an ending to stress. This is how the Dhamma
well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners,
steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.
This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped
of rags.
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags — those monks who are Dhamma-followers and conviction-followers 18 are all
headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is
clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of
rags — those monks who have a [sufficient] measure of conviction in me, a
[sufficient] measure of love for me, are all headed for heaven. This is how the
Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed
One's words.



Notes
1. The first seven of these comparisons are treated in detail in MN 54. The
simile of the butcher's ax and chopping block is mentioned in MN 23, the simile
of swords and spears in SN 5.1, and the simile of the snake's head in Sn 4.1.
2. Apart from a few minor details, this story up to this point is identical with
the origin story for Pacittiya 68 and the origin story for the rules concerning
the act of banishment given in Cullavagga (Cv) I.32.1-3. Arittha was the first
monk to be banished from the Sangha. Cv I.34 reports that, instead of making an
effort to mend his ways so that the act of banishment might be rescinded, he
simply disrobed.
3. The image here is apparently that of trying to start a fire with the friction
of a fire stick. Arittha hasn't even been able to create any warmth, much less
the spark of insight that would create light.
4. According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means
indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts
expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included
under this phrase as well.
5. The Pali switches from the singular (Dhamma) to the plural (Dhammas) here.
This is one of the few discourses that uses the plural form to mean "teachings"
rather than "phenomena." This same use of "Dhammas" to mean "teachings" reoccurs
in the raft simile, below.
6. These last two sentences are missing in The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha but are present in The Middle Length Sayings.
7. According to SN 35.197: "The great expanse of water stands for the fourfold
flood: the flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the
flood of ignorance. The near shore, dubious & risky, stands for self-identity.
The further shore, secure and free from risk, stands for Unbinding. The raft
stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view...right concentration.
Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the arousing of persistence."
8. The Pali here reads, so loko so atta. The translation given here follows the
interpretation of Nyanaponika Thera in his translation of this discourse.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his notes to the translation of this discourse in The Middle
Length Discourses of the Buddha, calls this interpretation hypothetical, and
instead suggests that this phrase indicates the Sankhya theory of the changeless
"person" as opposed to unchanging "nature." However, in his later translation of
SN 22.81, which contains an identical passage, he adopts Nyanaponika's
interpretation as well.
9. On non-agitation, see MN 138 and MN 140.
10. See Dhp 398.
11. The term "tathagata" is often, but not always, reserved for the Buddha.
Sometimes, as in the case here, it is used to refer to the arahant.
12. See SN 22.85 and SN 22.86. Also, compare Dhp 92-93.
13. Annihilationism is one of the two extremes of wrong view criticized most
heavily by the Buddha (the other is eternalism, as represented by the sixth of
the six view-positions). Some interpreters, citing this passage, have tried to
limit the meaning of annihilationism simply to the idea of the annihilation of
an existing being. The teaching that there is no self, they then argue, does not
count as annihilationism because there is no self to be annihilated. This
interpretation ignores SN 44.10, which counts the statement "there is no self"
as siding with annihilationism.
As for the term, "existing being": SN 22.36 and SN 23.2 state that a being is
defined by his/her/its objects of clinging. SN 5.10 indicates that one of the
ways of overcoming clinging is to focus on how the concept of "being" arises,
without assuming the truth of the concept. And as MN 72, SN 22.85, and SN 22.86
maintain, when clinging is gone, one is called not a being but a tathagata —
who, freed from clinging, cannot be classified as or identified with anything at
all.
14. Some have suggested, citing SN 12.15, that this passage means that there are
only two things happening in reality: stress and the cessation of stress.
However, in the context of SN 22.86, where this statement also occurs, it
clearly means simply that the Buddha is selective in the topics he chooses to
address. In that discourse, he is refusing to take a stand on questions
regarding the ontological status of the Tathagata after death. Here he is
refusing to take a stand on the related question of the status of the "existing
being" (see note 13). In every case, the Buddha chooses to take a stand only on
questions where the process of answering would be conducive to Awakening. On
this point, see MN 63 and SN 56.31.
15. According to the Commentary, "this" here refers to the five aggregates. As
SN 22.23 points out, "comprehension" means the ending of passion, aversion, and
delusion with regard to the object comprehended. In other words, the Buddha sees
that the honor and respect he receives is aimed at the five aggregates; because
he has no passion, aversion, or delusion with regard to those aggregates, he is
not overjoyed by any honor paid to them.
16. The Thai edition of the Pali canon has the word "us" here, whereas the
Burmese, Sinhalese, and PTS editions have "me."
17. This last sentence is missing from this paragraph and all the following
paragraphs both in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Bhikkhu Ñanamoli
and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.; Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995) and in The Middle
Length Sayings (3 vols.; I.B. Horner, trans.; Oxford: Pali Text Society,
1954-1959).
18. Dhamma-followers and conviction-followers are apparently those who are
following the path to stream-entry but have yet to reach the fruit of
stream-entry.