Sammaditthi Sutta Commentary I

Right View: The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary
Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli
Edited and Revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi

The Commentary to the Discourse on Right View



1. Thus have I heard: the Sammaditthi Sutta.

2. Herein, all such questions spoken by the Elder as " 'One of right view, one of right view' is said, friends. In what way is a noble disciple one of right view . . . ?" or "And what, friends, is the unwholesome . . . ?" -- these are questions showing a desire to expound. Herein, since those who know, those who do not know, those outside the Dispensation, those within it, those who speak by hearsay, etc., and those who speak by personal knowledge, say "one of right view," therefore, taking it as an expression (common) to the many, he touched upon it twice, saying "One of right view, one of right view" is said, friends (sammaditthi sammaditthi ti avuso vuccati). The intention here is this: "Others say 'one of right view,' and still others say 'one of right view.' Since that is said, in what way, friends, is a noble disciple one of right view in respect of meaning and characteristic?" Herein, one of right view is one possessing a lucid and praiseworthy view (sobhanaya pasatthaya ca ditthiya samannagato). But when this word "right view" is used to signify a state (rather than a person endowed with that state), it then means a lucid and praiseworthy view.[1]

This right view is twofold: mundane (lokiya) and supramundane (lokuttara). Herein, the knowledge of kamma as one's own and knowledge which is in conformity with the (Four Noble) Truths are mundane right view; or, in brief, (mundane right view is) all understanding that is accompanied by the taints.[2] Understanding connected with the noble paths and fruits is supramundane right view.[3] The person possessing right view is of three kinds: the worldling (puthujjana), the disciple in higher training (sekha), and the one beyond training (asekha). Herein, the worldling is of two kinds: one outside the Dispensation and one within the Dispensation. Herein, one outside the Dispensation who believes in kamma is one of right view on account of the view of kamma as one's own, but not on account of that which is in conformity with the truths, because he holds to the view of self. One within the Dispensation is of right view on account of both. The disciple in higher training is one of right view on account of fixed right view,[4] the one beyond training on account of (the right view) that is beyond training.[5]

But here "one of right view" is intended as one possessing supramundane wholesome right view, which is fixed in destiny and emancipating. Hence he said: whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma (ujugata'ssa ditthi dhamme aveccappasadena samannagato agato imam saddhammam). Because of its going straight without deviating to either extreme, or because of its going straight by removing all crookedness such as bodily crookedness, etc., supramundane right view is "straight." One possessing that view also possesses perfect confidence, unshakable confidence, in the ninefold supramundane Dhamma.[6] And by becoming disentangled from all the thickets of (wrong) views, by abandoning all the defilements, by departing from the round of rebirths, by bringing the practice to its consummation, he is said to have come by the noble path to this "true Dhamma" proclaimed by the Enlightened One, that is, Nibbana, the plunge into the Deathless.
The Wholesome and the Unwholesome

3. Understands the unwholesome (akusalan ca pajanati): he understands the unwholesome called the ten courses of unwholesome kamma (action), penetrating this by way of function with the understanding that has Nibbana as its object as "This is suffering." (Understands) the root of the unwholesome (akusalamulan ca pajanati): And he understands the unwholesome root which has become the root condition of that (unwholesome), penetrating this, in the same way, as "This is the origin of suffering." The same method applies here also in regard to "the wholesome" and "the root of the wholesome." And, as it is here, so in all the following sections, the understanding of the subject should be understood by way of function.

In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding of the unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): he possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose view is straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this point the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention occurred in detail.

But in the second section (Section 4) it should be understood that the teaching too, as well as the penetration through attention, is stated in detail.

Herein, the bhikkhus [at the council at the Great Monastery held to rehearse the Pitakas] said: "In the brief exposition the two lower paths are discussed, in the detailed exposition the two higher paths," taking into account the passage at the end of the sections setting forth the detailed exposition that begins "he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust." But the Elder (presiding over the council) said: "In the brief exposition the four paths are expounded as a group, and also in the detailed exposition."[7]

This query into the brief and detailed expositions which has been cleared up here should be understood in all the following sections in the way stated here. From here on we shall only comment on terms that are new or obscure.

The Unwholesome Courses of Action

4. Herein, firstly, in the detailed exposition of the first section: as regards the passage beginning killing living beings is unwholesome (panatipato kho avuso akusalam), "unwholesome" should be understood by way of the occurrence of unwholesomeness, or as what is opposed to the wholesome, which is to be dealt with below (Section 6). As to characteristic, it is blameworthy and has painful result, or it is defiled. This, in the first place, is the comment upon the general terms here.

But as regards the particular terms, the phrase killing living beings means the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a living being (pana) is, according to ordinary usage, a being (satta); in the ultimate sense it is the life faculty. "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty.

In relation to beings such as animals, etc., which lack moral qualities (guna), it is less blameworthy in respect of small living beings and more blameworthy in respect of beings with large bodies. Why? Because of the magnitude of the effort involved. And when the effort involved is equal, because of the magnitude of the object (the being killed). In relation to beings such as humans, etc., who possess moral qualities, it is less blameworthy in respect of beings with few good qualities and more blameworthy in respect of beings with great qualities. When the size of the body and moral qualities are equal, however, it is less blameworthy when the defilements and activity are mild, and more blameworthy when they are strong: so it should be understood.

There are five constituents for this (act of killing a living being): a living being, awareness that it is a living being, the mind to kill, activity, and the death (of the being) thereby.

There are six means: one's own person, command, a missile, a fixed contrivance, a magical spell, supernormal power.

To explore this matter in detail, however, would involve too much diffuseness. Therefore we shall not explore it in detail, or any other subject similar in kind. Those who wish to go into the matter may do so by looking it up in the Samantapasadika, the Vinaya Commentary.[8]

Taking what is not given (adinnadana): the carrying off of others' goods, stealing, robbery, is what is meant. Herein, "what is not given" is another's possession, which the other may use as he likes without incurring penalty or blame. "Taking what is not given" is the volition to steal on the part of one who is aware, in respect of another's possession, that it is another's possession, and which (volition) initiates activity resulting in the taking of that thing.

That (taking of what is not given) is less blameworthy when the other's property is of low value, and more blameworthy when it is of high value. Why? Because of the high value of the object (stolen). When the value of the objects is equal, the act is more blameworthy when the object belongs to one of outstanding qualities, and less blameworthy when the object belongs to one who, in comparison, is inferior with respect to moral qualities.

There are five constituents of this act: another's possession, awareness that it is another's possession, the mind to steal, the activity, and the carrying off (of the object) thereby.

There are six means: one's own person, etc. (as for killing). And these (acts of stealing) may be classed, according to the way in which they occur, by way of the following: taking by theft, by force, by concealment, by stratagem, by fraud. This here is in brief; the details, however, are given in the Samantapasadika.[9]

Misconduct in sensual pleasures (kamesu micchacara): here, "in sensual pleasures" (kamesu) means in regard to sexual intercourse. "Misconduct" is entirely reprehensible vile conduct. As to characteristic, sexual misconduct is the volition to transgress bounds occurring through the body door by way of unrighteous intent.

Herein, out of bounds for men, firstly, are the twenty kinds of women, that is, the ten beginning with those protected by the mother, namely, "protected by the mother, protected by the father, protected by the mother and father, protected by the brother, protected by the sister, protected by relatives, protected by the clan, protected by the law, under protection, entailing a penalty"; and the ten beginning with those purchased with money, namely, "one purchased with money, one who lives (with a man) by her own desire, one who lives (with a man) on account of wealth, one who lives (with a man) on account of cloth, one who is given (in marriage with the ceremony of) dipping the hand in water, one who has been (taken to wife and) relieved of her burden-carrying head-pad, one who is a slave and a wife, one who is a servant and a wife, one who is carried off in a raid, one engaged at so much a time."[10]

Then, as concerns women, for the twelve kinds of women consisting of the two, namely, under protection and entailing a penalty, and the ten beginning with those purchased with money, other men are out of bounds.

This sexual misconduct is less blameworthy when (the person) out of bounds is without good qualities such as virtue, etc., and more blameworthy when (the person) possesses good qualities such as virtue, etc. There are four constituents of this act: an object which is out of bounds, the mind to engage in that, the effort to engage, and consent to the union of sexual organs.[11] The means is single: one's own person.

False speech (musavada): "false" (musa) is the verbal effort or bodily effort for destroying welfare (made) by one bent on deceiving. "False speech" is the volition initiating the verbal effort or bodily effort of deceiving another on the part of one intent on deceiving. According to another method, "false" means an unreal, untrue case, "speech" the communication of that as being real, true. As to characteristic, "false speech" is the volition of one desiring to communicate to another an untrue case as being true, which (volition) initiates such an act of communication.

This is less blameworthy when the welfare destroyed is slight, and more blameworthy when the welfare destroyed is great. Further, when it occurs on the part of householders who, not wishing to give away some belonging of theirs, say "I do not have it," it is less blameworthy; when one who is a witness speaks (falsely) for the purpose of destroying another's welfare, it is more blameworthy. In the case of those gone forth, when it occurs by their saying as a joke, after they have obtained just a little oil or ghee, in the manner of the Puranas, "Today the oil is flowing in the village just like a river," then it is less blameworthy; but for those who speak (as a witness) saying that they have seen what they have not seen it is more blameworthy.

There are four constituents of this act: an untrue case, the mind to deceive, the appropriate effort, the communicating of that meaning to another. The means is single: one's own person only. That is to be regarded as the performing of the action of deceiving another by means of the body or by means of something attached to the body or by means of speech. If, through that action, the other understands that meaning, one is bound by the kamma of false speech at the very moment of the volition initiating the action.

Malicious speech, etc.: The kind of speech that creates in the heart of the person to whom it is spoken affection for oneself and voidness (of affection) for another is malicious speech (pisuna vaca). The kind of speech by which one makes both oneself and another harsh, the kind of speech which is also itself harsh, being pleasant neither to the ear nor to the heart -- that is harsh speech (pharusa vaca). That by which one gossips idly, without meaning, is gossip (samphappalapa). Also, the volition that is the root cause of these gains the name "malicious speech," etc. And that only is intended here.

Therein, malicious speech is the volition of one with a defiled mind, which (volition) initiates an effort by body or by speech either to cause division among others or to endear oneself (to another). It is less blameworthy when the person divided has few good qualities, and more blameworthy when such a one has great qualities. Its constituents are four: another person to be divided, the intention to divide, (thinking) "Thus these will be separated and split" or the desire to endear oneself, (thinking) "Thus I shall become loved and intimate," the appropriate effort, the communicating of that meaning to that person.

Harsh speech is the entirely harsh volition initiating an effort by body or by speech to wound another's vital feelings. This is an example given for the purpose of making it clear: A village boy, it is said, went to the forest without heeding his mother's words. Unable to make him turn back, she scolded him angrily, saying: "May a wild buffalo chase you!" Then a buffalo appeared before him right there in the forest. The boy made an asseveration of truth, saying: "Let it not be as my mother said but as she thought!" The buffalo stood as though tied there. Thus, although the means (employed) was that of wounding the vital feelings, because of the gentleness of her mind it was not harsh speech. For sometimes parents even say to their children, "May robbers chop you to pieces!" yet they do not even wish a lotus leaf to fall upon them. And teachers and preceptors sometimes say to their pupils, "What is the use of these shameless and heedless brats? Drive them out!" yet they wish for their success in learning and attainment.

Just as, through gentleness of mind, speech is not harsh, so through gentleness of speech, speech does not become unharsh; for the words "Let him sleep in peace" spoken by one wishing to kill are not unharsh speech. But harsh speech is such on account of harshness of mind only. It is less blameworthy when the person to whom it is spoken has few good qualities, and more blameworthy when such a one has great qualities. Its constituents are three: another to be abused, an angry mind, the abusing.

Gossip is the unwholesome volition initiating an effort by body or by speech to communicate what is purposeless. It is less blameworthy when indulged in mildly, and more blameworthy when indulged in strongly. Its constituents are two: the being intent on purposeless stories such as the Bharata war or the abduction of Sita, etc., and the telling of such stories.[12]

Covetousness (abhijjha): It covets, thus it is covetousness; "having become directed towards others' goods, it occurs through inclination towards them" is the meaning. It has the characteristic of coveting others' goods thus: "Oh, that this were mine!" It is less blameworthy and more blameworthy as in the case of taking what is not given. Its constituents are two: another's goods, and the inclination for them to be one's own. For even though greed has arisen based on another's goods, it is not classed as a (completed) course of kamma so long as one does not incline to them as one's own (with the thought), "Oh, that this were mine!"

Ill will (byapada): It injures welfare and happiness, thus it is ill will (hitasukham byapadayati ti byapado). Its characteristic is the mental defect (of wishing for) the destruction of others. It is less blameworthy and more blameworthy as in the case of harsh speech. Its constituents are two: another being, and the wish for that being's destruction. For even though anger has arisen based on another being, there is no breach of a course of kamma so long as one does not wish, "Oh, that this being might be cut off and destroyed!"

Wrong view (micchaditthi): It sees wrongly due to the absence of a correct grasp of things, thus it is wrong view. Its characteristic is the mistaken view that "there is no (result from) giving," etc. It is less blameworthy and more blameworthy as in the case of gossip. Moreover, it is less blameworthy when not fixed in destiny, and more blameworthy when fixed.[13] Its constituents are two: a mistaken manner of grasping the basis (for the view), and the appearance of that (basis) in accordance with the manner in which it has been grasped.

Now the exposition of these ten courses of unwholesome kamma should be understood in five ways: as to mental state (dhammato), as to category (kotthasato), as to object (arammanato), as to feeling (vedanato), and as to root (mulato).

Herein, as to mental state: The first seven among these are volitional states only. The three beginning with covetousness are associated with volition.[14]

As to category: The eight consisting of the first seven and wrong view are courses of kamma only, not roots. Covetousness and ill will are courses of kamma and also roots; for covetousness, having arrived at the (state of) a root, is the unwholesome root greed, and ill will is the unwholesome root hate.

As to object: Killing living beings, because it has the life faculty as object, has a formation as object. Taking what is not given has beings as object or formations as object. Misconduct in sensual pleasures has formations as object by way of tangible object; but some say it also has beings as object. False speech has beings or formations as object; likewise malicious speech. Harsh speech has only beings as object. Gossip has either beings or formations as object by way of the seen, heard, sensed and cognized; likewise covetousness. Ill will has only beings as object. Wrong view has formations as object by way of the states belonging to the three planes (of being).

As to feeling: Killing living beings has painful feeling; for although kings, seeing a robber, say laughingly, "Go and execute him," their volition consummating the action is associated only with pain. Taking what is not given has three feelings. Misconduct (in sensual pleasures) has two feelings, pleasant and neutral, but in the mind which consummates the action there is no neutral feeling. False speech has three feelings; likewise malicious speech. Harsh speech has painful feeling only. Gossip has three feelings. Covetousness has two feelings, pleasant and neutral; likewise wrong view. Ill will has painful feeling only.

As to root: Killing living beings has two roots, by way of hate and delusion; taking what is not given, by way of hate and delusion or by way of greed and delusion; misconduct, by way of greed and delusion; false speech, by way of hate and delusion or by way of greed and delusion; likewise for malicious speech and gossip; harsh speech, by way of hate and delusion. Covetousness has one root, by way of delusion; likewise ill will. Wrong view has two roots, by way of greed and delusion.

The Unwholesome Roots

5. Greed is a root of the unwholesome, etc.: It is greedy, thus it is greed (lubbhati ti lobho); it offends against (it hates), thus it is hate (dussati ti doso); it deludes, thus it is delusion (muyhati ti moho). Among these, greed is itself unwholesome in the sense that it is blameworthy and has painful results; and it is a root of these unwholesome (deeds) beginning with killing living beings, for some in the sense that it is an associated originative cause, for some in the sense that it is a decisive support condition. Thus it is an unwholesome root. This too is said: "One who is lustful, friends, overwhelmed and with mind obsessed by lust, kills a living being" (A.3:71/i,216; text slightly different). The same method applies to the state of being unwholesome roots in the cases of hate and delusion.

The Wholesome Courses of Action

6. Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome (panatipata veramani), etc.: Here "killing living beings," etc. have the same meaning as aforesaid. It crushes the hostile, thus it is abstention (veram manati ti veramani); the meaning is that it abandons the hostile. Or: with that as the instrument one abstains (viramati), the syllable ve being substituted for the syllable vi. This here is, in the first place, the commentary on the phrasing.

But as to the meaning, abstention is refraining (virati) associated with wholesome consciousness. What is stated thus: "For one refraining from killing living beings, that which is on that occasion the leaving off, the refraining" (Vibh. 285), that is the refraining associated with wholesome consciousness. As to kind, it is threefold: refraining in the presence of opportunity, refraining because of an undertaking, and refraining because of eradication (of defilements).

Herein, refraining in the presence of an opportunity (sampattavirati) is to be understood as the refraining which occurs in those who have not undertaken any training rule but who do not transgress when an opportunity for doing so presents itself because they reflect upon their birth, age, learning, etc., like the lay follower Cakkana in the island of Sri Lanka.

When he was a boy, it is said, his mother developed an illness, and the doctor said, "Fresh hare's flesh is needed." Then Cakkana's brother sent him, saying, "Go, dear, and hunt in the field." He went there. On that occasion a hare had come to eat the young corn. On seeing him it bolted swiftly, but it got entangled in a creeper and squealed "kiri, kiri." Guided by the sound, Cakkana went and caught it, thinking, "I will make medicine for my mother." Then he thought again, "This is not proper for me, that I should deprive another of life for the sake of my mother's life." So he released it, saying "Go and enjoy the grass and the water with the other hares in the forest." When his brother asked him, "Did you get a hare, dear?" he told him what had happened. His brother scolded him. He went to his mother and determined upon an asseveration of truth: "Since I was born I am not aware that I have ever intentionally deprived a living being of life." Straightaway his mother became well.

Refraining because of an undertaking (samadanavirati) is to be understood as the refraining which occurs in those who do not transgress in a particular case because they have undertaken training rules, giving up even their own lives in the undertaking of the training rules and in what is superior to that, like the lay follower who dwelt at Uttaravaddhamana Mountain.

It is said that after undertaking the training rules from the Elder Pingala Buddharakkhita who lived in the Ambariya Monastery, he was plowing a field. Then his ox got lost. Searching for it, he climbed up Uttaravaddhamana Mountain. There a large serpent seized him. He thought, "Let me cut off his head with this sharp axe." Then he thought again, "This is not proper for me, that I should break a training rule that I have undertaken in the presence of my honored teacher." Thinking up to the third time, "I will give up my life but not the training rule," he threw the sharp hand axe that was slung on his shoulder into the forest. Straightaway the creature released him and went away.

Refraining because of eradication (of defilements) (samucchedavirati) is to be understood as the refraining associated with the noble path. After the arising of this even the thought, "I will kill a living being," does not occur to the noble persons.

This refraining is called "wholesome" (kusala) because of the occurrence of wholesomeness (kosalla); or because of shedding the vile (kucchitassa salanato). Also, evil conduct is commonly called "weeds" (kusa) and it mows this down (lunati), thus it is called "wholesome."

As in the case of the unwholesome, so for these courses of wholesome kamma the exposition should be understood in five ways: as to mental state, as to category, as to object, as to feeling, and as to root.

Herein, as to mental state: The first seven among these can be both volitions and abstinences; the last three are associated with volition only.

As to category: The first seven are courses of kamma only, not roots. The last three are courses of kamma and also roots. For non-covetousness, having arrived at the (state of) a root, is the wholesome root non-greed; non-ill will is the wholesome root non-hate; and right view is the wholesome root non-delusion.

As to object: The objects of these are the same as the objects of killing living beings, etc. For abstention is spoken of in relation to something which can be transgressed. But just as the noble path, which has Nibbana as object, abandons the defilements, so too should these courses of kamma, which have the life faculty, etc., as object, be understood to abandon the kinds of evil conduct beginning with killing living beings.

As to feeling: All have pleasant feeling or neutral feeling. For there is no painful feeling which arrives at the wholesome.

As to root: The first seven courses of kamma have three roots by way of non-greed, non-hate, and non-delusion in one who abstains by means of consciousness associated with knowledge. They have two roots in one who abstains by means of consciousness dissociated from knowledge.[15] Non-covetousness has two roots in one who abstains by means of consciousness associated with knowledge, one root (in one who abstains) by means of consciousness dissociated from knowledge. Non-greed, however, is not by itself its own root. The same method applies in the case of non-ill will. Right view always has two roots, by way of non-greed and non-hate. [16]

The Wholesome Roots

7. Non-greed is a root of the wholesome (alobho kusalamulam), etc.: Non-greed is not greed; this is a term for the state that is opposed to greed. The same method applies in the case of non-hate and non-delusion. Among these, non-greed is itself wholesome; and it is a root of these wholesome (courses of kamma) beginning with abstention from killing living beings, for some in the sense that it is an associated originative cause and for some in the sense that it is a decisive support condition. Thus it is a wholesome root. The same method applies to the state of being wholesome roots in the cases of non-hate and non-delusion.

Conclusion on the Unwholesome and the Wholesome

8. Now, summing up the meaning of all that has been set forth in brief and in detail, he states the concluding section beginning with the words when a noble disciple. Herein, has thus understood the wholesome (evam akusalam pajanati) means: has thus understood the unwholesome by way of the ten courses of unwholesome kamma as described. The same method applies in the case of the root of the unwholesome, etc.

Up to this point, by a single method, emancipation as far as Arahantship has been expounded for one who has the Four Noble Truths as his meditation subject. How? Here, the ten courses of unwholesome kamma with the exception of covetousness, and the (ten) courses of wholesome kamma, are the truth of suffering. These two states -- covetousness and the greed which is a root of the unwholesome -- are, literally speaking, the truth of the origin. Speaking figuratively, however, all the courses of kamma are the truth of suffering, and all the wholesome and unwholesome roots are the truth of the origin.[17] The non-occurrence of both is the truth of cessation. The noble path fully understanding suffering, abandoning its origin, and understanding its cessation is the truth of the path. Thus two truths are stated in their own nature and two are to be understood by way of the guideline of conversion.[18]

He entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust (so sabbaso raganusayam pahaya): Understanding thus the unwholesome, etc., he abandons in all ways the underlying tendency to lust. He abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion (patighanusayam pativinodetva): and he removes in all ways too the underlying tendency to aversion, is what is meant. Up to this point the path of non-return is stated.[19] He extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit "I am" (asmi ti ditthimananusayam samuhanitva): he extricates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit which occurs in the mode of grasping the five aggregates as a group (with the notion) "I am," due to failure to distinguish any state among them.

Therein, by the phrase the underlying tendency to the view and conceit "I am" (ditthimananusayam) what is meant is the underlying tendency to conceit which is similar to a view (ditthisadisam mananusayam). For this underlying tendency to conceit is similar to a view because it occurs (with the notion) "I am"; therefore it is stated thus. And one who wishes to understand this conceit "I am" in detail should look up the Khemaka Sutta in the Khandhiyavagga (S.22:89/iii,126ff.).

By abandoning ignorance (avijjam pahaya): having abandoned ignorance, the root of the round (of existence). And arousing true knowledge (vijjam uppadetva): having aroused the true knowledge of the path of Arahantship which completely extricates that ignorance. At this point the path of Arahantship is stated.[20] He here and now makes an end of suffering (ditth'eva dhamme dukkhass'antakaro hoti): in this very existence he becomes one who cuts off the suffering of the round.

In that way too (ettavatapi kho avuso): he marks off (this first part of) the teaching; by way of the attention and penetration stated in this exposition of the courses of kamma, is what is meant. The rest is as aforesaid. Thus he concludes the exposition by means of the path of non-return and the path of Arahantship.