WARREN: BUDDHISM IN TRANSLATIONS

129

 

 


 

 

Ī 15. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Milindapañha (25.1)

Then drew near Milinda the king to where the venerable Nāgasena was; and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, he sat down respectfully at one side. And the venerable Nāgasena returned the greeting; by which, verily, he won the heart of king Milinda.

And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nāgasena as follows: --

"How is your reverence called? Bhante, what is your name?"

"Your majesty, I am called Nāgasena; my fellow-priests, your majesty, address me as Nāgasena: but whether parents give one the name Nāgasena, or Sūrasena, or Vīrasena, or Sīhasena, it is, nevertheless, your majesty, but a way of counting, a term, an appellation, a convenient designation, a mere name, this Nāgasena; for there is no Ego here to be found."

Then said Milinda the king, --

"Listen to me, my lords, ye five hundred Yonakas, and ye eighty thousand priests! Nāgasena here says thus: 'There is no Ego here to be found.' Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?"

And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nāgasena as follows: --

[130] "Bhante Nāgasena, if there is no Ego to be found, who is it then furnishes you priests with the priestly requisites, -- robes, food, bedding, and medicine, the reliance of the sick? who is it makes use of the same? who is it keeps the precepts? who is it applies himself to meditation? who is it realizes the Paths, the Fruits, and Nirvana? who is it destroys life? who is it takes what is not given him? who is it commits immorality? who is it tells lies? who is it drinks intoxicating liquor? who is it commits the five crimes that constitute 'proximate karma'?[1] In that case, there is no merit; there is no demerit; there is no one who does or causes to be done meritorious or demeritorious deeds; neither good nor evil deeds can have any fruit or result. Bhante Nāgasena, neither is he a murderer who kills a priest, nor can you priests, bhante Nāgasena, have any teacher, preceptor, or ordination. When you say, 'My fellow-priests, your majesty, address me as Nāgasena,' what then is this Nāgasena? Pray, bhante, is the hair of the head Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Is the hair of the body Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Are nails . . . teeth . . . skin . . . flesh . . . sinews . . . bones . . . marrow of the bones . . . kidneys . . . heart . . . liver . . . pleura . . . spleen . . . lungs . . . intestines . . . mesentery . . . stomach . . . faeces . . . bile . . . phlegm . . . pus . . . blood . . . sweat . . . fat . . . tears lymph . . . saliva . . . snot . . . synovial fluid . . . urine . . . brain of the head Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

[131] "Is now, bhante, form, Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Is sensation Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Is perception Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Are the predispositions Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Is consciousness Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Are, then, bhante, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness unitedly Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Is it, then, bhante, something besides form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness, which is Nāgasena?"

"Nay, verily, your majesty."

"Bhante, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any Nāgasena. Verily, now, bhante, Nāgasena is a mere empty sound. What Nāgasena is there here? Bhante, you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no Nāgasena."

Then the venerable Nāgasena spoke to Milinda the king as follows: --

"Your majesty, you are a delicate prince, an exceedingly delicate prince; and if, your majesty, you walk in the middle of the day on hot sandy ground, and you tread on rough grit, gravel, and sand, your feet become sore, your body tired, the mind is oppressed, and the body-consciousness suffers. Pray, did you come afoot, or riding?"

"Bhante, I do not go afoot: I came in a chariot."

"Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot. Pray, your majesty, is the pole the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is the axle the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Are the wheels the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is the chariot-body the chariot?"

[132] "Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is the banner-staff the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is the yoke the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Are the reins the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is the goading-stick the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Pray, your majesty, are pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, banner-staff, yoke, reins, and goad unitedly the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Is it, then, your majesty, something else besides pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, banner-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the chariot?"

"Nay, verily, bhante."

"Your majesty, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any chariot. Verily now, your majesty, the word chariot is a mere empty sound. What chariot is there here? Your majesty, you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no chariot. Your majesty, you are the chief king in all the continent of India; of whom are you afraid that you speak a lie? Listen to me, my lords, ye five hundred Yonakas, and ye eighty thousand priests! Milinda the king here says thus: 'I came in a chariot;' and being requested, 'Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot,' he fails to produce any chariot. Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?"

When he had thus spoken, the five hundred Yonakas applauded the venerable Nāgasena and spoke to Milinda the king as follows: --

"Now, your majesty, answer, if you can."

Then Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nāgasena as follows: --

"Bhante Nāgasena, I speak no lie: the word 'chariot' is but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, and name for pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, and banner-staff."

[133]"Thoroughly well, your majesty, do you understand a chariot. In exactly the same way, your majesty, in respect of me, Nāgasena is but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, mere name for the hair of my head, hair of my body . . . brain of the head, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness. But in the absolute sense there is no Ego here to be found. And the priestess Vajirā, your majesty, said as follows in the presence of The Blessed One: --

"'Even as the word of "chariot" means
That members join to frame a whole;
So when the Groups appear to view,
We use the phrase, "A living being.[2]"'"

"It is wonderful, bhante Nāgasena! It is marvellous, bhante Nāgasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies. If The Buddha were alive, he would applaud. Well done, well done, Nāgasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies."

 

Ī 15b. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii.)

Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absolute sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc.; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego" are but [134] a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth.

He, however, who abandons this knowledge of the truth and believes in a living entity must assume either that this living entity will perish or that it will not perish. If he assume that it will not perish, he falls into the heresy of the persistence of existences; or if he assume that it will perish, he falls into that of the annihilation of existences. And why do I say so? Because, just as sour cream has milk as its antecedent, so nothing here exists but what has its own antecedents.[3] To say, "The living entity persists," is to fall short of the truth; to say, "It is annihilated," is to outrun the truth. Therefore has The Blessed One said: --

"There are two heresies, O priests, which possess both gods and men, by which some fall short of the truth, and some outrun the truth; but the intelligent know the truth.

"And how, O priests, do some fall short of the truth?

"O priests, gods and men delight in existence, take pleasure in existence, rejoice in existence, so that when the Doctrine for the cessation of existence is preached to them, their minds do not leap toward it, are not favorably disposed toward it, do not rest in it, do not adopt it.

"Thus, O priests, do some fall short of the truth.

"And how, O priests, do some outrun the truth?

"Some are distressed at, ashamed of, and loathe existence, and welcome the thought of non-existence, saying, 'See here! When they say that on the dissolution of the body this Ego is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death, that is good, that is excellent, that is as it should be.'

"Thus, O priests, do some outrun the truth.

"And how, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth?

[135] "We may have, O priests, a priest who knows things as they really are, and knowing things as they really are, he is on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them.

"Thus, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth."

 

Ī 15c. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Mahā-Nidāna-Sutta (256.21) of the Dīgha-Nikāya (chap. xviii.)

"In regard to the Ego, Ānanda, what are the views held concerning it?

"In regard to the Ego, Ānanda, either one holds the view that sensation is the Ego, saying, 'Sensation is my Ego;'

"Or, in regard to the Ego, Ānanda, one holds the view, 'Verily, sensation is not my Ego; my Ego has no sensation;'

"Or, in regard to the Ego, Ānanda, one holds the view, 'Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation.'[4]

"In the above case, Ānanda, where it is said, 'Sensation is my Ego,' reply should be made as follows: 'Brother, there are three sensations: the pleasant sensation, the unpleasant sensation, and the indifferent sensation. Which of these three sensations do you hold to be the Ego?'

"Whenever, Ānanda, a person experiences a pleasant sensation, he does not at the same time experience an unpleasant sensation, nor does he experience an indifferent sensation; only the pleasant sensation does he then feel. Whenever, Ānanda, a person experiences an unpleasant sensation, he does not at the same time experience a pleasant sensation, nor does he experience an indifferent sensation; only the unpleasant [136]sensation does he then feel. Whenever, Ānanda, a person experiences an indifferent sensation, he does not at the same time experience a pleasant sensation, nor does he experience an unpleasant sensation; only the indifferent sensation does he then feel.

"Now pleasant sensations, Ānanda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation; and unpleasant sensations, Ānanda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation; and indifferent sensations, Ānanda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation. While this person is experiencing a pleasant sensation, he thinks, 'This is my Ego.' And after the cessation of this same pleasant sensation, he thinks, 'My Ego has passed away.' While he is experiencing an unpleasant sensation, he thinks, 'This is my Ego.' And after the cessation of this same unpleasant sensation, he thinks, 'My Ego has passed away.' And while he is experiencing an indifferent sensation, he thinks, 'This is my Ego.' And after the cessation of this same indifferent sensation, he thinks, 'My Ego has passed away.' So that he who says, 'Sensation is my Ego,' holds the view that even during his lifetime his Ego is transitory, that it is pleasant, unpleasant, or mixed, and that it is subject to rise and disappearance.

"Accordingly, Ānanda, it is not possible to hold the view, 'Sensation is my Ego.'

"In the above case, Ānanda, where it is said, 'Verily sensation is not my Ego; my Ego has no sensation,' reply should be made as follows: 'But, brother, where there is no sensation, is there any "I am"?'"

"Nay, verily, Reverend Sir."

"Accordingly, Ānanda, it is not possible to hold the view, 'Verily, sensation is not my Ego; my Ego has no sensation.'

"In the above case, Ānanda, where it is said, 'Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. [137] My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation,' reply should be made as follows: 'Suppose, brother, that utterly and completely, and without remainder, all sensation were to cease -- if there were nowhere any sensation, pray, would there be anything, after the cessation of sensation, of which it could be said, "This am I"?'"

"Nay, verily, Reverend Sir."

"Accordingly, Ānanda, it is not possible to hold the view, 'Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation.'

"From the time, Ānanda, a priest no longer holds the view that sensation is the Ego, no longer holds the view that the Ego has no sensation, no longer holds the view that the Ego has sensation, possesses the faculty of sensation, he ceases to attach himself to anything in the world, and being free from attachment, he is never agitated, and being never agitated, he attains to Nirvana in his own person; and he knows that rebirth is exhausted, that he has lived the holy life, that he has done what it behooved him to do, and that he is no more for this world.

"Now it is impossible, Ānanda, that to a mind so freed a priest should attribute the heresy that the saint exists after death, or that the saint does not exist after death, or that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death.

"And why do I say so?

"Because, Ānanda, after a priest has been freed by a thorough comprehension of affirmation and affirmation's range, of predication and predication's range, of declaration and declaration's range, of knowledge and knowledge's field of action, of rebirth and what rebirth affects, it is impossible for him to attribute such a heretical lack of knowledge and perception to a priest similarly freed."

 

[138]

 

Ī 15d. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Samyutta-Nikāya (xxii.85)

[1][pts][ati][wp][bd] THUS HAVE I HEARD.

On a certain occasion the venerable Sāriputta was dwelling at Sāvatthi in Jetavana monastery in Anāthapindika's Park.

Now at that time the following wicked heresy had sprung up in the mind of a priest named Yamaka: "Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death."

And a number of priests heard the report: "The following wicked heresy has sprung up in the mind of a priest named Yamaka: 'Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.'"

Then drew near these priests to where the venerable Yamaka was; and having drawn near, they greeted the venerable Yamaka; and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, they sat down respectfully at one side. And seated respectfully at one side, these priests spoke to the venerable Yamaka as follows: "Is the report true, brother Yamaka, that the following wicked heresy has sprung up in your mind: 'Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death'?"

"Even so, brethren, do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death."

"Say not so, brother Yamaka. Do not traduce The Blessed One; for it is not well to traduce The Blessed One. The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death."

[139]Nevertheless, in spite of all these priests could say, the venerable Yamaka persisted obstinately to adhere to his pestiferous delusion: "Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death."

And when these priests found themselves unable to detach the venerable Yamaka from this wicked heresy, then these priests arose from their seats and drew near to where the venerable Sāriputta was. And having drawn near they spoke to the venerable Sāriputta as follows: --

"Brother Sāriputta, the following wicked heresy has sprung up in the mind of a priest named Yamaka: 'Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.' Pray, let the venerable Sāriputta be so kind as to draw near to where the priest Yamaka is."

And the venerable Sāriputta consented by his silence.

Then the venerable Sāriputta in the evening of the day arose from meditation, and drew near to where the venerable Yamaka was; and having drawn near, he greeted the venerable Yamaka; and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, he sat down respectfully at one side. And seated respectfully at one side, the venerable Sāriputta spoke to the venerable Yamaka as follows: "Is the report true, brother Yamaka, that the following wicked heresy has sprung up in your mind: 'Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death'?"

"Even so, brother, do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death."

"What think you, brother Yamaka? Is form permanent, or transitory?"

"It is transitory, brother."

[140]"And that which is transitory -- is it evil, or is it good?"

"It is evil, brother."

"And that which is transitory, evil, and liable to change -- is it possible to say of it: 'This is mine; this am I; this is my Ego'?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Is sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness permanent, or transitory?"

"It is transitory, brother."

"And that which is transitory -- is it evil, or is it good?"

"It is evil, brother."

"And that which is transitory, evil, and liable to change -- is it possible to say of it: 'This is mine; this am I; this is my Ego'?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Accordingly, brother Yamaka, as respects all form whatsoever, past, future, or present, be it subjective or existing outside, gross or subtile, mean or exalted, far or near, the correct view in the light of the highest knowledge is as follows: 'This is not mine; this am I not; this is not my Ego.'

"As respects all sensation whatsoever, . . . as respects all perception whatsoever, . . . as respects all predispositions whatsoever, . . . as respects all consciousness whatsoever, past, future, or present, be it subjective or existing outside, gross or subtile, mean or exalted, far or near, the correct view in the light of the highest knowledge is as follows: 'This is not mine; this am I not; this is not my Ego.'

"Perceiving this, brother Yamaka, the learned and noble disciple conceives an aversion for form, conceives an aversion for sensation, conceives an aversion for perception, conceives an aversion for the predispositions, conceives an aversion for consciousness. And in conceiving this aversion he becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he becomes free, and when he is free he becomes aware that he is free; and he knows that rebirth is exhausted, that he has lived the holy life, that he has done what it behooved him to do, and that he is no more for this world.

[141]"What think you, brother Yamaka? Do you consider form as the saint?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Do you consider sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness as the saint?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"What think you, brother Yamaka? Do you consider the saint as comprised in form?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Do you consider the saint as distinct from form?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Do you consider the saint as comprised in sensation? . . . as distinct from sensation? . . . as comprised in perception? . . . as distinct from perception? . . . as comprised in the predispositions? . . . as distinct from the predispositions? . . . as comprised in consciousness?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Do you consider the saint as distinct from consciousness?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"What think you, brother Yamaka? Are form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness unitedly the saint?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"What think you, brother Yamaka? Do you consider the saint as a something having no form, sensation, perception, predispositions, or consciousness?"

"Nay, verily, brother."

"Considering now, brother Yamaka, that you fail to make out and establish the existence of the saint in the present life, is it reasonable for you to say: 'Thus do I understand the doctrine taught by The Blessed One, that on the dissolution of the body the priest who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death'?"

"Brother Sāriputta, it was because of my ignorance that I held this wicked heresy; but now that I have listened to the doctrinal instruction of the venerable Sāriputta, I have abandoned that wicked heresy and acquired the true doctrine."

[142]"But if others were to ask you, brother Yamaka, as follows: 'Brother Yamaka, the priest who is a saint and has lost all depravity, what becomes of him on the dissolution of the body, after death?' what would you reply, brother Yamaka, if you were asked that question?"

"Brother, if others were to ask me as follows: 'Brother Yamaka, the priest who is a saint and has lost all depravity, what becomes of him on the dissolution of the body, after death?' I would reply, brother, as follows, if I were asked that question: 'Brethren, the form was transitory, and that which was transitory was evil, and that which was evil has ceased and disappeared. The sensation . . . perception . . . predispositions . . . consciousness was transitory, and that which was transitory was evil, and that which was evil has ceased and disappeared.' Thus would I reply, brother, if I were asked that question."

"Well said! well said! brother Yamaka. Come now, brother Yamaka, I will give you an illustration that you may still better comprehend this matter.

"Suppose, brother Yamaka, there were a householder, or a son of a householder, rich, wealthy, and affluent, and thoroughly well guarded, and some man were to become unfriendly, inimical, and hostile to him, and were to wish to kill him. And suppose it were to occur to this man as follows: 'This householder, or son of a householder, is rich, wealthy, and affluent, and thoroughly well-guarded. It would not be easy to kill him by violence. What if now I were to ingratiate myself with him and then kill him.' And suppose he were to draw near to that householder, or son of a householder, and say as follows: 'Lord, I would fain enter your service.' And suppose the householder, or son of a householder, were to admit him into his service; and the man were to be his servant, rising before him and retiring after him, willing and obliging and pleasant-spoken. And suppose the householder, or son of a householder, were to treat him as a friend, were to treat him as a comrade, and repose confidence in him. And suppose then, brother, that when that man judged that the householder, or son of a householder, had [143] acquired thorough confidence in him, he were to get him into some secluded spot and kill him with a sharp weapon.

"What think you, brother Yamaka? When that man drew near to that householder, or son of a householder, and said as follows: 'Lord, I would fain enter your service,' was he not a murderer, though not recognized as such?

"And also when he was his servant, rising before him and retiring after him, willing and obliging and pleasant-spoken, was he not a murderer, though not recognized as such?

"And also when he got him into a secluded spot and killed him with a sharp weapon, was he not a murderer, though not recognized as such?"

"Even so, brother."

"In exactly the same way, brother, the ignorant, unconverted man, who is not a follower of noble disciples, not conversant with the Noble Doctrine, not disciplined in the Noble Doctrine, not a follower of good people, not conversant with the Doctrine held by good people, not trained in the Doctrine held by good people, not disciplined in the Doctrine held by good people, considers form in the light of an Ego -- either the Ego as possessing form, or form as comprised in the Ego, or the Ego as comprised in form. Considers sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness in the light of an Ego --either the Ego as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as comprised in the Ego, or the Ego as comprised in consciousness.

"He does not recognize the fact that form is transitory. He does not recognize the fact that sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is transitory.

"He does not recognize the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is evil.

"He does not recognize the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is not an Ego.

"He does not recognize the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is due to causes.

[144]"He does not recognize the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is a murderer.

"And he seeks after form, attaches himself to it, and makes the affirmation that it is his Ego. And he seeks after sensation, . . . perception, . . . the predispositions, . . . consciousness, attaches himself to it, and makes the affirmation that it is his Ego. And these five attachment-groups, sought after and become attached, long inure to his detriment and misery.

"But the learned and noble disciple, brother, who is a follower of noble disciples, conversant with the Noble Doctrine, disciplined in the Noble Doctrine, a follower of good people, conversant with the Doctrine held by good people, disciplined in the Doctrine held by good people, does not consider form in the light of an Ego--neither the Ego as possessing form, nor form as comprised in the Ego, nor the Ego as comprised in form. Does not consider sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness in the light of an ego -- neither the Ego as possessing consciousness, nor consciousness as comprised in the Ego, nor the Ego as comprised in consciousness.

"He recognizes the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is transitory .

"He recognizes the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is evil.

"He recognizes the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is not an Ego.

"He recognizes the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is due to causes.

"He recognizes the fact that form . . . sensation . . . perception . . . the predispositions . . . consciousness is a murderer.

"And he does not seek after form, . . . sensation, . . . [145] perception, . . . the predispositions, . . . consciousness, nor attach himself to it, nor make the affirmation that it is his Ego. And these five attachment-groups, not sought after and not become attached, long inure to his welfare and happiness."

"Even so, brother Sāriputta, is it with those venerable persons who have for co-religionists such compassionate and benevolent exhorters and instructors as you. And now that I have listened to the doctrinal instruction of the venerable Sāriputta my mind has lost all attachment and become released from the depravities."

Thus spake the venerable Sāriputta, and, delighted, the venerable Yamaka applauded the speech of the venerable Sāriputta.

 

Ī 15e. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xxi.)

He grasps the fourfold emptiness disclosed in the words: "I am nowhere a somewhatness for any one, and nowhere for me is there a somewhatness of any one." And how?

I am nowhere: -- He sees that he has no Ego anywhere.

A somewhatness[5] for any one: -- He sees that he has no Ego to bring forward to be a somewhatness for any one else. The sense is, he sees that he has none to bring forward to play the role of a brother, or of a friend, or of a follower.

And nowhere for me: -- Here we must disregard for the present the words "for me," and the sense then is, he sees that nowhere has any one an Ego.

Is there a somewhatness of any one: -- We must now bring in the words "for me" and understand a somewhatness in any role assumed towards himself. He sees that no one has any Ego to be a somewhatness to him. The sense is, he sees that no one else has an Ego to bring forward to be a somewhatness in any rôle, either of a brother, or of a friend, or of a follower.

Thus, inasmuch as he sees that there is no Ego anywhere, [146] and that he has none to bring forward to be a somewhatness to any one else, and that no one else has an Ego to bring forward to be a somewhatness to himself, he has grasped the fourfold emptiness.

 

Ī 15f. There Is No Ego

Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xvi.)

Therefore has it been said as follows: --

"Misery only doth exist, none miserable.
No doer is there; naught save the deed is found.
Nirvana is, but not the man who seeks it.
The Path exists, but not the traveler on it."

 


 

[1] Translated from the Sārasangaha, as quoted in Trenckner's note to this passage:

"By proximate karma is meant karma that ripens in the next existence. To show what this is, I [the author of the Sārasangaha] give the following passage from the Atthānasutta of the first book of the Anguttara-Nikāya: -- 'It is an impossibility, O priests, the case can never occur, that an individual imbued with the correct doctrine should deprive his mother of life, should deprive his father of life, should deprive a saint of life, should in a revengeful spirit cause a bloody wound to a Tathāgata, should cause a schism in the church. This is an impossibility.'"

[2]That is, "a living entity."

[3]See pages 239-40.

[4]From the commentary on the Mahā-Nidāna-Sutta, Providence Manuscript, folio ghāu, b, lines 4 and 5: -- Sensation is my Ego gives the heresy of individuality as based on the sensation-group; My Ego has no sensation, as based on the form-group; and My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses a faculty of sensation, as based on the perception-group, the predisposition-group, and the consciousness-group. For these three groups have sensation through union with sensation, and possess a faculty of sensation on account of the inseparability of this union.

[5]That is, somethingness, the opposite of nothingness.

 


[ Contents ]
[ Next: All Signs of an Ego are Absent ]