Majjhima Nikaya


[Site Map]  [Home]  [Sutta Indexes]  [Glossology]  [Site Sub-Sections]

The Pali is transliterated as IAST Unicode (āīūṃṅñṭḍṇḷ). Alternatives:
[ ASCII (aiumnntdnl) | Mobile (āīūŋńñţđņļ) | Velthuis (aaiiuu.m'n~n.t.d.n.l) ]

 

Majjhima Nikāya
I. Mūlapaṇṇāsa
1. Mūlapariyāya Vagga

The Middle Length Sayings
I. The First Fifty Discourses
1. The Division of the Synopsis of Fundamentals

Sutta 1

Mūla-Pariyā'ya Suttaɱ[1]

Discourse on the Synopsis of Fundamentals

Translated from the Pali by I.B. Horner, M.A.
Associate of Newham College, Cambridge
First Published in 1954

Copyright The Pali Text Society
Commercial Rights Reserved
Creative Commons Licence
For details see Terms of Use.

Praise to the Lord, the Perfected One, the Completely Self-awakened One

 


 

[1][chlm][bodh][than][olds][upal] THUS have I heard:

At one time the Lord[2] was staying near Ukkatthā
in the Subhaga Grove[3]
close to[4] the great sāl-tree.

While he was there the Lord addressed the monks,[5] saying:

"Monks."

"Revered One,"[6] these monks answered the Lord in assent.

The Lord spoke thus:

[2][bodh][than][olds][upal] "I will teach you, monks,
the synopsis of the fundamentals of all things.[7]
Listen,
attend carefully,
and I will speak."

"Yes, Lord," these monks answered the Lord in assent.

The Lord spoke thus:

[3][bodh][than][olds][upal] "This in this case, monks,
where an uninstructed[8] average person,
taking no count of the pure ones,[9]
unskilled in the dhamma of the pure ones,[10]
untrained[11] in the dhamma of the pure ones,
taking no count of the true men,[12]
unskilled in the dhamma of the true men,
untrained in the dhamma of the true men,
recognises extension[13] as extension;
[14] having recognised extension as extension,
he thinks of extension,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he thinks (of self as) extension,
he thinks, 'Extension is mine.'[15]
He rejoices in extension.[16]

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[4][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises liquid[17] as liquid;
having recognised liquid as liquid,
he thinks of liquid,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he thinks (of self as) liquid,
he thinks, 'Liquid is mine.'
He rejoices in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[5][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises heat[18] as heat;
having recognised heat as heat,
he thinks of heat,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he thinks (of self as) heat,
he thinks, 'Heat is mine.'
He rejoices in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[6][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises motion[19] as motion;
having recognised motion as motion,
he thinks of motion,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he thinks (of self as) motion,
he thinks, 'Motion is mine.'
He rejoices in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[7][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises beings[20] as beings;
having recognised beings as beings,
he thinks of beings,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he thinks (of self as) beings,[ed1]
he thinks, 'Beings are mine.'
He rejoices in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[8][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises devas[21] as devas;
having recognised devas as devas,
he thinks of devas,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he thinks (of self as) devas,
he thinks, 'Devas are mine.'
He rejoices in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[9][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognizes Pajāpati[22] as Pajāpati;
having recognised Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he thinks of Pajāpati,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he thinks (of self as) Pajāpati,
he thinks, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He rejoices in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[10][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises Brahmā[23] as Brahmā;
having recognised Brahmā as Brahmā,
he thinks of Brahmā,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he thinks (of self as) Brahmā,
he thinks, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He rejoices in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[11][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
having recognised the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he thinks of the Radiant ones,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he thinks (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he thinks, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He rejoices in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[12][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
having recognised the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he thinks of the Lustrous ones,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he thinks (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he thinks, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He rejoices in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[13][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the Vehapphalā[24] (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
having recognised the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he thinks of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he thinks (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he thinks, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He rejoices in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[14][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the Overlord[25] as the Overlord;
having recognised the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he thinks of the Overlord,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he thinks (of self as) the Overlord,
he thinks, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He rejoices in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[15][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the plane of infinite ether[26] as the plane of infinite ether;
having recognised the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he thinks of the plane of infinite ether,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he thinks (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he thinks, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He rejoices in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[16][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
having recognised the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he thinks of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he thinks (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he thinks, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He rejoices in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[17][bodh][than][olds][upal] [3] He recognises the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
having recognised the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he thinks of the plane of no-thing,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he thinks (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he thinks, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He rejoices in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[18][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
having recognised the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he thinks of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he thinks (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he thinks, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He rejoices in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[19][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the seen[27] as the seen;
having recognised the seen as the seen,
he thinks of the seen,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he thinks (of self as) the seen,
he thinks, 'The seen is mine.'
He rejoices in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[20][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the heard as the heard;
having recognised the heard as the heard,
he thinks of the heard,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he thinks (of self as) the heard,
he thinks, 'The heard is mine.'
He rejoices in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[21][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the sensed as the sensed;
having recognised the sensed as the sensed,
he thinks of the sensed,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he thinks (of self as) the sensed,
he thinks, 'The sensed is mine.'
He rejoices in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[22][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises the cognised as the cognised;
having recognised the cognised as the cognised,
he thinks of the cognised,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he thinks (of self as) the cognised,
he thinks, 'The cognised is mine.'
He rejoices in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[23][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises unity as unity[28];
having recognised unity as unity,
he thinks of unity,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he thinks (of self as) unity,
he thinks, 'Unity is mine.'
He rejoices in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[24][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises diversity as diversity;
having recognised diversity as diversity,
he thinks of diversity,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he thinks (of self as) diversity,
he thinks, 'Diversity is mine.'
He rejoices in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[25][bodh][than][olds][upal] He recognises universality[29] as universality;
having recognised universality as universality,
he thinks of universality,
he thinks (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he thinks (of self as) universality,
he thinks, 'Universality is mine.'
He rejoices in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say that is is not thoroughly understood by him.

[26][bodh][than][olds][upal] [4] he recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He rejoices in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.

 

§

 

[27-50][bodh][than][olds][upal] Monks, whatever monk is a learner,[32]
not attained to perfection,[33]
but who lives striving for the incomparable security from bondage,
he intuitively knows extension as extension;[34]
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
let him not think of extension,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
let him not think (of self) as extension,
let him not think, 'Extension is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
let him not think of liquid,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
let him not think (of self as) liquid,
let him not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
let him not think of heat,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
let him not think (of self as) heat,
let him not think, 'Heat is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
let him not think of motion,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
let him not think (of self as) motion,
let him not think, 'Motion is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
let him not think of beings,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
let him not think (of self as) beings,
let him not think, 'Beings are mine.'
Let him not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
let him not think of devas,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
let him not think (of self as) devas,
let him not think, 'Devas are mine.'
Let him not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
let him not think of Pajāpati,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
let him not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
let him not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
let him not think of Brahmā,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
let him not think (of self as) Brahmā,
let him not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
let him not think of the Radiant ones,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
let him not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
let him not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
let him not think of the Lustrous ones,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
let him not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
let him not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
let him not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
let him not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
let him not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
let him not think of the Overlord,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
let him not think (of self as) the Overlord,
let him not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
let him not think of the plane of infinite ether,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
let him not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
let him not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
let him not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
let him not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
let him not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
let him not think of the plane of no-thing,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
let him not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
let him not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
let him not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
let him not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
let him not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
let him not think of the seen,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
let him not think (of self as) the seen,
let him not think, 'The seen is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
let him not think of the heard,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
let him not think (of self as) the heard,
let him not think, 'The heard is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
let him not think of the sensed,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
let him not think (of self as) the sensed,
let him not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
let him not think of the cognised,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
let him not think (of self as) the cognised,
let him not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
let him not think of unity,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
let him not think (of self as) unity,
let him not think, 'Unity is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
let him not think of diversity,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
let him not think (of self as) diversity,
let him not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
let him not think of universality,
let him not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
let him not think (of self as) universality,
let him not think, 'Universality is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
let him not think of Nibbāna,
let him not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
let him not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
let him not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
Let him not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it may be thoroughly understood by him.

 

§

 

[51-74][bodh][than][olds][upal] Monks, whatever monk is one perfected,[35]
canker-waned,
who has lived the life,[36]
done what was to be done,
laid down the burden,[37]
attained his own goal,
whose fetters of becoming[38] are utterly worn away,
who is freed[39] by perfect profound knowledge.
He too intuitively knows extension as extension;
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think, 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by him.

 

§

 

[75-98][bodh][than][olds][upal] Monks, whatever monk is one perfected,
canker-waned,
who has lived the life,
done what was to be done,
laid down the burden,
attained his own goal,
whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away,
who is freed by perfect profound knowledge.
He too [5] intuitively knows extension as extension
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think, 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without attachment owing to the waning of attachment.

 

§

 

[99-122][bodh][than][olds][upal] Monks, whatever monk is one perfected,
canker-waned,
who has lived the life,
done what was to be done,
laid down the burden,
attained his own goal,
whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away,
who is freed by perfect profound knowledge.
He too intuitively knows extension as extension
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think, 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without aversion owing to the waning of aversion.

 

§

 

[123-146][bodh][than][olds][upal] Monks, whatever monk is one perfected,
canker-waned,
who has lived the life,
done what was to be done,
laid down the burden,
attained his own goal,
whose fetters of becoming are utterly worn away,
who is freed by perfect profound knowledge.
He too intuitively knows extension as extension
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think, 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because he is without confusion owing to the waning of confusion.

 

§

 

[147-170][bodh][than][olds][upal] The Tathāgata,[40] monks,
perfected one, fully Self-awakened One[41]
also intuitively knows extension as extension;
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

[6] What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood[42] by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

I say it is because it is thoroughly understood by the Tathāgata.

 

§

 

[171-194][bodh][than][olds][upal] And, monks, the Tathāgata also,
perfected one, fully Self-awakened One,
intuitively knows extension as extension;
from intuitively knowing extension as extension,
he does not think of extension,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) extension,
he does not think (of self) as extension,
he does not think, 'Extension is mine.'
He does not rejoice in extension.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,[43]
knows that from becoming[44] there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.[45]

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,[46]
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."[47]

He intuitively knows liquid as liquid;
from intuitively knowing liquid as liquid,
he does not think of liquid,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) liquid,
he does not think (of self as) liquid,
he does not think, 'Liquid is mine.'
He does not rejoice in liquid.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows heat as heat;
from intuitively knowing heat as heat,
he does not think of heat,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) heat,
he does not think (of self as) heat,
he does not think, 'Heat is mine.'
He does not rejoice in heat.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows motion as motion;
from intuitively knowing motion as motion,
he does not think of motion,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) motion,
he does not think (of self as) motion,
he does not think, 'Motion is mine.'
He does not rejoice in motion.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows beings as beings;
from intuitively knowing beings as beings,
he does not think of beings,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) beings,
he does not think (of self as) beings,
he does not think, 'Beings are mine.'
He does not rejoice in beings.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows devas as devas;
from intuitively knowing devas as devas,
he does not think of devas,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) devas,
he does not think (of self as) devas,
he does not think, 'Devas are mine.'
He does not rejoice in devas.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He recognizes Pajāpati as Pajāpati;
from intuitively knowing Pajāpati as Pajāpati,
he does not think of Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Pajāpati,
he does not think (of self as) Pajāpati,
he does not think, 'Pajāpati is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Pajāpati.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows Brahmā as Brahmā;
from intuitively knowing Brahmā as Brahmā,
he does not think of Brahmā,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) Brahmā,
he does not think (of self as) Brahmā,
he does not think, 'Brahmā is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Brahmā.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the Radiant ones
as the Radiant ones;
from intuitively knowing the Radiant ones as the Radiant ones,
he does not think of the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Radiant ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Radiant ones,
he does not think, 'The Radiant ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Radiant ones.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones;
from intuitively knowing the Lustrous ones as the Lustrous ones,
he does not think of the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think (of self as) the Lustrous ones,
he does not think, 'The Lustrous ones are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Lustrous ones.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas);
from intuitively knowing the Vehapphalā (devas) as the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think of the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think (of self as) the Vehapphalā (devas),
he does not think, 'The Vehapphalā (devas) are mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Vehapphalā (devas).

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the Overlord as the Overlord;
from intuitively knowing the the Overlord as the Overlord,
he does not think of the Overlord,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord,
he does not think (of self as) the Overlord,
he does not think, 'The Overlord is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the Overlord.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite ether as the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think of the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite ether,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite ether is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite ether.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness;
from intuitively knowing the plane of infinite consciousness as the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think of the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of infinite consciousness,
he does not think, 'The plane of infinite consciousness is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of infinite consciousness.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing;
from intuitively knowing the plane of no-thing as the plane of no-thing,
he does not think of the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of no-thing,
he does not think, 'The plane of no-thing is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of no-thing.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception;
from intuitively knowing the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
as the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think (of self as) the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,
he does not think, 'The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the seen as the seen;
from intuitively knowing the seen as the seen,
he does not think of the seen,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the seen,
he does not think (of self as) the seen,
he does not think, 'The seen is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the seen.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the heard as the heard;
from intuitively knowing the heard as the heard,
he does not think of the heard,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the heard,
he does not think (of self as) the heard,
he does not think, 'The heard is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the heard.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the sensed as the sensed;
from intuitively knowing the sensed as the sensed,
he does not think of the sensed,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the sensed,
he does not think (of self as) the sensed,
he does not think, 'The sensed is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the sensed.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows the cognised as the cognised;
from intuitively knowing the cognised as the cognised,
he does not think of the cognised,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) the cognised,
he does not think (of self as) the cognised,
he does not think, 'The cognised is mine.'
He does not rejoice in the cognised.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows unity as unity;
from intuitively knowing unity as unity,
he does not think of unity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) unity,
he does not think (of self as) unity,
he does not think, 'Unity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in unity.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows diversity as diversity;
from intuitively knowing diversity as diversity,
he does not think of diversity,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) diversity,
he does not think (of self as) diversity,
he does not think, 'Diversity is mine.'
He does not rejoice in diversity.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows universality as universality;
from intuitively knowing universality as universality,
he does not think of universality,
he does not think (of self) in (regard to) universality,
he does not think (of self as) universality,
he does not think, 'Universality is mine.'
He does not rejoice in universality.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

He intuitively knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
from intuitively knowing Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
he does not think of Nibbāna,
he does not think (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
he does not think (of self as) Nibbāna,
he does not think, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
He does not rejoice in Nibbāna.

What is the reason for this?

It is because he,
having known that delight is the root of anguish,
knows that from becoming there is birth,
and that there is old age and dying for the being.

Consequently I say, monks,
that the Tathāgata, by the waning of all cravings,
by dispassion,
by stopping,
by abandoning,
by completely renouncing,
is wholly self-awakened
to the incomparable full self-awakening."

 

§

 

Thus spoke the Lord.
Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said.[48]

 

Discourse on the Synopsis of Fundamentals: The First.

 


[ed1] Here and in the other similar cases this should probably read: 'he thinks (of self as [a,]) being,' or, as in the case of the devas: 'he thinks (of self as [one of the] devas,'. The problem with the abbreviated form here being that it is possible for a being to think of himself [as all] beings, devas, etc., and we will never know for certain now which was intended by Ms. Horner.

[1] Both mūla and pariyāya are words of several meanings. MA. i. 16-17 expands the title into sabbadhammamūlapariyāya a compound attributed to Gotama in his first speech in this Sutta. The Comy. Further says that the meaning is the breaking of pride; for the reason for this see p. ??, n. 46. Cf. Jātaka No. 245, the Mūlapariyāya jātaka, which is quoted at MA. i. 56-8.

[2] Bhagavā. This means, according to MA. i. 10, esteemed, garu, esteemed in the world. Or garu may mean "teacher." Cf. Guru.

[3] Vana. MA. i. 11 says a grove is of two kinds: one that is planted (by men) and one that is self-sown, or, growing on its own. i.e. groves are cultivated or wild. To the former class belong, according to MA. i. 11, the Bamboo Grove, the Jeta Grove, etc.; to the latter the Blind Men's Grove, the Great Grove, the Añjana Grove, etc. The Subhaga Grove is self-sown, or self-grown.

[4] MA. i. 12 = VA. i. 109 says mūlam here means samīpam, near, close.

[5] Part of the definition of "monk" at Vin. iii. 24 is quoted at MA. i. 13, which also states that the word "monk" is used (by the Buddha) in addressing his ordained disciples.

[6] Bhadante, a term of respect.

[7] Dhammā, an important word with several meanings, such as conditions, mental objects, states of mind, and things.

[8] One who does not hear the teaching or tradition. Cf. S. iii, 3, 113; M. i. 7, 135, iii. 17; Dhs. 1003, 1217.

[9] Ariyānam, restricted at MA. i. 21 to Buddhas, PaccekaBuddhas and disciples of Buddhas, "or here, just Buddhas are pure ones." Cf. S. v. 435, Tathāgato ariyo, tasmā ariyasaccāni ti vuccanti, "the Tathāgata is pure, therefore they (the four truths) are called the pure truths (or the truths of the pure one(s))."

[10] According to MA. i. 22, this consists of the categories of the applications of mindfulness, and so on.

[11] avinīta, untrained, not led, not disciplined. MA. i. 22 mentions two kinds of vinaya or discipline, that of restraint, and that of getting rid of. Each of these is further subdivided into a fivefold division.

[12] Sappurisa. MA. i. 21 says that these are paccekaBuddhas and disciples of Tathāgatas. Identified with the "pure ones" at MA. i. 21, 24.

[13] Pathavi, a mahābhūta or dhātu, is an element, a fundamental or essential part of every existing thing, meaning "extension." It's symbol is "earth." See Cpd. 155. MA. i. 25 gives four aspects of the word pathavī and says they are all to be taken into account here: the pathavī that (1) is a characteristic feature, (2) has ingredients or constituent parts, (3) is a subject for meditation, (4) that is so called by convention. On pathavī-dhātu see M. i. 185, also M. i. 329, 421, and Vism. 352.

[14] All of these headings from "extension" down to "the Conqueror" occur also at M. i. 329.

[15] Pathavim me, or "extension is in me" or "for me."

[16] MA. i. 29, "Who thinks in these ways is not able to get rid of his false view of or craving for extension. Who rejoices in extension rejoices in suffering. 'I say that he who rejoices in suffering is not freed from suffering'" (quoting S. ii. 174).

[17] Symbolised by āpo, water. In distinction to pathavī, tejo and vāyo, what is liquid or cohesive is intangible, but is that which unifies atoms. See M. i. 187 for analysis of this element, also M. i. 423. Cf. Vbh. 83; Vism. 352.

[18] Tejo. This includes cold as well as heat. Vitalising energy and decay are due to this element. See M. i. 188, 424; Vism. 352.

[19] Vāyo, the wind, symbolising movement and motion. See Vbh. 84; Vism. 352; and M. i. 188-189, 424. MA. i. 31 says "these are four ways of regarding material shapes that are conceits and false views as to one's own body: (1) to see material shape as self; (2) to see self in material shape; (3) to think self is other than material shape; (4) to see self as having material shape or material shape as in self. One is the view of annihilism, three are views of eternalism."

[20] Bhūtā. See Pts. i. 159. MA. i. 31 gives various kinds: that which is among the khandhas, those which are non-human, those which are among the (four) elements (symbolised by earth, water, heat, air), that which exists as fact, that which is in one whose cankers are destroyed, creatures, and that which inhabits trees and so on. MA. i. 33 says that these ways of thinking about "beings" (sons and daughters, sheep and goats, cocks and swine, elephants, cows, horses, mares) arouse selfishness, affection and pride.

[21] MA. i. 33 says devas shine with the five strands of sense-pleasures or with their own natural power; they amuse themselves or they illumine. They are threefold: devas by convention (kings, queens, princes), those reborn or uprisen as devas (the Four Great Regents, and the devas beyond them), and the devas of purity (arahants whose cankers are destroyed). The second class is meant here.

[22] Here to be called Māra, so MA. i. 33. Usually Pajāpati is the lord of creation, but the story given at MA. shows Māra pretending to be this. For the following classes of devas see Dīgha Sta. 31 and M. Sta. 49.

[23] MA. i. 34 gives Mahābrahmmā, Tathāgata, brahman, parents and best as synonyms.

[24] Explained at MA. i. 35 as vipulā phalā, of extensive fruits, at the stage of the fourth jhāna.

[25] Abhibhu. MA. i. 35 says that this is a synonym for being without perception, hence advanced in the contemplative process.

[26] This and the three following planes, āyatana, are the fifth to the eighth of the nine stages in the contemplative process.

[27]Dittha-suta-muta-viññāta. As at Vin. iv. 2. See B.D. ii. 166, n. 3. Dittha and suta mean seen and heard by both the physical and the deva-like (dibba) eye and ear.

[28]Ekatta.

[29] MA. i. 38 says, he thinks "great is my self ... this self of mine is in everything."

[30] Here Nibbāna signifies the enjoyment of the five kinds of sensory pleasures. The "average man" regards these as the highest Nibbāna in this very life. Nibbāna is therefore not being used here in its Buddhist sense.

[31] The Nibbāna clauses are quoted at Kvu. 404.

[32] The learner, "undergraduate," sekha, the one under training, here appears as the middle term between the average worldling, puthujjana, and the asekha, the adept, "graduate," who has no further need of training. Moreover the worldling does not understand, the learner may understand, the arahant does understand.

[33] Appattamanasa. MA. i. 41 says that mānasa is of three kinds: rāga, citta, arahatta (attachment, mind or consciousness, and arahantship or perfection), but here arahatta is meant. Cf. Appattamānasa at M. i. 477; S. i. 121, ii. 229, v. 327; A. ii. 90; and pattamānasa at It. p. 76.

[34] Not by wrong perception as does the ordinary man, but by most excellent knowledge he knows intuitively that it is impermanent, ill, not-self.

[35] Arahant. See also M. i. 280.

[36] MA. i. 42, "who has lived according to the ten Ariyan modes." These are given at D. iii. 269.

[37] Ohitabhāra. MA. i. 43 gives three burdens: the khandhas (constituents, components of the psycho-physical compound), the kilesas (impurities, defilements), and abhisankhāra (material for rebirth). See also M. i. 139; A. iii. 85 on "the burden laid low," pannabhāra.

[38] MA. i. 43 gives ten fetters which bind one to "becoming."

[39] MA. i. 43 gives two kinds of freedom: freedom of mind, and Nibbāna.

[40] Tathāgata. According to MA. i. 45 the Lord is Tathāgata for eight reasons. Other Comys. Give much the same. It is therefore impossible to find one English word to convey all these meanings.

[41] Because he is thoroughly or perfectly, sammā, awakened to all things, and of himself, sāmam, (i.e. not with another's help), he is thoroughly awakened, sammāsamBuddha, MA. i. 52. For full discussion of this compound see Vism. I. 198.

[42] MA. i. 52 here reads pariññātantam, thoroughly understood to the end (or, to the full), while the text reads pariññātam, which the Comy. also recognises.

[43] MA. i. 52 calls dukkha the five khandhas. Dukkha is therefore deep, almost cosmic, anguish of the many, the "individuals," owing to their separation from the One.

[44] Becoming, bhava, is here explained as "karmical becoming," kammabhava, becoming through deeds, see MA. i. 52.

[45] MA. i. 52 explains bhūta, what has become, by satta, creature. At MA. i. 53 it is said that "delight" is of the past, "birth, old age and dying" of the future, "suffering and becoming" of the present.

[46] MA. i. 54 ascribes this and the following three achievements to the first, the second, and the third and fourth Ways respectively.

[47] MA. i. 54, bodhi is free, the Way, omniscience, Nibbāna.

[48] According to MA. i. 56 the five hundred monks to whom this Discourse was addressed were not delighted and did not rejoice. They were ignorant and did not understand its meaning. Moreover they had thought that they were as learned as the Buddha, and said so. He then preached the Mūlapariyāya jataka to them and their pride was humbled and to humble pride is in a way the purpose of this Discourse, see p. 3, n. 1. Later, as the Buddha was on tour, he preached the Gotamakasutta (A. i. 276) to them and they became arahants. It is unusual for monks not to feel satisfied and pleased at the end of discourse, but such is the tradition in this case.

 


 

[ More Mulapariyaya Resources ]


Contact:
E-mail
Copyright Statement   Webmaster's Page