Samyutta Nikaya Masthead


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

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

 

Sa.myutta Nikaaya:
III. Khandha Vagga:
22: Khandha Sa.myutta
2.1. Upaaya Vagga

The Book of the Kindred Sayings
III: The Book Called The Khandhaa-Vagga
Containing Kindred Saings
on the Elements of Sensory Existence
and Other Subjects
XXII: Kindred Sayings on Elements (Khandhaa)
2.1: On Attachment

Sutta 59

Pa~nca Sutta.m

The Five

Translated by F. L. Woodward
Edited by Mrs. Rhys Davids

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

 


[66] [59]

[1][bit][mend][nymo][than][olds][bodh] Thus have I heard:-

At Benares, in the Deer Park was the occasion[1] (for this discourse).

At that time the Exalted One thus addressed the band of five brethren:

'Body, brethren, is not the Self.

If body, brethren, were the Self,
then body would not be involved in sickness,
and one could say of body:

"Thus let my body be.

Thus let my body not be."

But, brethren, inasmuch as body is not the Self,
that is why body is involved in sickness,
and one cannot say of body:

"Thus let my body be.

Thus let my body not be."

 

 

Feeling, brethren, is not the Self.

If feeling, brethren, were the Self,
then feeling would not be involved in sickness,
and one could say of feeling:

"Thus let my feeling be.

Thus let my feeling not be."

But, brethren, inasmuch as feeling is not the Self,
that is why feeling is involved in sickness,
and one cannot say of feeling:

"Thus let my feeling be.

Thus let my feeling not be."

 

 

Perception, brethren, is not the Self.

If perception, brethren, were the Self,
then perception would not be involved in sickness,
and one could say of perception:

"Thus let my perception be.

Thus let my perception not be."

But, brethren, inasmuch as perception is not the Self,
that is why perception is involved in sickness,
and one cannot say of perception:

"Thus let my perception be.

Thus let my perception not be."

 

 

Activities, brethren, are not the Self.

If activities, brethren, were the Self,
then activities would not be involved in sickness,
and one could say of activities:

"Thus let my activities be.

Thus let my activities not be."

But, brethren, inasmuch as activities are not the Self,
that is why activities are involved in sickness,
and one cannot say of activities:

"Thus let my activities be.

Thus let my activities not be."

 

 

Consciousness, brethren, is not the Self.

If consciousness, brethren, were the Self,
then consciousness would not be involved in sickness,
and one could say of consciousness:

"Thus let my consciousness be.

Thus let my consciousness not be."

But, brethren, inasmuch as consciousness is not the Self,
that is why consciousness is involved in sickness,
and one cannot say of consciousness:

"Thus let my consciousness be.

Thus let my consciousness not be."

 


 

Now what think ye, brethren.

Is body permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, lord.'

'And what is impermanent,
is that weal or woe?'

'Woe, lord.'

[60] 'Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable by nature,'
is it fitting to regard it thus:

"This is mine;
I am this;
this is the Self of me?"

'Surely not, lord.'

 

 

Now what think ye, brethren.

Is feeling permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, lord.'

'And what is impermanent,
is that weal or woe?'

'Woe, lord.'

'Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable by nature,'
is it fitting to regard it thus:

"This is mine;
I am this;
this is the Self of me?"

'Surely not, lord.'

 

 

Now what think ye, brethren.

Is perception permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, lord.'

'And what is impermanent,
is that weal or woe?'

'Woe, lord.'

'Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable by nature,'
is it fitting to regard it thus:

"This is mine;
I am this;
this is the Self of me?"

'Surely not, lord.'

 

 

Now what think ye, brethren.

Are the activities permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, lord.'

'And what is impermanent,
is that weal or woe?'

'Woe, lord.'

'Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable by nature,'
is it fitting to regard it thus:

"This is mine;
I am this;
this is the Self of me?"

'Surely not, lord.'

 

 

Now what think ye, brethren.

Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, lord.'

'And what is impermanent,
is that weal or woe?'

'Woe, lord.'

'Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable by nature,'
is it fitting to regard it thus:

"This is mine;
I am this;
this is the Self of me?"

'Surely not, lord.'

 


 

Therefore, brethren, every body whatever,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near, -
every body should be thus regarded,
as it really is,
by right insight:

"This is not mine.

This I am not.[ed1]

This is not the Self of me."

 

 

Therefore, brethren, every feeling whatever,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near, -
every feeling should be thus regarded,
as it really is,
by right insight:

"This is not mine.

This I am not.

This is not the Self of me."

 

 

Therefore, brethren, every perception whatever,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near, -
every perception should be thus regarded,
as it really is,
by right insight:

"This is not mine.

This I am not.

This is not the Self of me."

 

 

Therefore, brethren, every activity whatever,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near, -
every activity should be thus regarded,
as it really is,
by right insight:

"This is not mine.

This I am not.

This is not the Self of me."

 

 

Therefore, brethren, every consciousness whatever,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near, -
every consciousness should be thus regarded,
as it really is,
by right insight:

"This is not mine.

This I am not.

This is not the Self of me."

 


 

So seeing, brethren, the well-taught Ariyan disciple
feels disgust for body,
feels disgust for feeling,
feels disgust for perception,
feels disgust for the activities,
feels disgust for consciousness.

So feeling disgust
he is repelled;
being repelled,
he is freed;
knowledge arises
that in the freed
is the freed thing;
so that he knows:

"Destroyed is rebirth;
lived is the righteous life;
done is my task;
for life in these conditions
there is no hereafter."'

Thus spake the Exalted One,
and the band of five brethren were pleased thereat,
and welcomed what was said by the Exalted One.

Moreover, by this teaching
thus uttered
the hearts of those five brethren
were freed from the aasavas
without grasping.

 


[1] Niddaana.m. Vin i, 12. This is the famous logion out of which the compilers have elaborated with formulas the so-called Anattalakkha.na-Sutta. 'The five' were A~n~naata-Ko.n.da~n~na, Vappa, Bhaddiya, Mahaanaama and Assajii, the early supporters of the Master. The discourse followed that which is called Dhamma-cakka-ppavarrana-sutta, or 'the Foundation of the Realm of Righteousness.' There is a tradition that it took place on the full-moon day of Aasa.lhaa (July). Cf. Warren, p. 146.

 


[ed1] The PTS here has Woodward saying "This am not I".


Contact:
E-mail
Copyright Statement