Majjhima Nikāya
1. Mūla-Paṇṇāsa
3. Tatiya Vagga

Sutta 22

Alagadd'Ūpama Suttaṃ

The Water-Snake Simile

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Proofed against and modified in accordance with the revised edition at dhammatalks.org
Provenance, terms and conditons

Translator's Introduction

This is a discourse about clinging to views (diṭṭhi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job.

The first section of the discourse, leading up to the simile of the water-snake, focuses on the danger of misapprehending the Dhamma in general, and particularly the teachings on sensuality. The discourse doesn't explain how the offending monk, Ariṭṭha, formulated his misapprehension of the Dhamma, but the Commentary suggests a plausible scenario:

"Here the monk... having gone into seclusion, reasons as follows: 'There are people living the household life, enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners. As for monks, they see pleasurable forms cognizable via the eye, hear... smell... taste... feel (pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable via the body. They use soft carpets and clothing. All this is proper. Then why shouldn't the sight, sound, smell, taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!' Thus... comparing a mustard seed with Mount Sineru, he gives rise to the evil viewpoint, 'Why did the Blessed One — binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort — formulate the first pārājika training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There is nothing wrong with that act.'"

Regardless of how Ariṭṭha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful. The Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2:25:

"Monks, these two slander the Tathāgata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred."

Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of the water-snake, which in turn is an introduction to the simile of the raft. It is important to underline the connection between these two similes, for it is often missed. Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dhamma is to be let-go. In fact, one major Mahāyāna text — the Diamond Sūtra — interprets the raft simile as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river. However, the simile of the water-snake makes the point that the Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. When this point is then applied to the raft simile, the implication is clear: One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go.

Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the discourse, which focuses on the teaching of not-self. This is one of the most easily misapprehended teachings in the Canon largely because it is possible to draw the wrong inferences from it.

Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and howhe teaches.

In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:

I have a self ... I have no self ... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self ... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self ... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or ... This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here and there to the ripening of good and bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering and stress.

Thus the view "I have no self" is just as much a doctrine of self as the view "I have a self." Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls "I-making" — the creation of a sense of self — if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4:24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for "the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, and obsessions; for the pacification of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding."

Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self. Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving the self and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the inconstancy and stress of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates are inconstant and stressful there is no self. He simply asks, When they are inconstant and stressful, is it proper to assume that they are "me, my self, what I am"? Now, because the sense of self is a product of "I-making," this question seeks to do nothing more than to induce disenchantment and dispassion for that process of I-making, so as to put a stop to it. Once that is accomplished, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose in putting an end to suffering and stress. That's the safety of the further shore. As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." As he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation; and as MN 140 points out, when one is truly unagitated one is unbound. The raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there — free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced.

[1][chlm][pts][nypo][ntbb][upal][olds] I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery.

Now on that occasion this evil viewpoint [diṭṭhigata] had arisen in the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers:

"As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions."

A large number of monks heard, "They say that this evil viewpoint has arisen in the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers:

'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions.'"

So they went to the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers and on arrival said to him, "Is it true, friend Ariṭṭha, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you —

'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions'?"

"Yes, indeed, friends.

I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions."

Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that evil viewpoint, quizzed him back and forth and rebuked him, saying, "Don't say that, friend Ariṭṭha.

Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One.

The Blessed One would not say anything like that.

In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.

The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake's head: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks."^[1]

And yet even though he was quizzed back and forth and rebuked by those monks, the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through stubbornness and attachment to that very same evil viewpoint, continued to insist, "Yes, indeed, friends.

I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions."

So when the monks were unable to pry the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that evil viewpoint, they went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.

As they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened].

So the Blessed One told a certain monk, "Come, monk.

In my name, call the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, saying, 'The Teacher calls you, friend Ariṭṭha.'"

"As you say, lord," the monk responded and, having gone to the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you, friend Ariṭṭha."

"As you say, my friend," the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers responded.

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Ariṭṭha, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you —

'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions'?"

"Yes, indeed, lord.

I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions."

"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way?

Worthless man, haven't I in many ways described obstructive acts?

And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.

I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake' head: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp (of the Dhamma), have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your long-term harm and suffering."^[2]

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm^[3] in this Dhamma and Vinaya?"

"How could he be, lord?

No, lord."

When this was said, the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own evil viewpoint.

I will cross-examine the monks on this matter."

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you, too, understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers does when, through his own wrong grasp, both misrepresents us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself?"

"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has described obstructive acts to us, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.

The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake' head: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks."

"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have described obstructive acts to you, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.

I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, and greater drawbacks.

But this monk Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through his own wrong grasp (of the Dhamma), has both misrepresented us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself, and that will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm and suffering.

For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.^[4]

The Water-snake Simile

"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question and answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings].

Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning [or: the purpose] of those Dhammas^[5] with their discernment.

Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering.

They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate.

They don't reach the goal for which (people) study the Dhamma.

Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm and suffering.

Why is that?

Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake.

He would see a large water-snake and grasp it by the coils or by the tail.

The water-snake, turning around, would bite him on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs, and from that cause he would suffer death or death-like suffering.

Why is that?

Because of the wrong-graspedness of the water-snake.

In the same way, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma....

Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.

Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering.

They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate.

They don't reach the goal for which (people) study the Dhamma.

Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm and suffering.

Why is that?

Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

"But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma....

Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.

Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering.

They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate.

They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma.

Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare and happiness.

Why is that?

Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.

"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake.

He would see a large water-snake and pin it down firmly with a cleft stick.

Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck.

Then no matter how much the water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs, he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering.

Why is that?

Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake.

In the same way, there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma....

Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment.

Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering.

They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate.

They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma.

Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare and happiness.

Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.^[6]

"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of my statements, that is how you should remember them.

But when you don't understand the meaning of my statements, then right there you should ask me or the experienced monks.

The Raft Simile

"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.

Listen and pay close attention.

I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said:

"Suppose a man were traveling along a path.

He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious and risky, the further shore secure and free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.

The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious and risky, the further shore secure and free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.

What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands and feet?'

Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, and leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands and feet.^[7]

Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me!

For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands and feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore.

Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?'

What do you think, monks?

Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft?

There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me!

For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands and feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore.

Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?'

In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft.

In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.

Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

Six View-positions

"Monks, there are these six view-positions [diṭṭhiṭṭhāna].

Which six?

There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: