Saṃyutta Nikāya
3. Khandha Vagga
24. Diṭṭhi Saṃyutta
1. Sotāpatti Vagga
The Constituent Aspects of Individuality
Sutta 4
No ca Me Siyā Suttaṃ
If There Were No Being
Translated from the Pāḷi
by
Michael M. Olds
Once upon a time, The Lucky man,
Sāvatthi-town revisiting,
Jeta Grove,
Anathapiṇḍika's Sporting Grounds.
There then The Lucky Man addressed the beggars, saying:
"Beggars!"
And the beggars responding "Bhante!"
The Lucky Man said this to them:
"There being what, beggars,
bound to what
adhering to what
does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.[1]
"For us Bhante,
things are best resorted to
rooted in The Lucky Man,
channeled through The Lucky Man.
It would be good, Bhante,
if further explanation of this point
were given by The Lucky Man.
That which is said
by the Lucky Man
will be held in memory
by the beggars."
"Then give ear, beggars,
pay good attention!
I will speak!"
Then, the beggars saying
"Even so, Bhante!"
in response,
the Lucky Man said this to them:
"There being form, beggars,
bound to form,
adhering to form,
even thus does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.'
There being sense-experience, beggars,
bound to sense-experience,
adhering to sense-experience,
even thus does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.'
There being perception, beggars,
bound to perception,
adhering to perception,
even thus does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.'
There being own-making, beggars,
bound to own-making,
adhering to own-making,
even thus does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.'
There being consciousness, beggars,
bound to consciousness,
adhering to consciousness,
even thus does this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming.'
■
What do you think, beggars?
Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
■
"Is sense-experience permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
■
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
■
"Is own-making permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
■
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
■
"That which is seen,
heard,
sensed,
cognized,
attained,
yearned after,
pondered over in mind —
is that permanent
or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent —
painful or
pleasant?"
"Unpleasant, Bhante."
"That which is impermanent,
painful,
a thing subject to change —
without being bound to that —
can this view arise:
'If there were no being,
there'd be no me —
by not becoming
there'll be no me-becoming'?"
"No indeed, Bhante."
§
"So then, beggars,
when in the student of the aristocrats
doubt as to these six positions has been abandoned,
doubt as to pain[2] has been abandoned,
doubt as to the arising of pain has been abandoned,
doubt as to the ending of pain has been abandoned,
doubt as to the walk-to-walk to the ending of pain has been abandoned —
this is said to be, beggars,
a student of the aristocrats
a stream-winner
one aimed at self-awakening."
[1] My translation leaves open whether or not the view-holder thinks further becoming is a good idea. The Pāḷi is:
No c'assaṃ||
no ca me siyā||
na bhavissami||
na me bhavissatī'|| ||
Woodward translates:
'I may not be,
and mine it may not be.
I shall not be,
and mine it shall not be.
Bhikkhu Bodhi translates:
I might not be,
and it might not be for me;
I will not be,
[and} it will not be for me.
Woodward's translation gives us a thinker who at first doubts his existance and then determines not to exist further. If he did not exist to begin with, there would be no need for him to end becoming. So it is self-contradictory and does not hang together. And further, doubting one's existence is not necessarily followed by the determination to end existence. As translated it makes sense only as a Buddhist view and that only with some previous explanation of why ending existence is a good idea! It looks like Woodward has jumped ahead to the Buddhist position here and that is not the point of the sutta. Bhikkhu Bodhi does the same thing.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation implies the same doubt but makes it a foregone conclusion that the thinker will not further become ("I will not be [and] ..." should be "were I not to become [no and] it would not become mine"), and so it has the same problem of not making good sense. Further, he accounts for the "ca" (usually "and"), but places it in the second phrase where in the original it is in the first. He footnotes commentary which says the ca should be thought of as "if", which I follow.
[2] For details see my translation of SN 3.24.1 footnotes. All the suttas of SN.24 should be read (slowly!) together.
