[Home] [Sutta Indexes] [Glossology] [Site Sub-Sections]
[Pāḷi English Dictionary] [Sutta Search]

#### Aṅguttara Nikāya
Catukka Nipāta
XX: Mahā Vagga

#### The Book of the Gradual Sayings
The Book of the Fours
Chapter XX: The Great Chapter

#### Sutta 200

#### Pema Suttaṁ

# Affection

Translated from the Pali by F. L. Woodward, M.A.

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

[227]

[1][than] Thus have I heard:

On a certain occasion Exalted One addressed the monks, saying:

"Monks."

"Yes, lord," they replied,
and the Exalted One said:

"Monks, these four things are born.

What four?

Of affection is born affection,
of affection is born ill-will.

Of ill-will is born affection,
of ill-will is born ill-will.

■

And how is affection born of affection?

In this case, monks,
one person is dear,
pleasant,
delightful
to another person.

Then others treat[1] that one as dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

The former thinks:

He who is dear,
pleasant
and delightful to me
is treated by others also as dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

So he conceives affection for them.

Thus, monks, is affection born of affection.

■

And how, monks, is ill-will born of affection?

In this case, monks,
one person is dear,
pleasant
and delightful
to another.

Then others treat that one
as not dear,
[228] not pleasant,
not delightful.

The former thinks:

He who is to me dear,
pleasant
and delightful
is treated by others as not dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

So he conceives ill-will towards them.

Thus, monks, is ill-will born of affection.

■

And how, monks, is affection born of ill-will?

In this case, monks,
a certain person is not dear,
pleasant
and delightful
to another.

Others also treat him as not dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

Then the former thinks:

This person is not dear,
pleasant
and delightful to me;
others also treat him as not dear,
pleasant
and delightful,
so he conceives affection for those others.

Thus, monks, is affection born of ill-will.

■

And how, monks, is ill-will born of ill-will?

In this case, monks,
a certain person is not dear,
pleasant
and delightful
to another.

But others treat him as dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

The former thinks:

This person is not dear,
pleasant
and delightful to me,
but others treat him as dear,
pleasant
and delightful.

So he conceives ill-will for those others.

Thus, monks, is ill-will born of ill-will.

These four things[2] are born.

§

Now, monks, at such time as a monk,
aloof from sense-desires,
aloof from evil conditions,
enters upon the first musing,
which is accompanied by thought directed and sustained,
born of seclusion,
zestful and easeful,
and abides therein,
the affection that is born of affection
exists not at all,
nor yet does the ill-will that is born of affection,
nor yet the affection that is born of ill-will,
nor yet the ill-will that is born of ill-will.

■

At such time as a monk, by calming down thought directed and sustained
of thought directed and sustained
he attains and abides in the second musing,
that inward calming,
that single-mindedness
apart from thought directed and sustained,
that is born of mental balance,
zestful and easeful,
the affection that is born of affection
exists not at all,
nor yet does the ill-will that is born of affection,
nor yet the affection that is born of ill-will,
nor yet the ill-will that is born of ill-will.

■

At such time as a monk, by the fading out of zest,
disinterested,
mindful and composed,
he experiences with body
that ease
of which the Ariyans declare:

"He who is disinterested and alert,
dwells at ease,"

and he attains and abides in the third musing,
the affection that is born of affection
exists not at all,
nor yet does the ill-will that is born of affection,
nor yet the affection that is born of ill-will,
nor yet the ill-will that is born of ill-will.

■

At such time as a monk, by abandoning both ease and discomfort,
by the ending of both the happiness and unhappiness he had before,
he attains and abides in the fourth musing,
a state of neither ease nor discomfort,
an equanimity of utter purity,
the affection that is born of affection
exists not at all,
nor yet does the ill-will that is born of affection,
nor yet the affection that is born of ill-will,
nor yet the ill-will that is born of ill-will.[3]

■

At such time as a monk,
by the destruction of the āsavas,
attains the heart's release,
the release by wisdom
that ie without the āsavas,
in this very life
of himself thoroughly comprehending it,
and abides therein,
the affection that is born of affection
is abandoned by him,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made not to exist,
made of a [229] nature not to recur in future time;

the ill-will that is born of affection,
is abandoned by him,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made not to exist,
made of a nature not to recur in future time;

the affection that is born of ill-will
is abandoned by him,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made not to exist,
made of a nature not to recur in future time;

the ill-will that is born of ill-will. is abandoned by him,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made not to exist,
made of a nature not to recur in future time.

§

This monk is said
neither to attract nor to repel,
neither to smoulder nor to blaze up,
and is not bemused.[4]

■

And how does a monk attract?

Herein a monk regards body as the Self,
or regards the Self as having bodily form,
or regards body as in the Self
or the Self as in the body.

He regards feeling as the Self,
or regards the Self as having feeling,
or regards feeling as in the Self
or the Self as in feeling.

He regards perception as the Self,
or regards the Self as having perception,
or regards perception as in the Self
or the Self as in perception.

He regards the activities as the Self,
or regards the Self as having activities,
or regards activities as in the Self
or the Self as in activities.

He regards consciousness as the Self,
or regards the Self as having consciousness;
or regards consciousness as in the Self,
or the Self as in consciousness.

That is how a monk attracts.

■

And how does a monk not attract?

Herein a monk regards not body as the Self,
regards not the Self as having bodily form,
regards not body as in the Self
or the Self as in the body.

He regards not feeling as the Self,
regards not the Self as having feeling,
regards not feeling as in the Self
or the Self as in feeling.

He regards not perception as the Self,
regards not the Self as having perception,
regards not perception as in the Self
or the Self as in perception.

He regards not the activities as the Self,
regards not the Self as having activities,
regards not activities as in the Self
or the Self as in activities.

He regards not consciousness as the Self,
regards not the Self as having consciousness;
regards not consciousness as in the Self,
or the Self as in consciousness.

That is how a monk does not attract.

■

And how does a monk repel?

Herein a monk reviles again
him who reviles,
annoys again
him who annoys,
quarrels again
with him who quarrels.

That is how he repels.

■

And how does a monk not repel?

When reviled
he reviles not again,
when annoyed
he annoys not again,
he quarrels not again
with him who quarrels.

That is how he repels not.

■

And how does a monk smoulder?

Monks, where there is the thought "I am,"
there is also the thought:

"I am in this world;"

"I am thus;"

"I am otherwise;"

"I am not eternal;"

"I am eternal;"[5]

"Should I be?;"

"Should I be in this world?;"

"Should I be thus?;"

"Should I be otherwise?;"

"May I become;"

"May I become in this world;"

"May I become thus;"

"May I become otherwise;"

"I shall become;"

"I shall become in [230] this world;"

"I shall become thus;"

"I shall become otherwise."

That is how a monk smoulders.[6]

■

And how does a monk not smoulder?

Where the thought "I am," is not,
there is not the thought:

"I am in this world;"

"I am thus;"

"I am otherwise;"

"I am not eternal;"

"I am eternal;"

"Should I be?;"

"Should I be in this world?;"

"Should I be thus?;"

"Should I be otherwise?;"

"May I become;"

"May I become in this world;"

"May I become thus;"

"May I become otherwise;"

"I shall become;"

"I shall become in this world;"

"I shall become thus;"

"I shall become otherwise."

That is how a monk smoulders not.

■

And how does a monk blaze up?

Where there is the thought "By this I am,"
there is also the thought:

"By this I am in this world;"

"By this I am thus;"

"By this I am otherwise;"

"By this I am not eternal;"

"By this I am eternal;"

"By this should I be?;"

"By this should I be in this world?;"

"By this should I be thus?;"

"By this should I be otherwise?;"

"By this may I become;"

"By this may I become in this world;"

"By this may I become thus;"

"By this may I become otherwise;"

"By this I shall become;"

"By this I shall become in this world;"

"By this I shall become thus;"

"By this I shall become otherwise."

That is how a monk blazes up.

■

And how does a monk not blaze up?

Where there is not the thought "By this I am,"
there is not the thought:

"By this I am in this world;"

"By this I am thus;"

"By this I am otherwise;"

"By this I am not eternal;"

"By this I am eternal;"

"By this should I be?;"

"By this should I be in this world?;"

"By this should I be thus?;"

"By this should I be otherwise?;"

"By this may I become;"

"By this may I become in this world;"

"By this may I become thus;"

"By this may I become otherwise;"

"By this I shall become;"

"By this I shall become in this world;"

"By this I shall become thus;"

"By this I shall become otherwise."

That is how a monk blazes not up.

■

And how is a monk bemused?

Where there the conceit "I am"
is not abandoned in a monk,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made non-existent,
made of a nature not to arise again
in future time
a monk is bemused.[7]

■

And how is a monk not bemused?

Herein the conceit of "I am"
is abandoned in a monk,
cut down at the root,
made like a palm-tree stump,
made non-existent,
made of a nature not to arise again
in future time.

That is how a monk is not bemused.'

[1] Samudācaranti, 'associates with' (instrum.).

[2] Text wrongly pemāni.

[3] All texts omit the third jhāna. [Ed.: BJT, CSCD, and Bhk. Bodhi all have the third jhāna. The pattern of abridgment used for a series in the Pali is: first thing ...pe... second thing ...pe... last thing.]

[4] Cf. S. iii, 89 = K.S. iii, 75, pajjhāyati, for which Comy. and Sinh. text read apajjhāyati. Cf. M. i, 334, jhāyanti, pajjhāyanti, nijjhāyanti, apajjhāyanti, trans. by Lord Chalmers (to bring out the force of the prefixes): 'they trance, and en-trance, and un-trance and de-trance.' Comy. 'with the pride of "I am."'

[5] Here text has rightly sat'asmi for sāt'asmi (above).

[6] Cf. M. i. 144 (the simile of the ant-hill which smoulders by day and blazes up at night). This refers to a man's imaginings. At S. iii, 89 the word used is sandhūpeti.

[7] This section is not in the texts. [Ed. It is found in BJT, CSCD and Bhk.Bodhi. Woodward understands the whole of the set of ideas about the self to be repeated here, but the BJT Pali, etc., have it as here.

Contact:
Copyright Statement