以下附英文原文。
覺與緣起
繁體中文翻譯：
4 MARCH 2025
John Tan: 比如說，宗喀巴：以概念分析作為直接證悟的必要前行。以及麥彭仁波切將其系統化。在這兩條路徑之間，存在著一個極其關鍵的洞見，它將兩者合而為一，但這點通常沒有被清楚地闡述。讓我們談談 ATR 的偈語，當無我的洞見通過這些偈語生起時，直接所認出的是什麼？
Soh Wei Yu: 同時沒有一個內在實有的發起主宰者，以及能-作-所/能見-見-所見的範式，並且生動的臨在/光明作為純粹的顯現而存在。
John Tan: 是的，同時一次性產生兩種洞見。一個是否定（不是關於臨在），但否定並非通過概念建構。在看清「主宰者」不存在的過程中，沒有涉及任何分析或推理。因此，這裡存在「否定」，但並非通過推理或分析。只是直接認清並看透概念建構，這是看透自性見（inherentness）的一部分，儘管還不夠成熟。第二個則是對臨在的直接現證。
Soh Wei Yu: 我明白了。那麼，宗喀巴與麥彭仁波切其實也指出了這一點，但在那篇論文中漏掉了？有沒有關於麥彭和宗喀巴討論這些內容的書籍或論文？那本辯證法的書？
John Tan: 不是啦。所以我贊同指出否定的重要性。但「否定」並不一定要通過分析，然而它極為重要，我把它視為般若（prajñā）的一部分。這是一種對「否定」的直接洞見，並且可以延伸到例如「身」與「心」。但這不是「臨在」，儘管這種洞見必須伴隨著對「臨在」的直接現證才算完整。話雖如此，分析仍然發揮一定作用，尤其是在成熟我們對「自性見」（inherentness）如何影響心靈的理解上，及其對因果、對象與其特徵等觀念的影響上。所以儘管我同意宗喀巴強調「否定」的部分，但我不同意這必須通過分析的方式，且必須是概念性的。
其次，「臨在」必須來自於「本初覺智」（yeshe）的智慧。我認為這部分呈現了「積極」的方面，但並非辯證法所談論的那種方式。這種對「臨在」的直接認知並非通過分析——這點沒錯，但是這條道並不僅僅是「安住」於無法言說或不可言說的本性中。事實上，有許多關鍵的方面是可以言說且必須被指出的，儘管它們在第一印象中看似矛盾。
同時需要注意的是「顯現」的重要作用，以及這兩位上師如何定義這個詞。麥彭仁波切實際上非常強調顯現。但我不喜歡的是將「覺知」強調為實相（終極真理），似乎麥彭仁波切在談某種覺知教法。以及它是如何呈現宗喀巴對世俗與空性的理解的。這裡完全沒有清晰度與洞見。現在想像在一個非實體論的世界中，世俗的空性已是既定前提，根本沒有所謂的「實體」。那麼世俗怎麼可能「不重要」呢？你懂我的意思嗎？
對我來說也是如此，當我談論自然臨在或空性顯現時，我根本不是在談論「覺知」。這就是為什麼使用「顯現」這個詞。我相信麥彭也明白這一點。在一個非實體論的世界裡，自然臨在，並沒有將「顯現」推斷為「某物」——無論是覺知、意識、氣、能量、物質、場域還是其他什麼。它就只是純粹生動、無實體的發生……其餘的，則是將生動的發生抽象化為妄見顯現的行為。
Soh Wei Yu: 我明白了。是的。
John Tan: 如果你看見「火」，那麼這個「火」究竟是什麼？
Soh Wei Yu: 就只是燃燒、閃動的紅色斑塊，我們稱之為火焰。火是世俗的。
John Tan: 當你靠近時，會有一種「熱」的感覺，一種灼燒的感受。當我們使用語言和世俗約定時，常會忽略「覺知」，好像有一個獨立存在於外部的「火」一樣。現在在我們過快跳到沒有外部或內部的結論之前，我想讓你用自己的語言，在消除「實體」見的前提下，盡你所能描述這些現象，你能做到嗎？
Soh Wei Yu: 我想我只會以描述的方式表達，而不把它們歸結為客體固有的屬性。比如，如果我看見紅玫瑰，我會描述它為非常本自光明、生動的紅色感知，而不將其歸結為「屬於固體玫瑰的紅色屬性」。當走近火時，只是一種逐漸增強的溫暖感，從輕微舒適的暖意開始，逐漸增強為強烈且不適/痛苦的熱感，等等。正是所有這些生動的發生，隨後被賦予了世俗的名稱如「火」，並進而實體化為客體與特徵等。基本上，所有這些都不離覺知，我們也無需假設一個獨立存在的覺知。每當談論「覺知」時，它只是世俗的，就像佛陀所說，依條件而命名。無法脫離當下呈現的任何條件而單獨談論……如果是火的情況，它就只是舒適或不適的溫暖感受。
John Tan: 非常好。
English Original:
4 MARCH 2025
John Tan: For example, Tsongkhapa: The Need for Conceptual Analysis as a Precursor to Direct Insight. And Mipham makes it systematic. In Beacon of Certainty, after going through logical examinations, he essentially says the most crucial knowledge is “knowledge by presence” – an intuitive gnosis that is felt rather than thought. Between these two ways, lies a very crucial insight that integrates the two into one that is often not properly articulated. Let's talk about the ATR stanzas, when the insight of anatta arises from realizing the stanzas, there is direct recognition of what?
Soh Wei Yu: The simultaneous absence of an inherently existing initiating agent and subject-action-object/seer-seeing-seen paradigm and the vivid presence/radiance as mere appearances.
John Tan: Yes, simultaneously two insights in a single go. One is the negation (not about presence) but negation is not by way of constructs. There is no analysis nor reasoning involved in that seeing that "agent" does not exist. So there is "negation" but it is not by reasoning nor analysis. Just direct recognition of seeing through constructs which is part of seeing through of inherentness 【自性見】 though not in a mature way. The second is direct authentication of presence.
Soh Wei Yu: I see. So both Tsongkhapa and Mipham point to that, right, but missed out in the paper? Are there any books or papers on Mipham and Tsongkhapa that talk about this? The dialectic book?
John Tan: No. So I agree about the pointing out of negation. But "negation" is not necessarily by way of analysis, but it is extremely critical and I consider that as part of "prajñā". However, that is a form of direct insight of "negation" and can be extended to, for example, "body" and "mind". But it is not "presence", although the insight must be accompanied by direct authentication of "presence" to be complete. That said, analysis plays a role especially in maturing one's understanding of how "inherentness" affects our mind and its implications, for example, in the case of cause and effect, object and its characteristics, etc. So although I agree with the Tsongkhapa part on the emphasis of "negation", I disagree that it must be via way of analysis and must be conceptual.
Next, "presence" is a must from the wisdom of "yeshe". This part, I think, is presenting the "positive" aspects, but not the way the dialectics are talking about. This direct knowledge of "presence" is not via analysis—yes, but the path is not just about "resting" in the nature where nothing can be said about it or it is ineffable. In fact, many critical aspects can be said and must be pointed out, albeit being contradictory on first impression.
Also, the important role of "appearances" and how the two teachers define the term. Mipham actually emphasizes a lot on appearances. What I don't like is the emphasis of "awareness" as reality (ultimate) as if Mipham is talking about some awareness teaching. And how it presents Tsongkhapa's understanding of conventional and emptiness. There is just no clarity and insight at all. Now imagine in a non-substantialist world where the emptiness of the conventional is a given, there is no "substance" at all. So how can the conventional be "not important"? Do you get what I mean?
Also to me, when I talk about spontaneous presence or empty appearances, I am not talking about "awareness" at all. That is why the term "appearances" is used. I believe Mipham understands that too. Spontaneous presence, in a world of non-substantialists, there is no extrapolating the "appearing" into "something", be it awareness, consciousness, chi, energy, matter, field or whatever. It is just plainly vivid, insubstantial happening... the rest is the act of abstraction of vivid happening into deluded appearances.
Soh Wei Yu: I see. Yeah.
John Tan: If you see "fire", so what is that "fire"?
Soh Wei Yu: Just the burning, the flickering red patches that we call flame. Fire is conventional.
John Tan: When you approach nearer, there is a sensation of "heat", a burning feeling. When we use languages and conventions, we often miss out "awareness" as if some existing independent "fire" exists out there in externality. Now before we jump too quickly about there is no externality or internality, I want you to use your own words to best describe these phenomena but eliminate the "substance" view, are you able to do it?
Soh Wei Yu: I guess I would just express it in a descriptive way without attributing them to be characteristics of objects. For example, if I see a red rose, I describe it as a very self-luminous 【本自光明】 vivid sense of red, but don't attribute it as 'redness belonging to a solid rose'. When walking to a fire, there is just a gradually intensifying gradation of warmth feeling starting with mildly and pleasantly warm to increasingly intense and uncomfortable/unpleasant/painful heat sensation, and so on. It is all these vivid happenings that are then given conventional names like "fire" and then reified into objects and characteristics and so on. Basically, all these are not apart from awareness nor do we need to posit some standalone awareness. Whenever 'awareness' is spoken it is just conventional, like the Buddha said, named after conditions. It cannot be spoken apart from whatever conditions are present at the moment... if in the case of fire, it is just the pleasant/unpleasant sensation of warmth.
John Tan: Very good.
繁體中文翻譯：
Soh於2023年寫道：
CW先生/女士，您最近是否對「作為顯現的識」有了新的領悟？這種體驗對您而言是怎樣的？
六識也是假名所立下(而非實存)的，但理解這一點對於解構「識是單一且不變/本質上存在的，如同梵我，是獨立於條件和各種顯現的不變實體」這一觀念非常重要。關鍵在於指出識本質存在的空性，以及緣起性。關於蘊、六識的筏喻教法，並非用於執著或實體化。參見佛陀在《中部》第38經中責備比丘薩提持有實在論的識觀： https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
此外： https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../misguided-man-have...
佛陀說：「迷誤的人啊，我難道沒有在許多講道中指出，識是緣起的，因為沒有條件就沒有識的生起？」
Soh 2分鐘前 與您的朋友分享
這似乎是達賴喇嘛的一本好書。它甚至引用了我常引用的經文。 https://www.amazon.com/Realizing-Profound.../dp/B09ZBKNZB7
尹玲 23分鐘前
「因為人們容易將識及其思想、感受、情緒和觀點視為個人，所以值得更仔細地審視這一觀念。佛陀明確指出，識不是自我。在《大渴愛滅盡經》中，他召集比丘薩提，質問他關於他錯誤地認為識是自我的觀點。以下是他們的對話（《中部》第38.5經）：
（佛陀）：薩提，是否屬實，你產生了以下有害的觀點：據我理解，世尊所教的法，就是這個相同的識在輪迴中運行和流轉，而不是其他？
（薩提）：正是如此，尊者。據我理解，世尊所教的法，就是這個相同的識在輪迴中運行和流轉，而不是其他。
（佛陀）：薩提，什麼是那個識？
（薩提）：尊者，就是那個在此處彼處說話、感受並體驗善惡行為結果的東西。
（佛陀）：迷誤的人啊，你何曾聽我如此教導過法？迷誤的人啊，我難道沒有在許多講道中指出，識是緣起的，因為沒有條件就沒有識的生起？
【Dalai Lama 達賴喇嘛說：】
薩提的觀點是，識本身存在，獨立於條件。他說自我是說話的主體，表明「我」是說話行為的主宰者。他說自我感受，是認為「我」是被動的主體，體驗著。「此處彼處」表示自我是一個在多次再生中保持不變的輪迴者。這個識或自我從一生到另一生，創造業並體驗其結果，但在此過程中沒有被改變或變化。它具有一個不變的身份，在經歷一個又一個事件並從一生到另一生時保持相同。簡而言之，薩提將識視為一個『ātman（神我／我體）』或大我。
註釋解釋說，薩提是本生故事的專家，在這些故事中，佛陀講述了他以前的生活，說：『那時，我是……』」
- 摘自《實現深刻見解》 比丘丹增嘉措，比丘尼圖登邱卓
Soh 1分鐘前編輯
「正如諸佛出於世俗約定而談論『我』和『我所』；同樣地，他們也出於實際原因談論『蘊』、『界』和『處』。這些被稱為『大種』的事物，完全被吸收於識中；既然它們通過理解而被消解，難道它們不是被錯誤地賦予實在性嗎？」
- 龍樹：《六十頌》節選
English Original:
Soh Wei Yu wrote in 2023：
Mr./Ms. CW
Have you had a recent realization of "Consciousness AS appearances" and how is it like experientially for you?
The six types of consciousness are also provisional, but it is important in order to deconstruct the idea that consciousness is a singular and unchanging/inherently existing consciousness like brahman, some unchanging substance independent of conditions and various manifestations. The point is to point out the emptiness of inherent existence of consciousness, and also to point out dependent origination. The raft of the teachings of aggregates, six consciousness are not meant to be clung to or reified. See the sutta where Buddha scolded Bhikkhu Sati for holding substantialist view of consciousness: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
Also: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../misguided-man-have...
Buddha said： "Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?"
Soh Wei Yu 2m · Shared with Your friends
Looks like a great book by the Dalai Lama. It even quoted the sutta I always quote. https://www.amazon.com/Realizing-Profound.../dp/B09ZBKNZB7
Yin Ling 23m ·
“Because it is easy to consider consciousness with its thoughts, feelings, moods, and opinions to be the person, it is worthwhile to examine this notion more closely. The Buddha clearly states that consciousness is not the self. In the Greater Sutta on the Destruction of Craving, he calls Bhikṣu Sāti and questions him about his wrong view that the consciousness is the self. The following dialogue ensues (MN 38.5):
(The Buddha): Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another?
(Sāti): Exactly so, Venerable Sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.
(The Buddha): What is that consciousness, Sāti?
(Sāti): Venerable Sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the “ the result of good and bad actions.
(The Buddha): Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?
Sāti’s view is that consciousness exists in and of itself, independent of conditions. Saying the self is that which speaks shows the I as an agent of the action of speaking. Saying the self feels is the notion that the I is a passive subject that experiences. “Here and there” indicates the self as a transmigrator that remains unchanging as it passes through many rebirths. This consciousness or self goes from life to life, creating karma and experiencing its results, but not being transformed or changing in the process. It has an unchanging identity that remains the same as it experiences one event after another and goes from one life to the next. In short, Sāti views the consciousness as an ātman or Self.
The commentary explains that Sāti was an expert in the Jātaka Tales, in which the Buddha recounts his previous lives, saying, “At that time, I was[…]”
- Excerpt From: Realizing the Profound View. Bhikṣu Tenzin Gyatso, Bhikṣuṇī Thubten Chodron
Soh Wei Yu 1m Edited
"Just as the Buddhas have spoken of "I" and "mine" for a practical purpose; Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates", "Elements" and "sense-fields" for a practical reasons. Such things spoken of as the "great elements", These are fully absorbed into consciousness; Since they are dissolved by understanding them, Are they not falsely imputed?"
- Nagarjuna: excerpt from his 60 Stanzas
中部38經：渴愛的滅盡大經
雙大品［4］
我聽到這樣：
有一次，世尊住在舍衛城祇樹林給孤獨園。
當時，漁夫的兒子，名叫薩提的比丘生起像這樣邪惡的惡見：
「我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」
眾多比丘聽聞：
「聽說漁夫的兒子，名叫薩提的比丘生起像這樣邪惡的惡見：『我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』」
那時，那些比丘去見漁夫的兒子薩提比丘。抵達後，對漁夫的兒子薩提比丘這麼說：
「是真的嗎？薩提學友！你生起了這樣邪惡的惡見：『我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』」
「確實這樣，學友們！我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」
那時，那些比丘想要使漁夫的兒子薩提比丘遠離這邪惡的邪見，而審問、質問、追究：
「薩提學友！不要這麼說，不要毀謗世尊，毀謗世尊不好，世尊不會這麼說。薩提學友！世尊以許多法門說識是緣起的，除了經由緣以外，沒有識的生成。」
當被那些比丘這樣審問、質問、追究時，漁夫的兒子薩提比丘仍剛毅地、取著地執著那邪惡的惡見，而說：
「確實這樣，學友們！我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」
由於那些比丘不能使漁夫的兒子薩提比丘遠離這邪惡的惡見，那時，那些比丘去見世尊。抵達後，向世尊問訊，接著在一旁坐下。在一旁坐好後，那些比丘對世尊這麼說：
「大德！漁夫的兒子，名叫薩提的比丘生起像這樣邪惡的惡見：『我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』大德！我們聽聞：『聽說漁夫的兒子，名叫薩提的比丘生起像這樣邪惡的惡見：「我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」』大德！那時，我們去見漁夫的兒子薩提比丘。抵達後，對漁夫的兒子薩提比丘這麼說：『是真的嗎？薩提學友！你生起了這樣邪惡的惡見：「我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」』大德！當這麼說時，漁夫的兒子薩提比丘對我們這麼說：『確實這樣，學友們！我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』大德！那時，我們想要使漁夫的兒子薩提比丘遠離這邪惡的邪見，而審問、質問、追究：『薩提學友！不要這麼說，不要毀謗世尊，毀謗世尊不好，世尊不會這麼說。薩提學友！世尊以許多法門說識是緣起的，除了經由緣以外，沒有識的生成。』大德！當被我們這樣審問、質問、追究時，漁夫的兒子薩提比丘仍剛毅地、取著地執著那邪惡的惡見，而說：『確實這樣，學友們！我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』大德！由於我們不能使漁夫的兒子薩提比丘遠離這邪惡的惡見，我們［來］告訴世尊這件事。」
那時，世尊召喚某位比丘：
「來！比丘！你以我的名義召喚漁夫的兒子薩提比丘：『薩提學友！大師召喚你。』」
「是的，大德！」那位比丘回答世尊後，就去見漁夫的兒子薩提比丘。抵達後，對漁夫的兒子薩提比丘這麼說：
「薩提學友！大師召喚你。」
「是的，學友！」漁夫的兒子薩提比丘回答那位比丘後，就去見世尊。抵達後，向世尊問訊，接著在一旁坐下。在一旁坐好後，世尊對漁夫的兒子薩提比丘這麼說：
「是真的嗎？薩提！你生起了這樣邪惡的惡見：『我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。』」
「確實這樣，大德！我了知依世尊教導的法，就是這［同一個］識流轉、輪迴，而非不同的。」
「薩提！那是哪個識呢？」
「大德！就是這講話者、能感受、到處經驗善惡業果報的識。」
「愚鈍男子！你從誰了知我這樣教導法？愚鈍男子！我不是以許多法門說識是緣起的，除了經由緣以外，沒有識的生成嗎？然而，愚鈍男子！你以自己錯誤地把握對我們誹謗，並傷害自己、產出許多非福德，因為，愚鈍男子！這對你將有長久的不利與苦。」
那時，世尊召喚比丘們：
「比丘們！你們怎麼想：這位漁夫的兒子薩提比丘是否在這法、律中已變熱了呢？」
「這怎麼可能呢？不，大德！」
當這麼說時，漁夫的兒子薩提比丘變得沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低頭、鬱悶、無言以對而坐。
那時，世尊知道漁夫的兒子薩提比丘變得沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低頭、鬱悶、無言以對後，對漁夫的兒子薩提比丘這麼說：
「愚鈍男子！你將了知自己這邪惡的邪見，這裡，我將質問比丘們。」
那時，世尊召喚比丘們：
「比丘們！你們了知我這麼教導法，如這位漁夫的兒子薩提比丘以自己錯誤地把握對我們誹謗，並傷害自己、產出許多非福德嗎？」
「不，大德！因為，世尊以許多法門說識是緣起的，除了經由緣以外，沒有識的生成。」
「比丘們！好！好！比丘們！好！你們這樣了知我教導法，比丘們！因為，我以許多法門說識是緣起的，除了經由緣以外，沒有識的生成，然而，這位漁夫的兒子薩提比丘以自己錯誤地把握對我們誹謗，並傷害自己、產出許多非福德，因為，對這位愚鈍男子這將有長久的不利與苦。
比丘們！凡緣於那樣的緣而生起識，就被名為那樣的識：緣於眼與色而生起識，就被名為眼識；緣於耳與聲音而生起識，就被名為耳識；緣於鼻與氣味而生起識，就被名為鼻識；緣於舌與味道而生起識，就被名為舌識；緣於身與所觸而生起識，就被名為身識；緣於意與法而生起識，就被名為意識，比丘們！猶如凡緣於那樣的緣而火燃燒，就被名為那樣的火：緣於柴而火燃燒，就被名為柴火；緣於木片而火燃燒，就被名為木片火；緣於草而火燃燒，就被名為草火；緣於牛糞而火燃燒，就被名為牛糞火；緣於穀殼而火燃燒，就被名為穀殼火；緣於碎屑而火燃燒，就被名為碎屑火。同樣的，比丘們！凡緣於那樣的緣而生起識，就被名為那樣的識：緣於眼與色而生起識，就被名為眼識；緣於耳與聲音而生起識，就被名為耳識；緣於鼻與氣味而生起識，就被名為鼻識；緣於舌與味道而生起識，就被名為舌識；緣於身與所觸而生起識，就被名為身識；緣於意與法而生起識，就被名為意識。
比丘們！你們看見『這是已生者。』嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！你們看見『這是那個食的生起。』嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！你們看見『以那個食的滅而已生者成為滅法。』嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當懷疑『這是已生者嗎？』時，疑惑生起嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當懷疑『這是那個食的生起嗎？』時，疑惑生起嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當懷疑『以那個食的滅而已生者成為滅法嗎？』時，疑惑生起嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當以正確之慧如實看見『這是已生者。』時，那疑惑被捨斷了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當以正確之慧如實看見『這是那個食的生起。』時，那疑惑被捨斷了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！當以正確之慧如實看見『以那個食的滅而已生者成為滅法。』時，那疑惑被捨斷了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『這是已生者。』像這樣，你們在這裡無疑惑了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『這是那個食的生起。』像這樣，你們在這裡無疑惑了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『以那個食的滅而已生者成為滅法。』像這樣，你們在這裡無疑惑了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『這是已生者。』被［你們］以正確之慧如實善見了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『這是那個食的生起。』被［你們］以正確之慧如實善見了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！『以那個食的滅而已生者成為滅法。』被［你們］以正確之慧如實善見了嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！這個這麼清淨、這麼皎潔的見解，如果你們黏著、珍惜、珍藏、執著為我所，比丘們！你們是否了知我所教導為了越度而非為了握持的筏譬喻法呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！這個這麼清淨、這麼皎潔的見解，如果你們不黏著、不珍惜、不珍藏、不執著為我所，比丘們！你們是否了知我所教導為了越度而非為了握持的筏譬喻法呢？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！有這四種食，為了已生成眾生的存續，或為了求出生者的資助。哪四種呢？或粗或細的物質食物，第二、觸，第三、意思，第四、識。
比丘們！這四種食，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？這四種食，渴愛是因，渴愛是集，渴愛所生，渴愛是根源。
而，比丘們！這渴愛，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？渴愛，受是因，受是集，受所生，受是根源。
而，比丘們！這受，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？受，觸是因，觸是集，觸所生，觸是根源。
而，比丘們！這觸，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？觸，六處是因，六處是集，六處所生，六處是根源。
而，比丘們！這六處，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？六處，名色是因，名色是集，名色所生，名色是根源。
而，比丘們！這名色，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？名色，識是因，識是集，識所生，識是根源。
而，比丘們！這識，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？識，行是因，行是集，行所生，行是根源。
而，比丘們！這些行，什麼是其因？什麼是其集？什麼是其生？什麼是其根源？行，無明是因，無明是集，無明所生，無明是根源。
比丘們！像這樣，以無明為緣而有行；以行為緣而有識；以識為緣而有名色；以名色為緣而有六處；以六處為緣而有觸；以觸為緣而有受；以受為緣而有渴愛；以渴愛為緣而有取；以取為緣而有有；以有為緣而有生；以生為緣而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望生起，這樣是這整個苦蘊的集。
「『以生為緣而有老死』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以生為緣而有老死嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以生為緣而有老死，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以生為緣而有老死』。」
「『以有為緣而有生』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以有為緣而有生嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以有為緣而有生，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以有為緣而有生』。」
「『以取為緣而有有』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以取為緣而有有嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以取為緣而有有，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以取為緣而有有』。」
「『以渴愛為緣而有取』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以渴愛為緣而有取嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以渴愛為緣而有取，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以渴愛為緣而有取』。」
「『以受為緣而有渴愛』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以受為緣而有渴愛嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以受為緣而有渴愛，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以受為緣而有渴愛』。」
「『以觸為緣而有受』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以觸為緣而有受嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以觸為緣而有受，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以觸為緣而有受』。」
「『以六處為緣而有觸』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以六處為緣而有觸嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以六處為緣而有觸，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以六處為緣而有觸』。」
「『以名色為緣而有六處』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以名色為緣而有六處嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以名色為緣而有六處，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以名色為緣而有六處』。」
「『以識為緣而有名色』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以識為緣而有名色嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以識為緣而有名色，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以識為緣而有名色』。」
「『以行為緣而有識』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以行為緣而有識嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以行為緣而有識，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以行為緣而有識』。」
「『以無明為緣而有行』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以無明為緣而有行嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以無明為緣而有行，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以無明為緣而有行』。」
「比丘們！好！比丘們！像這樣，你們也這麼說，我也這麼說：當這個存在了，則有那個；以這個的生起，則那個生起，即：以無明為緣而有行；以行為緣而有識；以識為緣而有名色；以名色為緣而有六處；以六處為緣而有觸；以觸為緣而有受；以受為緣而有渴愛；以渴愛為緣而有取；以取為緣而有有；以有為緣而有生；以生為緣而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望生起，這樣是這整個苦蘊的集。但以無明的無餘褪去與滅而行滅；以行滅而識滅；以識滅而名色滅；以名色滅而六處滅；以六處滅而觸滅；以觸滅而受滅；以受滅而渴愛滅；以渴愛滅而取滅；以取滅而有滅；以有滅而生滅；以生滅而老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望滅，這樣是這整個苦蘊的滅。
「『以生滅而老死滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以生滅而老死滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以生滅而老死滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以生滅而老死滅』。」
「『以有滅而生滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以有滅而生滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以有滅而生滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以有滅而生滅』。」
「『以取滅而有滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以取滅而有滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以取滅而有滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以取滅而有滅』。」
「『以渴愛滅而取滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以渴愛滅而取滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以渴愛滅而取滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以渴愛滅而取滅』。」
「『以受滅而渴愛滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以受滅而渴愛滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以受滅而渴愛滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以受滅而渴愛滅』。」
「『以觸滅而受滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以觸滅而受滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以觸滅而受滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以觸滅而受滅』。」
「『以六處滅而觸滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以六處滅而觸滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以六處滅而觸滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以六處滅而觸滅』。」
「『以名色滅而六處滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以名色滅而六處滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以名色滅而六處滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以名色滅而六處滅』。」
「『以識滅而名色滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以識滅而名色滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以識滅而名色滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以識滅而名色滅』。」
「『以行滅而識滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以行滅而識滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以行滅而識滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以行滅而識滅』。」
「『以無明滅而行滅』，這被像這樣說，比丘們！以無明滅而行滅嗎？或，在這裡是怎樣的呢？
「大德！以無明滅而行滅，在這裡，對我們來說是這樣：『以無明滅而行滅』。」
「比丘們！好！比丘們！像這樣，你們也這麼說，我也這麼說：當這個不存在了，則沒有那個；以這個的滅，則那個被滅，即：以無明滅而行滅；以行滅而識滅；以識滅而名色滅；以名色滅而六處滅；以六處滅而觸滅；以觸滅而受滅；以受滅而渴愛滅；以渴愛滅而取滅；以取滅而有滅；以有滅而生滅；以生滅而老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望滅，這樣是這整個苦蘊的滅。
比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會跑回過去：『我們過去世存在嗎？我們過去世不存在嗎？我們過去世是什麼呢？我們過去世的情形如何呢？我們過去世曾經是什麼，［後來］又變成什麼？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會跑到未來：『我們未來世存在嗎？我們未來世不存在嗎？我們未來世會是什麼呢？我們未來世的情形如何呢？我們未來世會是什麼，［以後］又變成什麼？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們現在內心對現在世是否會有疑惑：『我存在嗎？我不存在嗎？我是什麼？我的情形如何？這眾生從何而來，將往何去？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會這麼說：『大師被我們尊重，我們以尊重大師而這麼說。』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會這麼說：『沙門這麼說，我們以沙門的名義這麼說。』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會指定其他大師呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！當這麼知、這麼見時，你們是否會返回那些個個沙門、婆羅門的禁戒、祭典、瑞相為［梵行的］核心呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘們！你們只說自己所理解、自己所見、自己所知道的嗎？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘們！好！比丘們！你們被我以這直接可見的、即時的、請你來見的、能引導的、智者應該自己經驗的法引導，『比丘們！這個法是直接可見的、即時的、請你來見的、能引導的、智者應該自己經驗的。』當它被像這樣說時，這是緣於此而說。
比丘們！三者的集合而有胎的下生。這裡，有父母的結合，母親不是受胎期者，沒有乾達婆的現起，則沒有胎的下生。這裡，有父母的結合，母親是受胎期者，沒有乾達婆的現起，則沒有胎的下生。比丘們！當有父母的結合，母親是受胎期者，有乾達婆的現起，則有胎的下生，這樣，三者的集合而有胎的下生。比丘們！那母親以大擔心之負重在子宮內懷胎九或十個月。比丘們！那母親以大擔心之負重經過九或十個月後生產，已生後，以自己的血養育，比丘們！這母乳在聖者之律中即是血。比丘們！孩童隨之成長，諸根隨之圓熟，他玩所有孩童的玩具，即：小鋤頭、針楔、翻筋斗、玩具風車、玩具量器、玩具車、小弓。比丘們！孩童隨之成長，諸根隨之圓熟，他具備、具足五種欲自娛：能被眼識知，令人滿意的、可愛的、合意的、可愛樣子的、伴隨欲的、貪染的色；能被鼻識知……的氣味，……能被舌識知……的味道，……能被身識知，令人滿意的、可愛的、合意的、可愛樣子的、伴隨欲的、貪染的所觸。
比丘們！以眼見色後，他對可愛樣子的色貪著，對不可愛樣子的色排拒，住於身念未建立，少心的，不如實了知心解脫、慧解脫：那些惡不善法無餘滅之處，他這麼進入贊成與反對，凡任何他感受或苦或樂或不苦不樂受，他歡喜、歡迎、持續固持那個受；當他歡喜、歡迎、持續固持那個受時，則生起歡喜；凡在受上歡喜者，則是取；以其取為緣而有有；以有為緣而有生；以生為緣而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望生起，這樣是這整個苦蘊的集。以耳聽聲音後，……以鼻聞氣味後，……以舌嚐味道後……以身觸所觸後，……以意識知法後，他對可愛樣子的法貪著，對不可愛樣子的法排拒，住於身念未建立，少心的，不如實了知心解脫、慧解脫：那些惡不善法無餘滅之處，他這麼進入贊成與反對，凡任何他感受或苦或樂或不苦不樂受，他歡喜、歡迎、持續固持那個受，他歡喜、歡迎、持續固持那個受；當他歡喜、歡迎、持續固持那個受時，則生起歡喜；凡在受上歡喜者，則是取；以其取為緣而有有；以有為緣而有生；以生為緣而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望生起，這樣是這整個苦蘊的集。
比丘們！這裡，如來、阿羅漢、遍正覺者、明與行具足者、善逝、世間知者、被調伏人的無上調御者、人天之師、佛陀、世尊出現於世間，他以證智自作證後，為這包括天、魔、梵的世界；包括沙門、婆羅門的世代；包括諸天、人宣說，他教導開頭是善、中間是善、終結是善；意義正確、辭句正確的法，他說明唯獨圓滿、遍清淨的梵行。屋主、屋主之子或在其他族姓中出生者聽聞那個法。聽聞那個法後，他於如來處獲得信，具備那獲得的信，他像這樣深慮：『居家生活是障礙，是塵垢之路；出家是露地，住在家中，這是不容易行一向圓滿、一向清淨的磨亮海螺之梵行，讓我剃除髮鬚、裹上袈裟衣後，從在家出家，成為非家生活。』過些時候，他捨斷少量的財富聚集或捨斷大量的財富聚集後；捨斷少量的親屬圈或捨斷大量的親屬圈後，剃除髮鬚、裹上袈裟衣後，從在家出家，成為非家生活。
當這樣出家時，他進入比丘的生活規定：捨斷殺生後，他是離殺生者，他住於已捨離棍棒、已捨離刀劍、有羞恥的、同情的、對一切活的生物憐愍的。捨斷未給予而取後，他是離未給予而取者、給予而取者、只期待給予物者，以不盜取而自我住於清淨。捨斷非梵行後，他是梵行者，遠離俗法而住，已離婬欲。捨斷妄語後，他是離妄語者、真實語者、緊隨真實者、能信賴者、應該信賴者、對世間無詐欺者。捨斷離間語後，他是離離間語者：他從這裡聽到後，不為了對這些人離間而在那裡說，或者，他從那裡聽到後，不為了對那些人離間而在這裡說，像這樣，他是分裂的調解者、和諧的散播者、樂於和合者、愛好和合者、喜歡和合者、作和合之言說者。捨斷粗惡語後，他是離粗惡語者，他以柔和的言語：悅耳的、可愛的、動心的、優雅的、眾人所愛的、眾人可意的，像那樣的言語與人說話。捨斷雜穢語後，他是離雜穢語者：他是適當時機之說者、事實之說者、有益處之說者，合法之說者、合律之說者；他以適當時機說有價值、有理由、有節制、具有利益的話。他是離破壞種子類、草木類者，戒絕晚上吃食物、非時食的一日一食者，是離跳舞、歌曲、音樂、看戲者，是離花環、香料、香膏之持用與莊嚴、裝飾狀態者，是離高床、大床者，是離領受金銀者，是離領受生穀者，是離領受生肉者，是離領受女子、少女者，是離領受男奴僕、女奴僕者，是離領受山羊與羊者，是離領受雞與豬者，是離領受象、牛、馬、騾馬者，是離領受田與地者，是離從事差使、遣使者，是離買賣者，是離在秤重上欺瞞、偽造貨幣、度量欺詐者，是離賄賂、欺瞞、詐欺、不實者，是離割截、殺害、捕縛、搶奪、掠奪、暴力者。
他是已知足者：以衣服保護身體、以施食保護肚子，不論出發到何處，他只拿［這些］出發，猶如鳥不論以翼飛到何處，只有翼的負荷而飛。同樣的，比丘是已知足者：以衣服保護身體、以施食保護肚子，不論出發到何處，他只拿［這些］出發。已具備這聖戒蘊，他自身內感受無過失的安樂。
他以眼見色後，不成為相的執取者、細相的執取者，因為當住於眼根的不防護時，貪憂、惡不善法會流入，他依其自制而行動，保護眼根，在眼根上達到自制；以耳聽聲音後，……（中略）以鼻聞氣味後，……（中略）以舌嚐味道後，……（中略）以身觸所觸後，……（中略）以意識法後，不成為相的執取者、細相的執取者，因為當住於意根的不防護時，貪憂、惡不善法會流入，他依其自制而行動，保護意根，在意根上達到自制，已具備這聖根自制，他自身內感受不受害的安樂。
他在前進、後退時是正知於行為者；在前視、後視時是正知於行為者；在［肢體］曲伸時是正知於行為者；在［穿］衣、持鉢與大衣時是正知於行為者；在飲、食、嚼、嚐時是正知於行為者；在大小便動作時是正知於行為者；在行、住、坐、臥、清醒、語、默時是正知於行為者。
已具備這聖戒蘊，（已具備這聖知足，）已具備這聖根自制，已具備這聖正念與正知，他親近獨居的住處：林野、樹下、山嶽、洞窟、山洞、墓地、森林、露地、稻草堆。他食畢，從施食處返回，坐下，盤腿後，挺直身體，建立起面前的正念後，捨斷對世間的貪婪，以離貪婪心而住，使心從貪婪中清淨。捨斷惡意與瞋後，住於無瞋恚心、對一切活的生物憐愍，使心從惡意與瞋中清淨。捨斷惛沉睡眠後，住於離惛沉睡眠、有光明想、正念、正知，使心從惛沉睡眠中清淨。捨斷掉舉後悔後，住於不掉舉、自身內心寂靜，使心從掉舉後悔中清淨。捨斷疑惑後，住於脫離疑惑、在善法上無疑，使心從疑惑中清淨。
他捨斷這些心的小雜染、慧的減弱之五蓋後，從離欲、離不善法後，進入後住於有尋、有伺，離而生喜、樂的初禪。再者，比丘們！比丘以尋與伺的平息，自信，一心，進入後住於無尋、無伺，定而生喜、樂的第二禪，……（中略）……第三禪……（中略）進入後住於不苦不樂，由平靜而正念遍淨的第四禪。
比丘們！以眼見色後，他對可愛樣子的色不貪著，對不可愛樣子的色不排拒，住於身念已建立，無量心的，如實了知心解脫、慧解脫：那些惡不善法無餘滅之處，他這麼捨斷贊成與反對，凡任何他感受或苦或樂或不苦不樂受，他不歡喜、不歡迎、不持續固持那個受；當他不歡喜、不歡迎、不持續固持那個受時，則歡喜被滅；那歡喜滅者，則是取滅；以取滅而有滅；以有滅而生滅；以生滅而老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望被滅，這樣是這整個苦蘊的滅。以耳聽聲音後，……以鼻聞氣味後，……以舌嚐味道後……以身觸所觸後，……以意識知法後，他對可愛樣子的法不貪著，對不可愛樣子的法不排拒，住於身念已建立，無量心的，如實了知心解脫、慧解脫：那些惡不善法無餘滅之處，他這麼捨斷贊成與反對，凡任何他感受或苦或樂或不苦不樂受，他不歡喜、不歡迎、不持續固持那個受；當他不歡喜、不歡迎、不持續固持那個受時，則歡喜被滅；那歡喜滅者，則是取滅；以取滅而有滅；以有滅而生滅；以生滅而老、死、愁、悲、苦、憂、絕望被滅，這樣是這整個苦蘊的滅。
比丘們！你們要憶持這我以簡要［教導的］渴愛之滅盡而解脫，還有被大渴愛網、渴愛柱子所縛的漁夫的兒子薩提比丘。」
這就是世尊所說，悅意的那些比丘歡喜世尊所說。
渴愛的滅盡大經第八終了。
English Original:
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
Middle Discourses 38
The Longer Discourse on the Ending of Craving
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Now at that time a mendicant called Sāti, the fisherman’s son, had the following harmful misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.” [Note: Sāti attributes three teachings to the Buddha. First, that there is a “transmigration” (saṁsāra) from one life to another. Second, that the primary locus of transmigration is “consciousness” (viññāṇa). And thirdly, that the consciousness that transmigrates remains “this very same” (tadevidaṁ), not another (anaññaṁ); in other words, it retains its self-same identity through the process of rebirth. The Buddha did in fact teach the first two of these ideas, but not the third, as he will explain below. | The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says that as death approaches, the senses and vital energies withdraw into the heart (hṛdaya), from the top of which the self departs. That same consciousness proceeds to a new body (4.4.2: savijñāno bhavati, savijñānamevānvavakrāmati). This core Upaniṣadic chapter on rebirth reflects Sāti’s wording as well as his meaning. Sāti asserts emphatic identity using doubled demonstrative pronouns conjoined with (e)va (tadevidaṁ), and identical constructions are found throughout the Bṛhadāraṇyaka chapter: sa vā ayam (4.4.5), sa vā eṣa (4.4.22, 4.4.24, 4.4.25); see also tameva (4.4.17). For anaññaṁ we find the inverse anya for the “other” body (4.4.3, 4.4.4). For the Pali verbs sandhāvati saṁsarati we have instead avakrāmati (4.4.1, 4.4.2). But the connection with saṁsarati is made in the Brahmanical tradition itself, for it says below, “That self is indeed divinity, made of consciousness” (sa vā ayamātmā brahma vijñānamayo; 4.4.5, see too 4.4.22), which the commentator Śaṅkara explains as “the transmigrating self” (saṁsaratyātmā).]
Several mendicants heard about this. They went up to Sāti and said to him, “Is it really true, Reverend Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
“Absolutely, reverends. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
Then, wishing to dissuade Sāti from his view, the mendicants pursued, pressed, and grilled him, “Don’t say that, Sāti! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not say that. In many ways the Buddha has said that consciousness is dependently originated, since without a cause, consciousness does not come to be.” [Note: If consciousness is dependent it is changeable and cannot be “that very same”. The Buddha spoke of consciousness as a process of phenomena evolving and flowing, ever changing like a stream.]
But even though the mendicants pressed him in this way, Sāti obstinately stuck to his misconception and insisted on it.
When they weren’t able to dissuade Sāti from his view, the mendicants went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and told him what had happened.
So the Buddha addressed one of the monks, “Please, monk, in my name tell the mendicant Sāti that the teacher summons him.”
“Yes, sir,” that monk replied. He went to Sāti and said to him, “Reverend Sāti, the teacher summons you.”
“Yes, reverend,” Sāti replied. He went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.” [Note: See MN 2:8.8.]
“Futile man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and create much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “What do you think, mendicants? Has this mendicant Sāti kindled even a spark of ardor in this teaching and training?” [Note: See MN 22:7.3.]
“How could that be, sir? No, sir.” When this was said, Sāti sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.
Knowing this, the Buddha said, “Futile man, you will be known by your own harmful misconception. I’ll question the mendicants about this.”
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “Mendicants, do you understand my teachings as Sāti does, when he misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself, and creates much wickedness?”
“No, sir. For in many ways the Buddha has told us that consciousness is dependently originated, since without a cause, consciousness does not come to be.”
“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. For in many ways I have told you that consciousness is dependently originated, since without a cause, consciousness does not come to be. But still this Sāti misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself, and creates much wickedness. This will be for his lasting harm and suffering.
Consciousness is reckoned according to the very same condition dependent upon which it arises. [Note: The Buddha’s use of duplicated pronouns with eva here echoes Sāti’s language, but to the opposite effect. Rather than emphasizing the self-sameness of transmigrating consciousness, the Buddha states with equal emphasis the dependence of consciousness on specific conditions, whatever they may be.] Consciousness that arises dependent on the eye and sights is reckoned as eye consciousness. Consciousness that arises dependent on the ear and sounds is reckoned as ear consciousness. Consciousness that arises dependent on the nose and smells is reckoned as nose consciousness. Consciousness that arises dependent on the tongue and tastes is reckoned as tongue consciousness. Consciousness that arises dependent on the body and touches is reckoned as body consciousness. Consciousness that arises dependent on the mind and ideas is reckoned as mind consciousness.
It’s like fire, which is reckoned according to the very same condition dependent upon which it burns. [Note: A similar argument is made in the context of caste at MN 93:11.5.] A fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a log fire. A fire that burns dependent on twigs is reckoned as a twig fire. A fire that burns dependent on grass is reckoned as a grass fire. A fire that burns dependent on cow-dung is reckoned as a cow-dung fire. A fire that burns dependent on husks is reckoned as a husk fire. A fire that burns dependent on rubbish is reckoned as a rubbish fire.
In the same way, consciousness is reckoned according to the very same condition dependent upon which it arises. …
Mendicants, do you see that this has come to be?” [Note: “This has come to be” (bhūtamidaṁ) refers to dependently originated consciousness (implied by the neuter pronoun idaṁ). See SN 12.31:7.1.]
“Yes, sir.”
“Do you see that it originated with that as fuel?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Do you see that when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Does doubt arise when you’re uncertain whether or not this has come to be?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Does doubt arise when you’re uncertain whether or not this has originated with that as fuel?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Does doubt arise when you’re uncertain whether or not when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Is doubt given up in someone who truly sees with right understanding that this has come to be?” [Note: This is the stream-enterer, who has seen dependent origination and given up doubt.]
“Yes, sir.”
“Is doubt given up in someone who truly sees with right understanding that this has originated with that as fuel?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Is doubt given up in someone who truly sees with right understanding that when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Are you free of doubt as to whether this has come to be?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Are you free of doubt as to whether this has originated with that as fuel?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Are you free of doubt as to whether when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you truly seen clearly with right understanding that this has come to be?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you truly seen clearly with right understanding that this has originated with that as fuel?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you truly seen clearly with right understanding that when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Pure and bright as this view is, mendicants, if you cherish it, fancy it, treasure it, and treat it as your own, would you be understanding my simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on?” [Note: An allusion to MN 22:13.1. The verbs here are used of children playing with sandcastles at SN 23.2:2.2.]
“No, sir.”
“Pure and bright as this view is, mendicants, if you don’t cherish it, fancy it, treasure it, and treat it as your own, would you be understanding my simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Mendicants, there are these four fuels. They maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born. What four? Solid food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. [Note: As at MN 9:11.4.]
What is the source, origin, birthplace, and inception of these four fuels? [Note: The word āhāra (“fuel”, “food”, “nutriment”) means literally “intake”, and is etymologically parallel to upādāna, “grasping”, “uptake”. Both terms have dual senses, on the one hand denoting fuel or sustenance, and on the other grasping and attachment. That is why here (as at MN 9:11.5), āhāra is created by craving, just like upādāna in the standard sequence (MN 38:17.8).] Craving.
And what is the source of craving? Feeling.
And what is the source of feeling? Contact.
And what is the source of contact? The six sense fields.
And what is the source of the six sense fields? Name and form.
And what is the source of name and form? Consciousness.
And what is the source of consciousness? Choices.
And what is the source of choices? Ignorance.
So, ignorance is a condition for choices. [Note: Here begins the full presentation of the standard sequence of dependent origination in forward order. Formal definitions are found at SN 12.2. Here I briefly indicate the nature of the conditioned links. | Because we are ignorant of the four noble truths, we make morally potent choices by body, speech, and mind.] Choices are a condition for consciousness. [Note: These choices are creative forces or energies in the mind that sustain the ongoing stream of sense consciousness from one life to the next.] Consciousness is a condition for name and form. [Note: Consciousness functions in relation to a cluster of phenomena both mental—feeling, perception, intention, contact, and application of mind—and physical—the four elements. These form an organism that grows and evolves.] Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. [Note: The sentient organism of the body requires senses to feed it stimuli.] The six sense fields are conditions for contact. [Note: Through these the sentient organism encounters the world outside and learns to make sense of it.] Contact is a condition for feeling. [Note: It distinguishes experiences that are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral.] Feeling is a condition for craving. [Note: It reacts by wanting to have more pleasure and to escape pain.] Craving is a condition for grasping. [Note: Grasping at pleasures, view, observances, and theories of self, one makes sense of the world so as to optimize the capacity of oneself to experience pleasure.] Grasping is a condition for continued existence. [Note: This grasping binds one to time, to a continuity of existence in the realms of the senses or those of refined consciousness.] Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. [Note: Shedding the body one takes up a new one in one of the realms of existence, perpetuating the cycle.] Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. [Note: Being born, it is inevitable that one will experience the pains of broken teeth, wrinkled skin, crooked back, and ultimately the failure of the body that we call death.] That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
‘Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’ That’s what I said. [Note: The Buddha grills his students, reinforcing learning by making sure they understand each point.] Is that how you see this or not?”
“That’s how we see it.”
“‘Continued existence is a condition for rebirth.’ …
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.’ That’s what I said. Is that how you see this or not?”
“That’s how we see it.”
“Good, mendicants! So both you and I say this. When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises. That is: [Note: This is the abstract principle of dependent origination. It establishes that dependent origination is concerned, not with universal truisms such as “everything is connected” or “everything must have a cause”, but with establishing specific links between one thing and another. This is a form of necessary condition—without one thing, the other cannot be. But it is stronger than mere necessity, as each condition is a close and vital support for its descendant. This abstract principle is often called “specific conditionality” (idappaccayatā), but note that in the suttas idappaccayatā is a synonym of dependent origination as a whole.] Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
‘When rebirth ceases, old age and death cease.’ That’s what I said. Is that how you see this or not?”
“That’s how we see it.”
‘When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.’ …
‘When ignorance ceases, choices cease.’ That’s what I said. Is that how you see this or not?”
“That’s how we see it.”
“Good, mendicants! So both you and I say this. When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases. That is: When ignorance ceases, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
Knowing and seeing in this way, mendicants, would you turn back to the past, thinking, [Note: This passage unpacks certain aspects of ignorance. | Compare SN 12.20:5.1.] ‘Did we exist in the past? Did we not exist in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? After being what, what did we become in the past?’?” [Note: These are called “irrational thoughts” at MN 2:7.3.]
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, mendicants, would you turn forward to the future, thinking, [Note: Mahāsaṅgīti edition has the same verb paṭidhāv- here as above (“turn back to”). PTS and BJT have here ādhav- with paṭidhāv- as variant. At SN 12.20:5.3 all three editions have upadhāv-, with apadhāv- as variant in PTS. Whatever the correct reading might be, it is clear the intent is convey the opposite direction.] ‘Will we exist in the future? Will we not exist in the future? What will we be in the future? How will we be in the future? After being what, what will we become in the future?’?”
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, mendicants, would you be undecided about the present, thinking, ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’?” [Note: Although the question is still in plural, the answer shifts to singular, perhaps by mistake because elsewhere this passage is always singular.]
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you say, ‘Our teacher is respected. We speak like this out of respect for our teacher’?” [Note: “Respect for our teacher” is satthā no garu; compare samaṇo no garu at AN 3.65:4.1.]
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you say, ‘Our ascetic says this. We speak like this because it is what he says’?” [Note: Readings here are problematic and not cleared up by the commentary. I follow BJT and MS, which have a similar sense. However, both PTS and BJT plausibly have the pronoun no (“our”), which I add though absent from MS.]
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you dedicate yourself to another teacher?”
“No, sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you believe that the observances and boisterous, superstitious rites of the various ascetics and brahmins are essential?” [Note: In Buddhism, performance of rituals is not in itself forbidden; the main point is that they are not considered “essential” (sārato). Note that rituals were regarded as efficacious acts, and hence correspond to “choices” (saṅkhārā), a word that can also mean “rite”. | “Boisterous” (kotūhala) is literally “whence the hubbub?” This basic sense comes across clearly in the Arthaśāstra, which describes a spy’s spell for putting to sleep the men or dogs that guard a village, who are always listening out for sounds (14.3.21cd, 14.3.37ab). Vedic rituals, with their multiple reciters and arcane rites, took on a noisy and festive air.]
“No, sir.”
“Aren’t you speaking only of what you have known and seen and realized for yourselves?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! You have been guided by me with this teaching that’s apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves. For when I said that this teaching is apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves, this is what I was referring to.
Mendicants, when three things come together an embryo is conceived. [Note: This section illustrates dependent origination by way of the birth and physical and psychological development of a person from conception to adulthood. From passages such as DN 15:21.2, we know that conception occurs at the nexus of “consciousness” and “name and form” in dependent origination. Since it starts with this life only, the first two factors, ignorance and choices, are omitted here, but are implicitly covered in the preceding passage. | For the “conception” or more literally “descent” of the embryo, the Buddha uses the same term avakkanti that, as we have noted (MN 38:2.2), was preferred by Yajñavālkya in the same context.] In a case where the mother and father come together, but the mother is not in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, and the virile spirit is not ready, the embryo is not conceived. [Note: According to MN 93:18.61 this was a doctrine of the brahmins, and it was evidently adopted in this sutta as a popular theory of conception. I discuss the role of the gandhabba in my notes there. | Utu (“the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle”) literally means “season”. As the earth needs rain, a womb is dry and infertile until it is moistened by blood, for the fortnight following which it is fertile and “in season”. Thus utu can be both menstruation, during which sex was taboo for the brahmins, as well as the fertile fortnight that follows, outside of which sex was also taboo (Snp 2.7:9.2). Atharvaveda 14.2.37a speaks of parents coming together “in season”. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.6 expresses the same idea by saying the woman should be approached for sex when she has removed her soiled garments (since she may not change clothes while menstruating, 6.4.13).] In a case where the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, but the virile spirit is not ready, the embryo is not conceived. But when these three things come together—the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, and the virile spirit is ready—an embryo is conceived.
The mother nurtures the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months at great risk to her heavy burden. [Note: “At great risk” is mahatā saṁsayena. | A term of pregnancy of “nine or ten months” is also found at Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.9.1. | For “heavy burden” (garubhāra) see Bi Pc 61:1.5.] When nine or ten months have passed, the mother gives birth at great risk to her heavy burden. When the infant is born she nourishes it with her own blood. For mother’s milk is regarded as blood in the training of the Noble One. [Note: The Buddha’s claim that this idea is distinct to him seems to be borne out, as I cannot locate it in non-Buddhist texts.]
That boy grows up and his faculties mature. [Note: This shows that dependent origination does not happen all at once; it is a process of growth and maturation. A child, whose faculties are not developed, does not perpetuate the cycle because they have no formed moral intentions.] He accordingly plays childish games such as toy plows, tipcat, somersaults, pinwheels, toy measures, toy carts, and toy bows. [Note: A more extensive list of games is found at DN 1:1.14.2.]
That boy grows up and his faculties mature further. He accordingly amuses himself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation. Sights known by the eye, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. [Note: In dependent origination, this parallels contact through the senses giving rise to feelings.]
Sounds known by the ear …
Smells known by the nose …
Tastes known by the tongue …
Touches known by the body, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.
When they see a sight with their eyes, if it’s pleasant they desire it, but if it’s unpleasant they dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body unestablished and their heart restricted. [Note: In dependent origination, feeling gives rise to craving. | Parallel passages in the Saṁyutta (eg. SN 35.132:12.3) in parallels for this passage have adhimuccati (‘commits to, holds on to”) rather than sārajjati (“desires”).] And they don’t truly understand the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.
Being so full of favoring and opposing, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it. This gives rise to relishing. Relishing feelings is grasping. Their grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. [Note: Now we rejoin the standard sequence of dependent origination.] That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When they hear a sound with their ears …
When they smell an odor with their nose …
When they taste a flavor with their tongue …
When they feel a touch with their body …
When they know an idea with their mind, if it’s pleasant they desire it, but if it’s unpleasant they dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body unestablished and their heart restricted. And they don’t truly understand the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.
Being so full of favoring and opposing, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it. This gives rise to relishing. Relishing feelings is grasping. Their grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
But consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. [Note: Just as the sutta illustrated the abstract arising of suffering with the concrete example of a child growing up, it now illustrates the unraveling of dependent origination with the Gradual Training (see MN 27:11.1).] He has realized with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras, and divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and he makes it known to others. He proclaims a teaching that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. He reveals an entirely full and pure spiritual life.
A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone reborn in a good family. They gain faith in the Realized One and reflect, ‘Life at home is cramped and dirty, life gone forth is wide open. It’s not easy for someone living at home to lead the spiritual life utterly full and pure, like a polished shell. Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from lay life to homelessness?’ After some time they give up a large or small fortune, and a large or small family circle. They shave off hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Once they’ve gone forth, they take up the training and livelihood of the mendicants. They give up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of sympathy for all living beings.
They give up stealing. They take only what’s given, and expect only what’s given. They keep themselves clean by not thieving.
They give up unchastity. They are celibate, set apart, avoiding the vulgar act of sex.
They give up lying. They speak the truth and stick to the truth. They’re honest and dependable, and don’t trick the world with their words.
They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony.
They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people.
They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.
They refrain from injuring plants and seeds. They eat in one part of the day, abstaining from eating at night and food at the wrong time. They refrain from seeing shows of dancing, singing, and music . They refrain from beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. They refrain from high and luxurious beds. They refrain from receiving gold and currency, raw grains, raw meat, women and girls, male and female bondservants, goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, elephants, cows, horses, and mares, and fields and land. They refrain from running errands and messages; buying and selling; falsifying weights, metals, or measures; bribery, fraud, cheating, and duplicity; mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, and violence.
They’re content with robes to look after the body and almsfood to look after the belly. Wherever they go, they set out taking only these things. They’re like a bird: wherever it flies, wings are its only burden. In the same way, a mendicant is content with robes to look after the body and almsfood to look after the belly. Wherever they go, they set out taking only these things. When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, they experience a blameless happiness inside themselves.
When they see a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of covetousness and displeasure would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving its restraint.
When they hear a sound with their ears …
When they smell an odor with their nose …
When they taste a flavor with their tongue …
When they feel a touch with their body …
When they know an idea with their mind, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of covetousness and displeasure would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint. When they have this noble sense restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves.
They act with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.
When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, this noble contentment, this noble sense restraint, and this noble mindfulness and situational awareness, they frequent a secluded lodging—a wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw.
After the meal, they return from almsround, sit down cross-legged, set their body straight, and establish mindfulness in their presence. Giving up covetousness for the world, they meditate with a heart rid of covetousness, cleansing the mind of covetousness. Giving up ill will and malevolence, they meditate with a mind rid of ill will, full of sympathy for all living beings, cleansing the mind of ill will. Giving up dullness and drowsiness, they meditate with a mind rid of dullness and drowsiness, perceiving light, mindful and aware, cleansing the mind of dullness and drowsiness. Giving up restlessness and remorse, they meditate without restlessness, their mind peaceful inside, cleansing the mind of restlessness and remorse. Giving up doubt, they meditate having gone beyond doubt, not undecided about skillful qualities, cleansing the mind of doubt.
They give up these five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. Then, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. Furthermore, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption.
When they see a sight with their eyes, if it’s pleasant they don’t desire it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body established and a limitless heart. [Note: This resumes the teaching on attachment to the senses (from MN 38:30.1), having shown what is required to let go such attachment. Here, one experiences the feelings through the senses, but without any attachment.] And they truly understand the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.
Having given up favoring and opposing, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to it. As a result, relishing of feelings ceases. When their relishing ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
When they hear a sound with their ears …
When they smell an odor with their nose …
When they taste a flavor with their tongue …
When they feel a touch with their body …
When they know an idea with their mind, if it’s pleasant they don’t desire it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body established and a limitless heart. And they truly understand the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.
Having given up favoring and opposing, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to it. As a result, relishing of feelings ceases. When their relishing ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
Mendicants, you should memorize this brief statement on freedom through the ending of craving. But the mendicant Sāti, the fisherman’s son, is caught in a vast net of craving, a tangle of craving.” [Note: The mention of the “brief statement” at the end of a long discourse is puzzling. A similar exhortation to “memorize” a “brief” passage is found in only one other passage, where it is in reference to the short summary passage around which the sutta is based (MN 140:32.3). Compare the preceding sutta, MN 37, which revolves around a short passage for memorization that is fittingly described as “brief” throughout. That “brief” passage opens by saying “nothing is worth insisting on”, advice that is disregarded by Sāti who “insists” on his own view (MN 38:3.11). No “brief statement” is mentioned in the Chinese parallel (MA 201 at T i 769c28), which speaks instead of the shaking of the three-thousand-fold world system.]
That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said.
Posts
