Posts
请先看：
Please read this first (English):
以下附英文原文。
觉与缘起
繁体中文翻译：
3 APRIL 2025
John Tan: 比如说，宗喀巴：以概念分析作为直接证悟的必要前行。以及麦彭仁波切将其系统化。在这两条路径之间，存在着一个极其关键的洞见，它将两者合而为一，但这点通常没有被清楚地阐述。让我们谈谈 ATR 的偈语，当无我的洞见通过这些偈语生起时，直接所认出的是什么？
Soh Wei Yu: 同时没有一个内在实有的发起主宰者，以及能-作-所/能见-见-所见的范式，并且生动的临在/光明作为纯粹的显现而存在。
John Tan: 是的，同时一次性产生两种洞见。一个是否定（不是关于临在），但否定并非通过概念建构。在看清「主宰者」不存在的过程中，没有涉及任何分析或推理。因此，这里存在「否定」，但并非通过推理或分析。只是直接认清并看透概念建构，这是看透自性见（inherentness）的一部分，尽管还不够成熟。第二个则是对临在的直接现证。
Soh Wei Yu: 我明白了。那么，宗喀巴与麦彭仁波切其实也指出了这一点，但在那篇论文中漏掉了？有没有关于麦彭和宗喀巴讨论这些内容的书籍或论文？那本辩证法的书？
John Tan: 不是啦。所以我赞同指出否定的重要性。但「否定」并不一定要通过分析，然而它极为重要，我把它视为般若（prajñā）的一部分。这是一种对「否定」的直接洞见，并且可以延伸到例如「身」与「心」。但这不是「临在」，尽管这种洞见必须伴随着对「临在」的直接现证才算完整。话虽如此，分析仍然发挥一定作用，尤其是在成熟我们对「自性见」（inherentness）如何影响心灵的理解上，及其对因果、对象与其特征等观念的影响上。所以尽管我同意宗喀巴强调「否定」的部分，但我不同意这必须通过分析的方式，且必须是概念性的。
其次，「临在」必须来自于「本初觉智」（yeshe）的智慧。我认为这部分呈现了「积极」的方面，但并非辩证法所谈论的那种方式。这种对「临在」的直接认知并非通过分析——这点没错，但是这条道并不仅仅是「安住」于无法言说或不可言说的本性中。事实上，有许多关键的方面是可以言说且必须被指出的，尽管它们在第一印象中看似矛盾。
同时需要注意的是「显现」的重要作用，以及这两位上师如何定义这个词。麦彭仁波切实际上非常强调显现。但我不喜欢的是将「觉知」强调为实相（终极真理），似乎麦彭仁波切在谈某种觉知教法。以及它是如何呈现宗喀巴对世俗与空性的理解的。这里完全没有清晰度与洞见。现在想像在一个非实体论的世界中，世俗的空性已是既定前提，根本没有所谓的「实体」。那么世俗怎么可能「不重要」呢？你懂我的意思吗？
对我来说也是如此，当我谈论自然临在或空性显现时，我根本不是在谈论「觉知」。这就是为什么使用「显现」这个词。我相信麦彭也明白这一点。在一个非实体论的世界里，自然临在，并没有将「显现」推断为「某物」——无论是觉知、意识、气、能量、物质、场域还是其他什么。它就只是纯粹生动、无实体的发生……其余的，则是将生动的发生抽象化为妄见显现的行为。
Soh Wei Yu: 我明白了。是的。
John Tan: 如果你看见「火」，那么这个「火」究竟是什么？
Soh Wei Yu: 就只是燃烧、闪动的红色斑块，我们称之为火焰。火是世俗的。
John Tan: 当你靠近时，会有一种「热」的感觉，一种灼烧的感受。当我们使用语言和世俗约定时，常会忽略「觉知」，好像有一个独立存在于外部的「火」一样。现在在我们过快跳到没有外部或内部的结论之前，我想让你用自己的语言，在消除「实体」见的前提下，尽你所能描述这些现象，你能做到吗？
5 MARCH 2025
Soh Wei Yu: 我想我只会以描述的方式表达，而不把它们归结为客体固有的属性。比如，如果我看见红玫瑰，我会描述它为非常本自光明、生动的红色感知，而不将其归结为「属于固体玫瑰的红色属性」。当走近火时，只是一种逐渐增强的温暖感，从轻微舒适的暖意开始，逐渐增强为强烈且不适/痛苦的热感，等等。正是所有这些生动的发生，随后被赋予了世俗的名称如「火」，并进而实体化为客体与特征等。基本上，所有这些都不离觉知，我们也无需假设一个独立存在的觉知。每当谈论「觉知」时，它只是世俗的，就像佛陀所说，依条件而命名。无法脱离当下呈现的任何条件而单独谈论……如果是火的情况，它就只是舒适或不适的温暖感受。
John Tan: 非常好。
English Original:
3 APRIL 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 【自性见】 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?
5 MARCH 2025
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.
繁体中文翻译：
Soh于2023年写道：
CW先生/女士，您最近是否对「作为显现的识」有了新的领悟？这种体验对您而言是怎样的？
六识也是假名所立下(而非实存)的，但理解这一点对于解构「识是单一且不变/本质上存在的，如同梵我，是独立于条件和各种显现的不变实体」这一观念非常重要。关键在于指出识本质存在的空性，以及缘起性。关于蕴、六识的筏喻教法，并非用于执着或实体化。参见佛陀在《中部》第38经中责备比丘萨提持有实在论的识观： https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
此外： https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../misguided-man-have...
佛陀说：「迷误的人啊，我难道没有在许多讲道中指出，识是缘起的，因为没有条件就没有识的生起？」
Soh 2分钟前 与您的朋友分享
这似乎是达赖喇嘛的一本好书。它甚至引用了我常引用的经文。 https://www.amazon.com/Realizing-Profound.../dp/B09ZBKNZB7
尹玲 23分钟前
「因为人们容易将识及其思想、感受、情绪和观点视为个人，所以值得更仔细地审视这一观念。佛陀明确指出，识不是自我。在《大渴爱灭尽经》中，他召集比丘萨提，质问他关于他错误地认为识是自我的观点。以下是他们的对话（《中部》第38.5经）：
（佛陀）：萨提，是否属实，你产生了以下有害的观点：据我理解，世尊所教的法，就是这个相同的识在轮回中运行和流转，而不是其他？
（萨提）：正是如此，尊者。据我理解，世尊所教的法，就是这个相同的识在轮回中运行和流转，而不是其他。
（佛陀）：萨提，什么是那个识？
（萨提）：尊者，就是那个在此处彼处说话、感受并体验善恶行为结果的东西。
（佛陀）：迷误的人啊，你何曾听我如此教导过法？迷误的人啊，我难道没有在许多讲道中指出，识是缘起的，因为没有条件就没有识的生起？
【Dalai Lama 达赖喇嘛说：】
萨提的观点是，识本身存在，独立于条件。他说自我是说话的主体，表明「我」是说话行为的主宰者。他说自我感受，是认为「我」是被动的主体，体验着。「此处彼处」表示自我是一个在多次再生中保持不变的轮回者。这个识或自我从一生到另一生，创造业并体验其结果，但在此过程中没有被改变或变化。它具有一个不变的身份，在经历一个又一个事件并从一生到另一生时保持相同。简而言之，萨提将识视为一个『ātman（神我／我体）』或大我。注释解释说，萨提是本生故事的专家，在这些故事中，佛陀讲述了他以前的生活，说：『那时，我是……』」
- 摘自《实现深刻见解》 比丘丹增嘉措，比丘尼图登邱卓
Soh 1分钟前编辑
「正如诸佛出于世俗约定而谈论『我』和『我所』；同样地，他们也出于实际原因谈论『蕴』、『界』和『处』。这些被称为『大种』的事物，完全被吸收于识中；既然它们通过理解而被消解，难道它们不是被错误地赋予实在性吗？」
- 龙树：《六十颂》节选
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经：渴爱的灭尽大经
双大品［4］
我听到这样：
有一次，世尊住在舍卫城只树林给孤独园。
当时，渔夫的儿子，名叫萨提的比丘生起像这样邪恶的恶见：
「我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」
众多比丘听闻：
「听说渔夫的儿子，名叫萨提的比丘生起像这样邪恶的恶见：『我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』」
那时，那些比丘去见渔夫的儿子萨提比丘。抵达后，对渔夫的儿子萨提比丘这么说：
「是真的吗？萨提学友！你生起了这样邪恶的恶见：『我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』」
「确实这样，学友们！我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」
那时，那些比丘想要使渔夫的儿子萨提比丘远离这邪恶的邪见，而审问、质问、追究：
「萨提学友！不要这么说，不要毁谤世尊，毁谤世尊不好，世尊不会这么说。萨提学友！世尊以许多法门说识是缘起的，除了经由缘以外，没有识的生成。」
当被那些比丘这样审问、质问、追究时，渔夫的儿子萨提比丘仍刚毅地、取着地执着那邪恶的恶见，而说：
「确实这样，学友们！我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」
由于那些比丘不能使渔夫的儿子萨提比丘远离这邪恶的恶见，那时，那些比丘去见世尊。抵达后，向世尊问讯，接着在一旁坐下。在一旁坐好后，那些比丘对世尊这么说：
「大德！渔夫的儿子，名叫萨提的比丘生起像这样邪恶的恶见：『我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』大德！我们听闻：『听说渔夫的儿子，名叫萨提的比丘生起像这样邪恶的恶见：「我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」』大德！那时，我们去见渔夫的儿子萨提比丘。抵达后，对渔夫的儿子萨提比丘这么说：『是真的吗？萨提学友！你生起了这样邪恶的恶见：「我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」』大德！当这么说时，渔夫的儿子萨提比丘对我们这么说：『确实这样，学友们！我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』大德！那时，我们想要使渔夫的儿子萨提比丘远离这邪恶的邪见，而审问、质问、追究：『萨提学友！不要这么说，不要毁谤世尊，毁谤世尊不好，世尊不会这么说。萨提学友！世尊以许多法门说识是缘起的，除了经由缘以外，没有识的生成。』大德！当被我们这样审问、质问、追究时，渔夫的儿子萨提比丘仍刚毅地、取着地执着那邪恶的恶见，而说：『确实这样，学友们！我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』大德！由于我们不能使渔夫的儿子萨提比丘远离这邪恶的恶见，我们［来］告诉世尊这件事。」
那时，世尊召唤某位比丘：
「来！比丘！你以我的名义召唤渔夫的儿子萨提比丘：『萨提学友！大师召唤你。』」
「是的，大德！」那位比丘回答世尊后，就去见渔夫的儿子萨提比丘。抵达后，对渔夫的儿子萨提比丘这么说：
「萨提学友！大师召唤你。」
「是的，学友！」渔夫的儿子萨提比丘回答那位比丘后，就去见世尊。抵达后，向世尊问讯，接着在一旁坐下。在一旁坐好后，世尊对渔夫的儿子萨提比丘这么说：
「是真的吗？萨提！你生起了这样邪恶的恶见：『我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。』」
「确实这样，大德！我了知依世尊教导的法，就是这［同一个］识流转、轮回，而非不同的。」
「萨提！那是哪个识呢？」
「大德！就是这讲话者、能感受、到处经验善恶业果报的识。」
「愚钝男子！你从谁了知我这样教导法？愚钝男子！我不是以许多法门说识是缘起的，除了经由缘以外，没有识的生成吗？然而，愚钝男子！你以自己错误地把握对我们诽谤，并伤害自己、产出许多非福德，因为，愚钝男子！这对你将有长久的不利与苦。」
那时，世尊召唤比丘们：
「比丘们！你们怎么想：这位渔夫的儿子萨提比丘是否在这法、律中已变热了呢？」
「这怎么可能呢？不，大德！」
当这么说时，渔夫的儿子萨提比丘变得沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低头、郁闷、无言以对而坐。
那时，世尊知道渔夫的儿子萨提比丘变得沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低头、郁闷、无言以对后，对渔夫的儿子萨提比丘这么说：
「愚钝男子！你将了知自己这邪恶的邪见，这里，我将质问比丘们。」
那时，世尊召唤比丘们：
「比丘们！你们了知我这么教导法，如这位渔夫的儿子萨提比丘以自己错误地把握对我们诽谤，并伤害自己、产出许多非福德吗？」
「不，大德！因为，世尊以许多法门说识是缘起的，除了经由缘以外，没有识的生成。」
「比丘们！好！好！比丘们！好！你们这样了知我教导法，比丘们！因为，我以许多法门说识是缘起的，除了经由缘以外，没有识的生成，然而，这位渔夫的儿子萨提比丘以自己错误地把握对我们诽谤，并伤害自己、产出许多非福德，因为，对这位愚钝男子这将有长久的不利与苦。
比丘们！凡缘于那样的缘而生起识，就被名为那样的识：缘于眼与色而生起识，就被名为眼识；缘于耳与声音而生起识，就被名为耳识；缘于鼻与气味而生起识，就被名为鼻识；缘于舌与味道而生起识，就被名为舌识；缘于身与所触而生起识，就被名为身识；缘于意与法而生起识，就被名为意识，比丘们！犹如凡缘于那样的缘而火燃烧，就被名为那样的火：缘于柴而火燃烧，就被名为柴火；缘于木片而火燃烧，就被名为木片火；缘于草而火燃烧，就被名为草火；缘于牛粪而火燃烧，就被名为牛粪火；缘于谷壳而火燃烧，就被名为谷壳火；缘于碎屑而火燃烧，就被名为碎屑火。同样的，比丘们！凡缘于那样的缘而生起识，就被名为那样的识：缘于眼与色而生起识，就被名为眼识；缘于耳与声音而生起识，就被名为耳识；缘于鼻与气味而生起识，就被名为鼻识；缘于舌与味道而生起识，就被名为舌识；缘于身与所触而生起识，就被名为身识；缘于意与法而生起识，就被名为意识。
比丘们！你们看见『这是已生者。』吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！你们看见『这是那个食的生起。』吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！你们看见『以那个食的灭而已生者成为灭法。』吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当怀疑『这是已生者吗？』时，疑惑生起吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当怀疑『这是那个食的生起吗？』时，疑惑生起吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当怀疑『以那个食的灭而已生者成为灭法吗？』时，疑惑生起吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当以正确之慧如实看见『这是已生者。』时，那疑惑被舍断了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当以正确之慧如实看见『这是那个食的生起。』时，那疑惑被舍断了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！当以正确之慧如实看见『以那个食的灭而已生者成为灭法。』时，那疑惑被舍断了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『这是已生者。』像这样，你们在这里无疑惑了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『这是那个食的生起。』像这样，你们在这里无疑惑了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『以那个食的灭而已生者成为灭法。』像这样，你们在这里无疑惑了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『这是已生者。』被［你们］以正确之慧如实善见了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『这是那个食的生起。』被［你们］以正确之慧如实善见了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！『以那个食的灭而已生者成为灭法。』被［你们］以正确之慧如实善见了吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！这个这么清净、这么皎洁的见解，如果你们黏着、珍惜、珍藏、执着为我所，比丘们！你们是否了知我所教导为了越度而非为了握持的筏譬喻法呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！这个这么清净、这么皎洁的见解，如果你们不黏着、不珍惜、不珍藏、不执着为我所，比丘们！你们是否了知我所教导为了越度而非为了握持的筏譬喻法呢？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！有这四种食，为了已生成众生的存续，或为了求出生者的资助。哪四种呢？或粗或细的物质食物，第二、触，第三、意思，第四、识。
比丘们！这四种食，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？这四种食，渴爱是因，渴爱是集，渴爱所生，渴爱是根源。
而，比丘们！这渴爱，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？渴爱，受是因，受是集，受所生，受是根源。
而，比丘们！这受，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？受，触是因，触是集，触所生，触是根源。
而，比丘们！这触，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？触，六处是因，六处是集，六处所生，六处是根源。
而，比丘们！这六处，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？六处，名色是因，名色是集，名色所生，名色是根源。
而，比丘们！这名色，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？名色，识是因，识是集，识所生，识是根源。
而，比丘们！这识，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？识，行是因，行是集，行所生，行是根源。
而，比丘们！这些行，什么是其因？什么是其集？什么是其生？什么是其根源？行，无明是因，无明是集，无明所生，无明是根源。
比丘们！像这样，以无明为缘而有行；以行为缘而有识；以识为缘而有名色；以名色为缘而有六处；以六处为缘而有触；以触为缘而有受；以受为缘而有渴爱；以渴爱为缘而有取；以取为缘而有有；以有为缘而有生；以生为缘而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望生起，这样是这整个苦蕴的集。
「『以生为缘而有老死』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以生为缘而有老死吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以生为缘而有老死，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以生为缘而有老死』。」
「『以有为缘而有生』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以有为缘而有生吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以有为缘而有生，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以有为缘而有生』。」
「『以取为缘而有有』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以取为缘而有有吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以取为缘而有有，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以取为缘而有有』。」
「『以渴爱为缘而有取』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以渴爱为缘而有取吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以渴爱为缘而有取，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以渴爱为缘而有取』。」
「『以受为缘而有渴爱』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以受为缘而有渴爱吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以受为缘而有渴爱，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以受为缘而有渴爱』。」
「『以触为缘而有受』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以触为缘而有受吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以触为缘而有受，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以触为缘而有受』。」
「『以六处为缘而有触』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以六处为缘而有触吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以六处为缘而有触，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以六处为缘而有触』。」
「『以名色为缘而有六处』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以名色为缘而有六处吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以名色为缘而有六处，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以名色为缘而有六处』。」
「『以识为缘而有名色』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以识为缘而有名色吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以识为缘而有名色，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以识为缘而有名色』。」
「『以行为缘而有识』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以行为缘而有识吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以行为缘而有识，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以行为缘而有识』。」
「『以无明为缘而有行』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以无明为缘而有行吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以无明为缘而有行，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以无明为缘而有行』。」
「比丘们！好！比丘们！像这样，你们也这么说，我也这么说：当这个存在了，则有那个；以这个的生起，则那个生起，即：以无明为缘而有行；以行为缘而有识；以识为缘而有名色；以名色为缘而有六处；以六处为缘而有触；以触为缘而有受；以受为缘而有渴爱；以渴爱为缘而有取；以取为缘而有有；以有为缘而有生；以生为缘而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望生起，这样是这整个苦蕴的集。但以无明的无余褪去与灭而行灭；以行灭而识灭；以识灭而名色灭；以名色灭而六处灭；以六处灭而触灭；以触灭而受灭；以受灭而渴爱灭；以渴爱灭而取灭；以取灭而有灭；以有灭而生灭；以生灭而老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望灭，这样是这整个苦蕴的灭。
「『以生灭而老死灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以生灭而老死灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以生灭而老死灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以生灭而老死灭』。」
「『以有灭而生灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以有灭而生灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以有灭而生灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以有灭而生灭』。」
「『以取灭而有灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以取灭而有灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以取灭而有灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以取灭而有灭』。」
「『以渴爱灭而取灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以渴爱灭而取灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以渴爱灭而取灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以渴爱灭而取灭』。」
「『以受灭而渴爱灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以受灭而渴爱灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以受灭而渴爱灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以受灭而渴爱灭』。」
「『以触灭而受灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以触灭而受灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以触灭而受灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以触灭而受灭』。」
「『以六处灭而触灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以六处灭而触灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以六处灭而触灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以六处灭而触灭』。」
「『以名色灭而六处灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以名色灭而六处灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以名色灭而六处灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以名色灭而六处灭』。」
「『以识灭而名色灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以识灭而名色灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以识灭而名色灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以识灭而名色灭』。」
「『以行灭而识灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以行灭而识灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以行灭而识灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以行灭而识灭』。」
「『以无明灭而行灭』，这被像这样说，比丘们！以无明灭而行灭吗？或，在这里是怎样的呢？
「大德！以无明灭而行灭，在这里，对我们来说是这样：『以无明灭而行灭』。」
「比丘们！好！比丘们！像这样，你们也这么说，我也这么说：当这个不存在了，则没有那个；以这个的灭，则那个被灭，即：以无明灭而行灭；以行灭而识灭；以识灭而名色灭；以名色灭而六处灭；以六处灭而触灭；以触灭而受灭；以受灭而渴爱灭；以渴爱灭而取灭；以取灭而有灭；以有灭而生灭；以生灭而老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望灭，这样是这整个苦蕴的灭。
比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会跑回过去：『我们过去世存在吗？我们过去世不存在吗？我们过去世是什么呢？我们过去世的情形如何呢？我们过去世曾经是什么，［后来］又变成什么？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会跑到未来：『我们未来世存在吗？我们未来世不存在吗？我们未来世会是什么呢？我们未来世的情形如何呢？我们未来世会是什么，［以后］又变成什么？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们现在内心对现在世是否会有疑惑：『我存在吗？我不存在吗？我是什么？我的情形如何？这众生从何而来，将往何去？』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会这么说：『大师被我们尊重，我们以尊重大师而这么说。』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会这么说：『沙门这么说，我们以沙门的名义这么说。』呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会指定其他大师呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！当这么知、这么见时，你们是否会返回那些个个沙门、婆罗门的禁戒、祭典、瑞相为［梵行的］核心呢？」
「不，大德！」
「比丘们！你们只说自己所理解、自己所见、自己所知道的吗？」
「是的，大德！」
「比丘们！好！比丘们！你们被我以这直接可见的、即时的、请你来见的、能引导的、智者应该自己经验的法引导，『比丘们！这个法是直接可见的、即时的、请你来见的、能引导的、智者应该自己经验的。』当它被像这样说时，这是缘于此而说。
比丘们！三者的集合而有胎的下生。这里，有父母的结合，母亲不是受胎期者，没有干达婆的现起，则没有胎的下生。这里，有父母的结合，母亲是受胎期者，没有干达婆的现起，则没有胎的下生。比丘们！当有父母的结合，母亲是受胎期者，有干达婆的现起，则有胎的下生，这样，三者的集合而有胎的下生。比丘们！那母亲以大担心之负重在子宫内怀胎九或十个月。比丘们！那母亲以大担心之负重经过九或十个月后生产，已生后，以自己的血养育，比丘们！这母乳在圣者之律中即是血。比丘们！孩童随之成长，诸根随之圆熟，他玩所有孩童的玩具，即：小锄头、针楔、翻筋斗、玩具风车、玩具量器、玩具车、小弓。比丘们！孩童随之成长，诸根随之圆熟，他具备、具足五种欲自娱：能被眼识知，令人满意的、可爱的、合意的、可爱样子的、伴随欲的、贪染的色；能被鼻识知……的气味，……能被舌识知……的味道，……能被身识知，令人满意的、可爱的、合意的、可爱样子的、伴随欲的、贪染的所触。
比丘们！以眼见色后，他对可爱样子的色贪着，对不可爱样子的色排拒，住于身念未建立，少心的，不如实了知心解脱、慧解脱：那些恶不善法无余灭之处，他这么进入赞成与反对，凡任何他感受或苦或乐或不苦不乐受，他欢喜、欢迎、持续固持那个受；当他欢喜、欢迎、持续固持那个受时，则生起欢喜；凡在受上欢喜者，则是取；以其取为缘而有有；以有为缘而有生；以生为缘而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望生起，这样是这整个苦蕴的集。以耳听声音后，……以鼻闻气味后，……以舌尝味道后……以身触所触后，……以意识知法后，他对可爱样子的法贪着，对不可爱样子的法排拒，住于身念未建立，少心的，不如实了知心解脱、慧解脱：那些恶不善法无余灭之处，他这么进入赞成与反对，凡任何他感受或苦或乐或不苦不乐受，他欢喜、欢迎、持续固持那个受，他欢喜、欢迎、持续固持那个受；当他欢喜、欢迎、持续固持那个受时，则生起欢喜；凡在受上欢喜者，则是取；以其取为缘而有有；以有为缘而有生；以生为缘而有老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望生起，这样是这整个苦蕴的集。
比丘们！这里，如来、阿罗汉、遍正觉者、明与行具足者、善逝、世间知者、被调伏人的无上调御者、人天之师、佛陀、世尊出现于世间，他以证智自作证后，为这包括天、魔、梵的世界；包括沙门、婆罗门的世代；包括诸天、人宣说，他教导开头是善、中间是善、终结是善；意义正确、辞句正确的法，他说明唯独圆满、遍清净的梵行。屋主、屋主之子或在其他族姓中出生者听闻那个法。听闻那个法后，他于如来处获得信，具备那获得的信，他像这样深虑：『居家生活是障碍，是尘垢之路；出家是露地，住在家中，这是不容易行一向圆满、一向清净的磨亮海螺之梵行，让我剃除发须、裹上袈裟衣后，从在家出家，成为非家生活。』过些时候，他舍断少量的财富聚集或舍断大量的财富聚集后；舍断少量的亲属圈或舍断大量的亲属圈后，剃除发须、裹上袈裟衣后，从在家出家，成为非家生活。
当这样出家时，他进入比丘的生活规定：舍断杀生后，他是离杀生者，他住于已舍离棍棒、已舍离刀剑、有羞耻的、同情的、对一切活的生物怜愍的。舍断未给予而取后，他是离未给予而取者、给予而取者、只期待给予物者，以不盗取而自我住于清净。舍断非梵行后，他是梵行者，远离俗法而住，已离婬欲。舍断妄语后，他是离妄语者、真实语者、紧随真实者、能信赖者、应该信赖者、对世间无诈欺者。舍断离间语后，他是离离间语者：他从这里听到后，不为了对这些人离间而在那里说，或者，他从那里听到后，不为了对那些人离间而在这里说，像这样，他是分裂的调解者、和谐的散播者、乐于和合者、爱好和合者、喜欢和合者、作和合之言说者。舍断粗恶语后，他是离粗恶语者，他以柔和的言语：悦耳的、可爱的、动心的、优雅的、众人所爱的、众人可意的，像那样的言语与人说话。舍断杂秽语后，他是离杂秽语者：他是适当时机之说者、事实之说者、有益处之说者，合法之说者、合律之说者；他以适当时机说有价值、有理由、有节制、具有利益的话。他是离破坏种子类、草木类者，戒绝晚上吃食物、非时食的一日一食者，是离跳舞、歌曲、音乐、看戏者，是离花环、香料、香膏之持用与庄严、装饰状态者，是离高床、大床者，是离领受金银者，是离领受生谷者，是离领受生肉者，是离领受女子、少女者，是离领受男奴仆、女奴仆者，是离领受山羊与羊者，是离领受鸡与猪者，是离领受象、牛、马、骡马者，是离领受田与地者，是离从事差使、遣使者，是离买卖者，是离在秤重上欺瞒、伪造货币、度量欺诈者，是离贿赂、欺瞒、诈欺、不实者，是离割截、杀害、捕缚、抢夺、掠夺、暴力者。
他是已知足者：以衣服保护身体、以施食保护肚子，不论出发到何处，他只拿［这些］出发，犹如鸟不论以翼飞到何处，只有翼的负荷而飞。同样的，比丘是已知足者：以衣服保护身体、以施食保护肚子，不论出发到何处，他只拿［这些］出发。已具备这圣戒蕴，他自身内感受无过失的安乐。
他以眼见色后，不成为相的执取者、细相的执取者，因为当住于眼根的不防护时，贪忧、恶不善法会流入，他依其自制而行动，保护眼根，在眼根上达到自制；以耳听声音后，……（中略）以鼻闻气味后，……（中略）以舌尝味道后，……（中略）以身触所触后，……（中略）以意识法后，不成为相的执取者、细相的执取者，因为当住于意根的不防护时，贪忧、恶不善法会流入，他依其自制而行动，保护意根，在意根上达到自制，已具备这圣根自制，他自身内感受不受害的安乐。
他在前进、后退时是正知于行为者；在前视、后视时是正知于行为者；在［肢体］曲伸时是正知于行为者；在［穿］衣、持钵与大衣时是正知于行为者；在饮、食、嚼、尝时是正知于行为者；在大小便动作时是正知于行为者；在行、住、坐、卧、清醒、语、默时是正知于行为者。
已具备这圣戒蕴，（已具备这圣知足，）已具备这圣根自制，已具备这圣正念与正知，他亲近独居的住处：林野、树下、山岳、洞窟、山洞、墓地、森林、露地、稻草堆。他食毕，从施食处返回，坐下，盘腿后，挺直身体，建立起面前的正念后，舍断对世间的贪婪，以离贪婪心而住，使心从贪婪中清净。舍断恶意与瞋后，住于无瞋恚心、对一切活的生物怜愍，使心从恶意与瞋中清净。舍断惛沉睡眠后，住于离惛沉睡眠、有光明想、正念、正知，使心从惛沉睡眠中清净。舍断掉举后悔后，住于不掉举、自身内心寂静，使心从掉举后悔中清净。舍断疑惑后，住于脱离疑惑、在善法上无疑，使心从疑惑中清净。
他舍断这些心的小杂染、慧的减弱之五盖后，从离欲、离不善法后，进入后住于有寻、有伺，离而生喜、乐的初禅。再者，比丘们！比丘以寻与伺的平息，自信，一心，进入后住于无寻、无伺，定而生喜、乐的第二禅，……（中略）……第三禅……（中略）进入后住于不苦不乐，由平静而正念遍净的第四禅。
比丘们！以眼见色后，他对可爱样子的色不贪着，对不可爱样子的色不排拒，住于身念已建立，无量心的，如实了知心解脱、慧解脱：那些恶不善法无余灭之处，他这么舍断赞成与反对，凡任何他感受或苦或乐或不苦不乐受，他不欢喜、不欢迎、不持续固持那个受；当他不欢喜、不欢迎、不持续固持那个受时，则欢喜被灭；那欢喜灭者，则是取灭；以取灭而有灭；以有灭而生灭；以生灭而老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望被灭，这样是这整个苦蕴的灭。以耳听声音后，……以鼻闻气味后，……以舌尝味道后……以身触所触后，……以意识知法后，他对可爱样子的法不贪着，对不可爱样子的法不排拒，住于身念已建立，无量心的，如实了知心解脱、慧解脱：那些恶不善法无余灭之处，他这么舍断赞成与反对，凡任何他感受或苦或乐或不苦不乐受，他不欢喜、不欢迎、不持续固持那个受；当他不欢喜、不欢迎、不持续固持那个受时，则欢喜被灭；那欢喜灭者，则是取灭；以取灭而有灭；以有灭而生灭；以生灭而老、死、愁、悲、苦、忧、绝望被灭，这样是这整个苦蕴的灭。
比丘们！你们要忆持这我以简要［教导的］渴爱之灭尽而解脱，还有被大渴爱网、渴爱柱子所缚的渔夫的儿子萨提比丘。」
这就是世尊所说，悦意的那些比丘欢喜世尊所说。
渴爱的灭尽大经第八终了。
English Original:
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.
