‹ Library

Majjhima Nikāya 102

Pañcattayasutta

The Five and Three · Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato, SuttaCentral

Parallels & more translations on SuttaCentral

Glosses: Fluent · Literal · Off
Translation: Hide · Show

Tap any word for its dictionary entry.

Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti.
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Saññā rogo saññā gaṇḍo saññā sallaṁ, etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ: ‘asaññan’ti.

So they reject those who assert a self that is percipient and healthy after death. Why is that? Because they believe that perception is a disease, a boil, a dart, and that the state of non-perception is peaceful and sublime.

Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti
ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā.
Yo hi koci, bhikkhave, samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁ vadeyya:
‘ahamaññatra rūpā, aññatra vedanāya, aññatra saññāya, aññatra saṅkhārehi, viññāṇassa āgatiṁ vā gatiṁ vā cutiṁ vā upapattiṁ vā vuddhiṁ vā virūḷhiṁ vā vepullaṁ vā paññapessāmī’ti—
netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.

The Realized One understands this as follows. There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is non-percipient and healthy after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. But if any ascetic or brahmin should say this: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.

‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto.

‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’ Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.

Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā.

Now, the ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is neither percipient nor non-percipient and healthy after death describe it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless.

Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti.
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Saññā rogo saññā gaṇḍo saññā sallaṁ, asaññā sammoho, etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ:
‘nevasaññānāsaññan’ti.

So they reject those who assert a self that is percipient and healthy after death, as well as those who assert a self that is non-percipient and healthy after death. Why is that? Because they believe that perception is a disease, a boil, a dart; that non-perception is a stupor; and that the state of neither perception nor non-perception is peaceful and sublime.

Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato abhijānāti.
Ye kho te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, arūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, rūpiñca arūpiñca vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā, nevarūpiṁ nārūpiṁ vā te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā.
Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā diṭṭhasutamutaviññātabbasaṅkhāramattena etassa āyatanassa upasampadaṁ paññapenti, byasanañhetaṁ, bhikkhave, akkhāyati etassa āyatanassa upasampadāya.
Na hetaṁ, bhikkhave, āyatanaṁ saṅkhārasamāpattipattabbamakkhāyati;
saṅkhārāvasesasamāpattipattabbametaṁ, bhikkhave, āyatanamakkhāyati.
‘Tayidaṁ saṅkhataṁ oḷārikaṁ atthi kho pana saṅkhārānaṁ nirodho atthetan’ti—

The Realized One understands this as follows. There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is neither percipient nor non-percipient and healthy after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. Some ascetics or brahmins assert the embracing of that dimension merely through the conditioned phenomena of what ought be seen, heard, thought, and known. But that is said to be a disastrous approach. For that dimension is said to be not attainable by means of conditioned phenomena, but only with a residue of conditioned phenomena. ‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’

iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto.

Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.

Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññapenti, tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā saññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti, yepi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā nevasaññīnāsaññiṁ attānaṁ paññapenti arogaṁ paraṁ maraṇā tesamete paṭikkosanti.
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Sabbepime bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā uddhaṁ saraṁ āsattiṁyeva abhivadanti:
‘iti pecca bhavissāma, iti pecca bhavissāmā’ti.

Now, the ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being reject those who assert a self that is healthy after death, whether percipient or non-percipient or neither percipient nor non-percipient. Why is that? Because they think: ‘All of those ascetics and brahmins only propose their attachment to heading upstream: “After death we shall be like this! After death we shall be like that!”

‹ Previous  ·  Page 2 of 4  ·  Next ›

Lite mode — plain HTML for e-readers and old browsers. Full version