With Sunakkhatta · Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato, SuttaCentral
Parallels & more translations on SuttaCentral
This text has no word-by-word glosses yet — opening it has queued them. Reload in a few minutes.
āneñjapaṭisaṁyuttāya ca pana kathāya kacchamānāya na sussūsati, na sotaṁ odahati, na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpeti, na ca taṁ purisaṁ bhajati, na ca tena vittiṁ āpajjati. So evamassa veditabbo: ‘āneñjasaṁyojanena hi kho visaṁyutto lokāmisādhimutto purisapuggalo’ti.
But when talk connected with the imperturbable is going on they don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They don’t associate with that kind of person, and they don’t find it rewarding. You should know of them: ‘That individual is intent on pleasures of the flesh, for they’re detached from things connected with the imperturbable.’
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, sunakkhatta, vijjati yaṁ idhekacco purisapuggalo āneñjādhimutto assa. Āneñjādhimuttassa kho, sunakkhatta, purisapuggalassa tappatirūpī ceva kathā saṇṭhāti, tadanudhammañca anuvitakketi, anuvicāreti, tañca purisaṁ bhajati, tena ca vittiṁ āpajjati; lokāmisapaṭisaṁyuttāya ca pana kathāya kacchamānāya na sussūsati, na sotaṁ odahati, na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpeti, na ca taṁ purisaṁ bhajati, na ca tena vittiṁ āpajjati.
It’s possible that a certain individual person may be intent on the imperturbable. Such an individual engages in pertinent conversation, thinking and considering in line with that. They associate with that kind of person, and they find it rewarding. But when talk connected with worldly pleasures of the flesh is going on they don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They don’t associate with that kind of person, and they don’t find it rewarding.
Seyyathāpi, sunakkhatta, paṇḍupalāso bandhanā pavutto abhabbo haritattāya; evameva kho, sunakkhatta, āneñjādhimuttassa purisapuggalassa ye lokāmisasaṁyojane se pavutte. So evamassa veditabbo: ‘lokāmisasaṁyojanena hi kho visaṁyutto āneñjādhimutto purisapuggalo’ti.
Suppose there was a fallen, withered leaf. It’s incapable of becoming green again. In the same way, an individual intent on the imperturbable has dropped the connection with worldly pleasures of the flesh. You should know of them: ‘That individual is intent on the imperturbable, for they’re detached from things connected with pleasures of the flesh.’
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, sunakkhatta, vijjati yaṁ idhekacco purisapuggalo ākiñcaññāyatanādhimutto assa. Ākiñcaññāyatanādhimuttassa kho, sunakkhatta, purisapuggalassa tappatirūpī ceva kathā saṇṭhāti, tadanudhammañca anuvitakketi, anuvicāreti, tañca purisaṁ bhajati, tena ca vittiṁ āpajjati; āneñjapaṭisaṁyuttāya ca pana kathāya kacchamānāya na sussūsati, na sotaṁ odahati, na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpeti, na ca taṁ purisaṁ bhajati, na ca tena vittiṁ āpajjati.
It’s possible that a certain individual person may be intent on the dimension of nothingness. Such an individual engages in pertinent conversation, thinking and considering in line with that. They associate with that kind of person, and they find it rewarding. But when talk connected with the imperturbable is going on they don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They don’t associate with that kind of person, and they don’t find it rewarding.
Seyyathāpi, sunakkhatta, puthusilā dvedhābhinnā appaṭisandhikā hoti; evameva kho, sunakkhatta, ākiñcaññāyatanādhimuttassa purisapuggalassa ye āneñjasaṁyojane se bhinne. So evamassa veditabbo: ‘āneñjasaṁyojanena hi kho visaṁyutto ākiñcaññāyatanādhimutto purisapuggalo’ti.
Suppose there was a broad rock that had been broken in half, so that it could not be put back together again. In the same way, an individual intent on the dimension of nothingness has broken the connection with the imperturbable. You should know of them: ‘That individual is intent on the dimension of nothingness, for they’re detached from things connected with the imperturbable.’
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, sunakkhatta, vijjati yaṁ idhekacco purisapuggalo nevasaññānāsaññāyatanādhimutto assa. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanādhimuttassa kho, sunakkhatta, purisapuggalassa tappatirūpī ceva kathā saṇṭhāti, tadanudhammañca anuvitakketi, anuvicāreti, tañca purisaṁ bhajati, tena ca vittiṁ āpajjati; ākiñcaññāyatanapaṭisaṁyuttāya ca pana kathāya kacchamānāya na sussūsati, na sotaṁ odahati, na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpeti, na ca taṁ purisaṁ bhajati, na ca tena vittiṁ āpajjati.
It’s possible that a certain individual person may be intent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Such an individual engages in pertinent conversation, thinking and considering in line with that. They associate with that kind of person, and they find it rewarding. But when talk connected with the dimension of nothingness is going on they don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They don’t associate with that kind of person, and they don’t find it rewarding.
Seyyathāpi, sunakkhatta, puriso manuññabhojanaṁ bhuttāvī chaḍḍeyya. Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, sunakkhatta, api nu tassa purisassa tasmiṁ bhatte puna bhottukamyatā assā”ti? “No hetaṁ, bhante”. “Taṁ kissa hetu”? “Aduñhi, bhante, bhattaṁ paṭikūlasammatan”ti. “Evameva kho, sunakkhatta, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanādhimuttassa purisapuggalassa ye ākiñcaññāyatanasaṁyojane se vante. So evamassa veditabbo: ‘ākiñcaññāyatanasaṁyojanena hi kho visaṁyutto nevasaññānāsaññāyatanādhimutto purisapuggalo’ti.
Suppose someone had eaten some satisfying food and thrown it up. What do you think, Sunakkhatta? Would that person want to eat that food again?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because that food is deemed repulsive.” “In the same way, an individual intent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception has vomited the connection with the dimension of nothingness. You should know of them: ‘That individual is intent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, for they’re detached from things connected with the dimension of nothingness.’
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, sunakkhatta, vijjati yaṁ idhekacco purisapuggalo sammā nibbānādhimutto assa. Sammā nibbānādhimuttassa kho, sunakkhatta, purisapuggalassa tappatirūpī ceva kathā saṇṭhāti, tadanudhammañca anuvitakketi, anuvicāreti, tañca purisaṁ bhajati, tena ca vittiṁ āpajjati; nevasaññānāsaññāyatanapaṭisaṁyuttāya ca pana kathāya kacchamānāya na sussūsati, na sotaṁ odahati, na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpeti, na ca taṁ purisaṁ bhajati, na ca tena vittiṁ āpajjati.
It’s possible that a certain individual person may be rightly intent on extinguishment. Such an individual engages in pertinent conversation, thinking and considering in line with that. They associate with that kind of person, and they find it rewarding. But when talk connected with the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is going on they don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They don’t associate with that kind of person, and they don’t find it rewarding.
Seyyathāpi, sunakkhatta, tālo matthakacchinno abhabbo puna viruḷhiyā; evameva kho, sunakkhatta, sammā nibbānādhimuttassa purisapuggalassa ye nevasaññānāsaññāyatanasaṁyojane se ucchinnamūle tālāvatthukate anabhāvaṅkate āyatiṁ anuppādadhamme. So evamassa veditabbo: ‘nevasaññānāsaññāyatanasaṁyojanena hi kho visaṁyutto sammā nibbānādhimutto purisapuggalo’ti.
Suppose there was a palm tree with its crown cut off. It’s incapable of further growth. In the same way, an individual rightly intent on extinguishment has cut off the connection with the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. You should know of them: ‘That individual is rightly intent on extinguishment, for they’re detached from things connected with the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.’
Ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, sunakkhatta, vijjati yaṁ idhekaccassa bhikkhuno evamassa: ‘taṇhā kho sallaṁ samaṇena vuttaṁ, avijjāvisadoso, chandarāgabyāpādena ruppati. Taṁ me taṇhāsallaṁ pahīnaṁ, apanīto avijjāvisadoso, sammā nibbānādhimuttohamasmī’ti. Evaṁmāni assa atathaṁ samānaṁ. So yāni sammā nibbānādhimuttassa asappāyāni tāni anuyuñjeyya; asappāyaṁ cakkhunā rūpadassanaṁ anuyuñjeyya, asappāyaṁ sotena saddaṁ anuyuñjeyya, asappāyaṁ ghānena gandhaṁ anuyuñjeyya, asappāyaṁ jivhāya rasaṁ anuyuñjeyya, asappāyaṁ kāyena phoṭṭhabbaṁ anuyuñjeyya, asappāyaṁ manasā dhammaṁ anuyuñjeyya. Tassa asappāyaṁ cakkhunā rūpadassanaṁ anuyuttassa, asappāyaṁ sotena saddaṁ anuyuttassa, asappāyaṁ ghānena gandhaṁ anuyuttassa, asappāyaṁ jivhāya rasaṁ anuyuttassa, asappāyaṁ kāyena phoṭṭhabbaṁ anuyuttassa, asappāyaṁ manasā dhammaṁ anuyuttassa rāgo cittaṁ anuddhaṁseyya. So rāgānuddhaṁsitena cittena maraṇaṁ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṁ vā dukkhaṁ.
It’s possible that a certain mendicant might think: ‘The Ascetic has said that craving is a dart; and that the poison of ignorance is inflicted by desire and ill will. I have given up the dart of craving and expelled the poison of ignorance; I am rightly intent on extinguishment.’ Having such conceit, though it’s not based in fact, they would engage in things unconducive to extinguishment: unsuitable sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and ideas. Doing so, lust infects their mind, resulting in death or deadly pain.
‹ Previous · Page 2 of 4 · Next ›
Lite mode — plain HTML for e-readers and old browsers. Full version