‹ Library

Majjhima Nikāya 146

Nandakovādasutta

Advice from Nandaka · Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato, SuttaCentral

Parallels & more translations on SuttaCentral

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

Tap any word for its dictionary entry.

this‘etaṁ minemama, I am thisesohamasmi, thiseso myme selfattā’”ti?
no“No indeed·thishetaṁ, sirbhante”.
that“Taṁ whatkissa reasonhetu”?
previously indeed“Pubbeva by usno thisetaṁ, sirbhante, as·trueyathābhūtaṁ with right wisdomsammappaññāya well·seensudiṭṭhaṁ:
these‘itipime sixcha exteriorbāhirā sense fieldsāyatanā impermanentaniccā’”ti.
good“Sādhu goodsādhu, sistersbhaginiyo.
thus·indeed·indeed·thisEvañhetaṁ, sistersbhaginiyo, it ishoti noble·discipleariyasāvakassa as·trueyathābhūtaṁ with right wisdomsammappaññāya seeingpassato.

‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because we have already truly seen this with right wisdom: ‘So these six exterior sense fields are impermanent.’” “Good, good, sisters! That’s how it is for a noble disciple who truly sees with right wisdom.

thatTaṁ what?kiṁ do you thinkmaññatha, sistersbhaginiyo,
eye·consciousnesscakkhuviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, venerable sir.bhante”.
that which“Yaṁ but·permanentpanāniccaṁ sufferingdukkhaṁ orvā thattaṁ happinesssukhaṁ or?vā”ti?
suffering, sir“Dukkhaṁ, venerable sir.bhante”.
that which“Yaṁ but·permanentpanāniccaṁ sufferingdukkhaṁ perishable·dhammavipariṇāmadhammaṁ, fitkallaṁ nownu thattaṁ together·along·seesamanupassituṁ:
this·this‘etaṁ minemama, this·he·I·I·amesohamasmi, this·thiseso myme selfattā’”ti?
no“No indeed·this·thishetaṁ, venerable sir.bhante”.
that“Taṁ what?kiṁ do you thinkmaññatha, sistersbhaginiyo, ear·consciousnesssotaviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, sir …pe…bhante …pe……pe…
nose·consciousnessghānaviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, sir …bhante” ……
tongue·consciousness“jivhāviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, sir …bhante” ……
body·consciousness“kāyaviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, sir …bhante” ……
mind·consciousness“manoviññāṇaṁ permanentniccaṁ orvā not·permanentaniccaṁ or?vā”ti?
not·permanent“Aniccaṁ, venerable sir.bhante”.
that which“Yaṁ but·permanentpanāniccaṁ sufferingdukkhaṁ orvā thattaṁ happinesssukhaṁ or?vāti”?
suffering, sir.“Dukkhaṁ, venerable sir.bhante”.
that which“Yaṁ but·permanentpanāniccaṁ sufferingdukkhaṁ perishable·dhammavipariṇāmadhammaṁ, fitkallaṁ nownu thattaṁ together·along·seesamanupassituṁ:

What do you think, sisters? Is eye consciousness … ear consciousness … nose consciousness … tongue consciousness … body consciousness … mind consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:

'this‘etaṁ minemama, I am thisesohamasmi, thiseso myme self'?attā’”ti?
No“No indeed thishetaṁ, sir.bhante”.
That“Taṁ whatkissa is the cause?hetu”?
previously“Pubbeva weno this,etaṁ, sir,bhante, as it really isyathābhūtaṁ with right wisdomsammappaññāya well seen:sudiṭṭhaṁ:
'so these‘itipime sixcha classes of consciousnessviññāṇakāyā are impermanent.'aniccā’”ti.
Good“Sādhu good,sādhu, sisters.bhaginiyo.
Thus indeed this,Evañhetaṁ, sisters,bhaginiyo, ishoti for a noble discipleariyasāvakassa as it really isyathābhūtaṁ with right wisdomsammappaññāya seeing.passato.

‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because we have already truly seen this with right wisdom: ‘So these six classes of consciousness are impermanent.’” “Good, good, sisters! That’s how it is for a noble disciple who truly sees with right wisdom.

just asSeyyathāpi, sistersbhaginiyo, oil + lamptelappadīpassa burningjhāyato the oil tootelampi not·permanentaniccaṁ perishablevipariṇāmadhammaṁ, the wick toovaṭṭipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā, the flame tooaccipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā, the light tooābhāpi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā.
whoYo nownu indeedkho, sistersbhaginiyo, thusevaṁ would sayvadeyya:
of that‘amussa oil + lamptelappadīpassa burningjhāyato the oil tootelampi not·permanentaniccaṁ perishablevipariṇāmadhammaṁ, the wick toovaṭṭipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā, the flame tooaccipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā;
whichyā andca but·orkhvāssa its lightābhā thatsā permanentniccā lastingdhuvā eternalsassatā imperishableavipariṇāmadhammā’ti;
rightlysammā nownu indeedkho heso, sistersbhaginiyo, speakingvadamāno would sayvadeyyā”ti?
No“No for thishetaṁ, sirbhante”.
that“Taṁ of whatkissa reasonhetu”?
of that“Amussa forhi, sirbhante, oil + lamptelappadīpassa burningjhāyato the oil tootelampi not·permanentaniccaṁ perishablevipariṇāmadhammaṁ, the wick toovaṭṭipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā, the flame tooaccipi not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā;
let alone·or·itspagevassa lightābhā not·permanentaniccā perishablevipariṇāmadhammā”ti.
in the same way“Evameva indeedkho, sistersbhaginiyo, whoyo nownu indeedkho thusevaṁ would sayvadeyya:
these six‘cha indeed·these·thesekhome interiorajjhattikā sense fieldsāyatanā impermanentaniccā;

Suppose there was an oil lamp burning. The oil, wick, flame, and light were all impermanent and perishable. Now, suppose someone was to say: ‘While this oil lamp is burning, the oil, the wick, and the flame are all impermanent and perishable. But the light is permanent, lasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Would they be speaking rightly?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because that oil lamp’s oil, wick, and flame are all impermanent and perishable, let alone the light.” “In the same way, suppose someone was to say: ‘These six interior sense fields are impermanent.

which·andyañca indeedkho sixcha interiorajjhattike sense fieldsāyatane due topaṭicca back·together·feelpaṭisaṁvedeti pleasantsukhaṁ orvā painfuldukkhaṁ orvā not·painful·and·not-pleasantadukkhamasukhaṁ orvā thattaṁ permanentniccaṁ lastingdhuvaṁ eternalsassataṁ imperishableavipariṇāmadhamman’ti;
rightlysammā thennu indeedkho theyso, sistersbhaginiyo, speakingvadamāno speak + quotationvadeyyā”ti?
no“No indeed·thishetaṁ, sirbhante”.
that“Taṁ of whatkissa reasonhetu”?
corresponding“Tajjaṁ correspondingtajjaṁ, sirbhante, conditionpaccayaṁ dependent onpaṭicca appropriatetajjā appropriatetajjā feelingvedanā ariseuppajjanti.
correspondingTajjassa correspondingtajjassa of the conditionpaccayassa from cessationnirodhā appropriatetajjā appropriatetajjā feelingvedanā cease + quotationnirujjhantī”ti.
good“Sādhu goodsādhu, sistersbhaginiyo.
thus·indeed·indeed·thisEvañhetaṁ, sistersbhaginiyo, ishoti for a noble discipleariyasāvakassa as·becomeyathābhūtaṁ with right wisdomsammappaññāya seeingpassato.

But the feeling—whether pleasant, painful, or neutral—that I experience due to these six interior sense fields is permanent, lasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Would they be speaking rightly?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because each kind of feeling arises dependent on the corresponding condition. When the corresponding condition ceases, the appropriate feeling ceases.” “Good, good, sisters! That’s how it is for a noble disciple who truly sees with right wisdom.

just asSeyyathāpi, sistersbhaginiyo, largemahato of a treerukkhassa standingtiṭṭhato having heartwoodsāravato root·evenmūlampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ, trunk·evenkhandhopi impermanentanicco change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammo, branch·foliage·evensākhāpalāsampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ, shadow·evenchāyāpi impermanentaniccā change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammā.
whoYo nownu indeedkho, sistersbhaginiyo, thusevaṁ might sayvadeyya:
of that‘amussa largemahato of a treerukkhassa standingtiṭṭhato having heartwoodsāravato root·evenmūlampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ, trunk·evenkhandhopi impermanentanicco change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammo, branch·foliage·evensākhāpalāsampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ, whichyā andca but + for-itkhvāssa shadowchāyā thatsā permanentniccā lastingdhuvā eternalsassatā not subject to changeavipariṇāmadhammā’ti;
rightlysammā nownu indeedkho heso, sistersbhaginiyo, speakingvadamāno would speakvadeyyā”ti?
no“No this + indeedhetaṁ, sirbhante”.
that“Taṁ of whatkissa is the causehetu”?
of that“Amussa forhi, sirbhante, largemahato of a treerukkhassa standingtiṭṭhato having heartwoodsāravato root·evenmūlampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ, trunk·evenkhandhopi impermanentanicco change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammo, branch·foliage·evensākhāpalāsampi impermanentaniccaṁ change·subject-tovipariṇāmadhammaṁ;
let-alone + just + itspagevassa shadowchāyā impermanentaniccā subject to changevipariṇāmadhammā”ti.
just so“Evameva indeedkho, sistersbhaginiyo, whoyo nownu indeedkho thusevaṁ might sayvadeyya:
six‘cha indeed·thesekhome exteriorbāhirā sense fieldsāyatanā impermanentaniccā.

Suppose there was a large tree standing with heartwood. The roots, trunk, branches and leaves, and shadow were all impermanent and perishable. Now, suppose someone was to say: ‘There’s a large tree standing with heartwood. The roots, trunk, and branches and leaves are all impermanent and perishable. But the shadow is permanent, lasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Would they be speaking rightly?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because that large tree’s roots, trunk, and branches and leaves are all impermanent and perishable, let alone the shadow.” “In the same way, suppose someone was to say: ‘These six exterior sense fields are impermanent.

‹ Previous  ·  Page 2 of 6  ·  Next ›

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