English
the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Awakened One, liberated through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, non-clinging to form, is called the Perfectly Self-Awakened One. A bhikkhu too, monks, liberated by wisdom, liberated through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, non-clinging to form, is called one liberated by wisdom. The Tathagata, Monks, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is said to be "Perfectly Self-Enlightened" because of dispassion, fading away, cessation, and non-clinging regarding feeling, he is liberated. A monk, too, Monks, who is liberated by wisdom, is said to be "liberated by wisdom" because of dispassion... regarding feeling, he is liberated. The Tathāgata, Monks, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is said to be "Perfectly Self-Enlightened" because of dispassion, fading away, cessation, and non-clinging regarding perception... regarding formations... regarding consciousness, he is liberated. A monk, too, Monks, who is liberated by wisdom, is said to be "liberated by wisdom" because of dispassion, fading away, cessation, and non-clinging regarding consciousness, he is liberated. "Now, Monks, what is the distinction, what is the purpose, what is the difference between the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, and a monk liberated by wisdom?" "Our teachings, Venerable Sir, have the Blessed One as their root, the Blessed One as their guide, the Blessed One as their refuge. It would be good, Venerable Sir, if the Blessed One himself would clarify the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the monks will remember it." "Then, Monks, listen, pay careful attention; I will speak." "Yes, Venerable Sir," those monks replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this: "The Tathāgata, Monks, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is the producer of the unproduced path, the generator of the ungenerated path, the proclaimer of the unproclaimed path, the knower of the path, the expert in the path, the master of the path. And his disciples, Monks, are now dwelling following that path, having come after him. This, Monks, is the distinction, this is the purpose, this is the difference between the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, and a monk liberated by wisdom." The Sixth. 7. The Discourse on the Characteristic of Non-Self At one time the Blessed One was dwelling in Bārāṇasī, at Isipatana in the Deer Park. There the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks, "Monks!" "Venerable Sir," those monks replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this: ‘‘Form, monks, is not self. If form, monks, were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, Let my form not be thus.’ But since, monks, form is not self, therefore form leads to affliction, and one cannot have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, Let my form not be thus.’’’ ‘‘Feeling is not self. If feeling, monks, were self, this feeling would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus, Let my feeling not be thus.’ But since, monks, feeling is not self, therefore feeling leads to affliction, and one cannot have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus, Let my feeling not be thus.’’’ ‘‘Perception is not self… (and so on)… Volitional formations are not self. If volitional formations, monks, were self, these volitional formations would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of volitional formations: ‘Let my volitional formations be thus, Let my volitional formations not be thus.’ But since, monks, volitional formations are not self, therefore volitional formations lead to affliction, and one cannot have it of volitional formations: ‘Let my volitional formations be thus, Let my volitional formations not be thus.’’’ ‘‘Consciousness is not self. If consciousness, monks, were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus, Let my consciousness not be thus.’ But since, monks, consciousness is not self, therefore consciousness leads to affliction, and one cannot have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus, Let my consciousness not be thus.’’’ ‘‘What do you think, monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?’’ ‘‘Impermanent, venerable sir.’’ ‘‘But that which is impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?’’ ‘‘Suffering, venerable sir.’’ ‘‘But that which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as – ‘This is mine, "This is mine, this I am, this is my self?" "No, sir." "Feeling... perception... formations... consciousness, is it permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, sir." "But what is impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?" "Suffering, sir." "But what is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, is it fit to regard as – 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" "No, sir." "Therefore, monks, whatever form, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form – 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' – thus should it be seen as it really is with right wisdom. Whatever feeling, past, future, or present, internal or external, [...gross or subtle, inferior or superior...] far or near, all feeling – 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' – thus should it be seen as it really is with right wisdom. "Whatever perception, [...past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near...] Whatever formations, past, future, or present, internal or external, [...gross or subtle, inferior or superior...] far or near, all formations – 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' – thus should it be seen as it really is with right wisdom. "Whatever consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness – 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' – thus should it be seen as it really is with right wisdom. "Seeing thus, monks, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, becomes disenchanted with feeling, becomes disenchanted with perception, becomes disenchanted with formations, becomes disenchanted with consciousness. Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is the knowledge: 'Liberated.' He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what was to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.'" This is what the Blessed One said. The five bhikkhus, delighted in mind, rejoiced in the Blessed One's words. And while this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the five bhikkhus, without clinging, were liberated from the defilements. The Seventh. 8. The Discourse to Mahāli 60. Thus have I heard: On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling in Vesālī, in the Great Wood, in the Gabled Hall. Then Mahāli the Licchavi approached the Blessed One… Having sat down to one side, Mahāli the Licchavi said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, Pūraṇa Kassapa says this: 'There is no cause, no condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled without cause, without condition. There is no cause, no condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified without cause, without condition.' What does the Blessed One say about this?" "There is, Mahāli, a cause, there is a condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled with cause, with condition. There is, Mahāli, a cause, there is a condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified with cause, with condition." "But what, venerable sir, is the cause, what is the condition for the defilement of beings? How are beings defiled with cause, with condition?" "If, Mahāli, form were exclusively suffering, pervaded by suffering, overwhelmed by suffering, not pervaded by pleasure, then beings would not be enamored of form. But because, Mahāli, form is pleasure, pervaded by pleasure, overwhelmed by pleasure, not pervaded by suffering, therefore beings are enamored of form; being enamored, they are yoked; being yoked, they are defiled. This, Mahāli, is the cause, this is the condition for the defilement of beings; thus are beings defiled with cause, with condition. "If, Mahāli, feeling were exclusively suffering, pervaded by suffering, overwhelmed by suffering, not pervaded by pleasure, then beings would not be enamored of feeling. But because, Mahāli, feeling is pleasure, pervaded by pleasure, overwhelmed by pleasure, not pervaded by suffering, Therefore, beings are infatuated with feeling; infatuated, they are bound; bound, they are defiled. This, Mahāli, is a cause, this is a condition for the defilement of beings. Thus, with cause and condition, beings are defiled. If, Mahāli, perception... and formations were entirely suffering, overtaken by suffering, overwhelmed by suffering, not overwhelmed by pleasure, then beings would not be infatuated with formations. But because, Mahāli, formations are pleasure, overtaken by pleasure, overwhelmed by pleasure, not overwhelmed by suffering, therefore, beings are infatuated with formations; infatuated, they are bound; bound, they are defiled. This, Mahāli, is a cause, this is a condition for the defilement of beings. Thus, with cause and condition, beings are defiled. If, Mahāli, consciousness were entirely suffering, overtaken by suffering, overwhelmed by suffering, not overwhelmed by pleasure, then beings would not be infatuated with consciousness. But because, Mahāli, consciousness is pleasure, overtaken by pleasure, overwhelmed by pleasure, not overwhelmed by suffering, therefore, beings are infatuated with consciousness; infatuated, they are bound; bound, they are defiled. This, Mahāli, is a cause, this is a condition for the defilement of beings.