English
he does not know as it actually is. Feeling, as 'feeling is impermanent', he does not know as it actually is. Perception, as 'perception is impermanent', he does not know as it actually is. Formations, as 'formations are impermanent', he does not know as they actually are. Consciousness, as 'consciousness is impermanent', he does not know as it actually is. Form, as 'form is suffering', he does not know as it actually is. Feeling... Perception... Formations... Consciousness, as 'consciousness is suffering', he does not know as it actually is. Form, as 'form is not-self', he does not know as it actually is. Feeling... Perception... Formations... Consciousness, as 'consciousness is not-self', he does not know as it actually is. Form, as 'form is conditioned', he does not know as it actually is. Feeling... Perception... Formations... Consciousness, as 'consciousness is conditioned', he does not know as it actually is. Form, as 'form is destructive', he does not know as it actually is. Feeling, as 'feeling is destructive', he does not know as it actually is. Perception, as 'perception is destructive', he does not know as it actually is. Formations, as 'formations are destructive', he does not know as they actually are. Consciousness, as 'consciousness is destructive', he does not know as it actually is. He approaches form, grasps it, clings to it, thinking 'this is my self'. Feeling... Perception... Formations... Consciousness, he approaches, grasps, clings to, thinking 'this is my self'. These five clinging-aggregates, thus approached and grasped by him, lead to his harm and to his suffering for a long time. But, friends, a well-taught noble disciple, who has seen the noble ones, well-trained in the good Dhamma, does not regard form as self, nor self as possessing form, nor form as in self, nor self as in form. He does not regard feeling as self... nor perception as self... nor formations as self... He does not regard consciousness as self, nor self as possessing consciousness, nor consciousness as in self, nor self as in consciousness. my self. He knows impermanent form as 'impermanent form' as it really is. Impermanent feeling... Impermanent perception... Impermanent volitional formations... He knows impermanent consciousness as 'impermanent consciousness' as it really is. He knows suffering form as 'suffering form' as it really is. Suffering feeling... Suffering perception... Suffering volitional formations... He knows suffering consciousness as 'suffering consciousness' as it really is. He knows non-self form as 'non-self form' as it really is. Non-self feeling... Non-self perception... Non-self volitional formations... He knows non-self consciousness as 'non-self consciousness' as it really is. He knows conditioned form as 'conditioned form' as it really is. Conditioned feeling... Conditioned perception... Conditioned volitional formations... He knows conditioned consciousness as 'conditioned consciousness' as it really is. He knows destructive form as 'destructive form' as it really is. Destructive feeling... Destructive perception... He knows destructive volitional formations as 'destructive volitional formations' as it really is. He knows destructive consciousness as 'destructive consciousness' as it really is. He does not approach form, does not cling to it, does not assert: 'This is my self'. Feeling... perception... volitional formations... consciousness he does not approach, does not cling to, does not assert: 'This is my self'. For him, these five aggregates of clinging, not approached, not clung to, lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time. "So it is, friend Sāriputta, for those venerable ones who have such compassionate fellow practitioners, who wish for their welfare, who advise and instruct them. And having heard this teaching of Venerable Sāriputta, my mind is liberated from the defilements, without clinging." The Third. 4. Anuradha Sutta 86. Thus have I heard: On one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Vesālī, in the Great Wood, in the Gabled Hall. Now at that time, Venerable Anurādha was staying in a wilderness hut not far from the Blessed One. Then a number of wandering ascetics of other sects pa... The wanderers approached where the venerable Anurādha was. Having approached, they exchanged greetings with the venerable Anurādha. Having concluded the courteous talk, the memorable talk, they sat down to one side. Seated to one side, those wanderers of other sects said this to the venerable Anurādha: ‘‘Friend Anurādha, that Tathāgata, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment, does the Tathāgata declare him in these four ways? ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?" When this was said, the venerable Anurādha said this to those wanderers of other sects: ‘‘Friend, that Tathāgata, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment, the Tathāgata declares him apart from these four ways: ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’." When this was said, the wanderers of other sects said this to the venerable Anurādha: ‘‘This monk must be new, recently ordained, or else an elder, but foolish and unskilled.’" Then those wanderers of other sects, having disparaged the venerable Anurādha with words of newness and words of foolishness, rose from their seats and departed. Then, not long after those wanderers of other sects had departed, this thought occurred to the venerable Anurādha: ‘‘If those wanderers of other sects were to question me further, how should I answer them so that I would be speaking in accordance with the Blessed One’s words, and not misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is untrue, and explaining the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, and no fellow Dhamma-farer would have cause for reproach...’" a dispute should come to a blameworthy state?’’ Then indeed, Venerable Anurādha approached the Blessed One; having approached… (and so on) … seated to one side, Venerable Anurādha said this to the Blessed One: ‘‘Here, bhante, I was dwelling in a forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then, bhante, many wandering ascetics of other sects approached me… (and so on) … they said this to me: ‘That Tathāgata, friend Anurādha, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment—does the Tathāgata declare him, when declaring, in these four ways: “The Tathāgata exists after death,” or “does not exist,” or “both exists and does not exist,” or “neither exists nor does not exist after death”?’ When I was thus spoken to, bhante, I said this to those wandering ascetics of other sects: ‘That Tathāgata, friends, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment—the Tathāgata declares him, when declaring, apart from these four ways: “The Tathāgata exists after death”… (and so on) … “neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ When I was thus spoken to, bhante, those wandering ascetics of other sects said this to me: ‘This monk must be either recently ordained, or an old fool, or an incompetent one.’ Then, bhante, those wandering ascetics of other sects, having disparaged me with a new-comer’s disparagement and a fool’s disparagement, rose from their seats and departed.’’ ‘‘To me, bhante, after those wandering ascetics of other sects had not long departed, this thought occurred: ‘If those wandering ascetics of other sects were to ask me a further question, how should I answer so that I would be speaking in accordance with what the Blessed One has said, and would not misrepresent the Blessed One with something untrue, and would explain the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, and no co-dharmic dispute or argument would come to a blameworthy state?’’’ ‘‘What do you think, Anurādha, is form permanent or impermanent? is it?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But that which is impermanent, is it suffering or is it happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But that which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?” “No, sir.” “Feeling… perception… volitional formations… consciousness, is it permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” …Therefore… …Thus seeing… …He understands: ‘There is no further state of being.’” “What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as form?” “No, sir.” “Do you regard the Tathāgata as feeling… perception… volitional formations… consciousness?” “No, sir.” “What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as in form?” “No, sir.” “Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form?” “No, sir.” “As in feeling… apart from feeling… as in perception… apart from perception… as in volitional formations… apart from volitional formations… as in consciousness… apart from consciousness, do you regard the Tathāgata?” “No, sir.” “What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as form… feeling… perception… volitional formations… consciousness?” “No, sir.” “What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as this formless, feelingless, perceptionless, unconditioned, un-conscious being?” “No, sir.” “Since, Anurādha, the Tathāgata is not to be found by you, in this very life, as a truth, as a reality, is it fit for you to make that declaration: ‘That Tathāgata, friend, the supreme person, the ultimate person, one who has attained the ultimate attainment, the Tathāgata, when describing, describes him apart from these four positions—‘the Tathāgata exists after death’ or… ‘the Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?” “No, sir.” “Good, good, Anurādha!