English
Attachments are of two kinds: attachment of craving and attachment of view. attachment… This is attachment through craving… This is attachment through views. For him, attachment through craving is abandoned, attachment through views is relinquished. Because attachment through craving is abandoned, because attachment through views is relinquished, by what passion would the unattached person go? by what hatred would he go? by what delusion would he go? by what conceit would he go? by what view would he go? by what restlessness would he go? by what doubt would he go? by what latent tendencies would he go? — as one attached, or as one hateful, or as one deluded, or as one bound, or as one grasped, or as one of scattered mind, or as one not gone to the desired, or as one gone to firmness. Those volitional formations are abandoned. Because the volitional formations are abandoned, by what destinies would he go? — as one in hell, or as one in the animal realm, or as one in the realm of ghosts, or as a human, or as a deva, or as one with form, or as one without form, or as one with perception, or as one without perception, or as one with neither perception nor non-perception. That cause does not exist, that condition does not exist, that reason does not exist, by which he would go. So by what would he go? He is unattached. Therefore, the Blessed One said: “For the purified one, there is nowhere in the world, a view conceived in existences and non-existences; Having abandoned illusion and conceit, the purified one, by what would he go? He is unattached.” 22. Indeed, one with attachment engages in disputes about things; how and by what would one speak of the unattached? For him, there is no self or non-self; he has washed away all views right here. “Indeed, one with attachment engages in disputes about things.” Attachment means two attachments: attachment through craving and attachment through views… This is attachment through craving… This is attachment through views. For him, attachment through craving is not abandoned, attachment through views is not relinquished. Because attachment through craving is not abandoned, because attachment through views is not relinquished, he engages in disputes about things — as one attached, or as one hateful, or as one deluded, or as one bound, or as one grasped, or as one of scattered mind, or as one not gone to the desired, or as one gone to firmness. Those volitional formations are not abandoned. Because the volitional formations are not abandoned, he engages in disputes about destinies. — as one in hell, or as one in the animal realm, or as one in the realm of ghosts, or as a human, or as whether 'divine', or 'material', or 'immaterial', or 'percipient', or 'non-percipient', or 'neither percipient nor non-percipient', he takes up a view, approaches, grasps, clings to, firmly adheres to. For attachment to things takes up a view. How would one speak of one who is unattached? Attachment means two attachments: attachment of craving, and attachment of views. ... This is attachment of craving. ... This is attachment of views. For him, attachment of craving is abandoned, attachment of views is relinquished. Because attachment of craving is abandoned, because attachment of views is relinquished, with what passion would one speak of an unattached person? With what hatred would one speak? With what delusion would one speak? With what conceit would one speak? With what view would one speak? With what restlessness would one speak? With what doubt would one speak? With what latent tendencies would one speak? (Saying) 'he is passionate', or 'he is hateful', or 'he is deluded', or 'he is bound', or 'he is clinging', or 'he is scattered', or 'he has not reached the desired goal', or 'he is firm in his views'. Those volitional formations are abandoned. Because volitional formations are abandoned, with what destiny would one speak (of him)? 'He is a denizen of hell', ... 'He is neither percipient nor non-percipient'. There is no cause, no condition, no reason, by which one could speak, tell, declare, explain, or designate (him). How would one speak of one who is unattached? 'Self' or 'no-self' does not exist for him. 'Self' means there is no self-view. 'No-self' means there is no annihilation-view. 'Self' means there is nothing grasped. 'No-self' means there is nothing to be released. For whom there is something grasped, for him there is something to be released. For whom there is something to be released, for him there is something grasped. The Arahant has transcended grasping and releasing, he has gone beyond the decline of wisdom. He has lived the holy life, fulfilled the conduct, reached the end of the path, gone beyond the cycle of birth and death. There is no rebirth for him. 'Self' or 'no-self' does not exist for him. He has cast down all views right here. For him, the sixty-two views are abandoned, uprooted, calmed, tranquilized, incapable of arising again, burnt by the fire of knowledge. He has cast down, shaken off, thoroughly shaken off, completely shaken off, abandoned, dispelled all views right here... He made it go to non-existence, thinking 'it goes'. He shook off all views right here. Therefore the Blessed One said: One who clings to doctrines indeed comes to dispute, The unattached, with what and how would he speak? For him there is no self, no non-self, He shook off all views right here. The Third Explanation of the Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta.