The Connected Discourses of the Buddha

by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and approached the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna. He exchanged greetings with the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna … and said to him:

  “How is it, Master Moggallāna, is the world eternal?”

  (All as above down to:)

  “Vaccha, the Blessed One has not declared this either: ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

  “What, Master Moggallāna, is the cause and reason why, when wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’? And what is the cause and reason why when the ascetic Gotama is asked such questions, he does not give such answers?” [397]

  “Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self ... or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ But, Vaccha, the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, does not regard form as self ... or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the Tathāgata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.”

  “It is wonderful, Master Moggallāna! It is amazing, Master Moggallāna! How the meaning and the phrasing of both teacher and disciple coincide and agree with each other and do not diverge, that is, in regard to the chief matter. Just now, Master Moggallāna, I approached the ascetic Gotama and asked him about this matter. The ascetic Gotama explained this matter to me in exactly the same terms and phrases that Master Moggallāna used. It is wonderful, Master Moggallāna! It is amazing, Master Moggallāna! How the meaning and the phrasing of both teacher and disciple coincide and agree with each other and do not diverge, that is, in regard to the chief matter.” [398]

  9 The Debating Hall

  Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One:

  “In recent days, Master Gotama, a number of ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers of various sects had assembled in the debating hall and were sitting together when this conversation arose among them:380 ‘This Pūraṇa Kassapa—the leader of an order, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, the well known and famous spiritual guide considered holy by many people—declares the rebirth of a disciple who has passed away and died thus: “That one was reborn there, that one was reborn there.” And in the case of a disciple who was a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who had attained the supreme attainment, when that disciple has passed away and died he also declares his rebirth thus: “That one was reborn there, that one was reborn there.” This Makkhali Gosāla … This Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta … This Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta … This Pakudha Kaccāyana … This Ajita Kesakambalı̄ … when that disciple has passed away [399] and died he also declares his rebirth thus: “That one was reborn there, that one was reborn there.” This ascetic Gotama—the leader of an order, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, the well known and famous spiritual guide considered holy by many people—declares the rebirth of a disciple who has passed away and died thus: “That one was reborn there, that one was reborn there.” But in the case of a disciple who was a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who had attained the supreme attainment, when that disciple has passed away and died he does not declare his rebirth thus: “That one was reborn there, that one was reborn there.” Rather, he declares of him: “He cut off craving, severed the fetter, and, by completely breaking through conceit, he has made an end to suffering.”’

  “There was perplexity in me, Master Gotama, there was doubt: ‘How is the Dhamma of the ascetic Gotama to be understood?’”

  “It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Vaccha, it is fitting for you to doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. I declare, Vaccha, rebirth for one with fuel, not for one without fuel. Just as a fire burns with fuel, but not without fuel, so, Vaccha, I declare rebirth for one with fuel, not for one without fuel.”381

  “Master Gotama, when a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  “When, Vaccha, a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, I declare that it is fuelled by the wind. For on that occasion the wind is its fuel.” [400]

  “And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  “When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving.382 For on that occasion craving is its fuel.”

  10 Ānanda (Is There a Self?)

  Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One ... and said to him:

  “How is it now, Master Gotama, is there a self?”

  When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

  “Then, Master Gotama, is there no self?”

  A second time the Blessed One was silent.

  Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and departed.

  Then, not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta had left, the Venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One: “Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not answer?”

  “If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ this would have been siding with383 those ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ [401] this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

  “If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all phenomena are nonself’?”384

  “No, venerable sir.”

  “And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”385

  11 Sabhiya Kaccāna

  On one occasion the Venerable Sabhiya Kaccāna was dwelling at Ñātika in the Brick Hall. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Venerable Sabhiya Kaccāna and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to him:

  “How is it, Master Kaccāna, does the Tathāgata exist after death?”

  (All as in §1 down to:) [402]

  “What then, Master Kaccāna, is the cause and reason why this has not been declared by the Blessed One?”

  “Vaccha, as to the cause and condition for describing him as ‘consisting of form’ or as ‘formless’ or as ‘percipient’ or as ‘nonpercipient’ or as ‘neither percipient nor nonpercipient’: if that cause and condition were to cease completely and totally without remainder, in what way could one describe him as ‘consisting of form’ or as ‘formless’ or as ‘percipient’ or as ‘nonpercipient’ or as ‘neither percipient nor nonpercipient’?”

  “How long has it been since you went forth, Master Kaccāna?”

  “Not long, friend. Three years.”

  “One, friend, who has gotten so much in such a time has indeed gotten much,386 not to speak of one who has surpassed this!” [403]

  The Book of the Six Sense Bases is finished.

  Notes

  35. Saḷāyatanasaṃyutta

  1 The “internal” (ajjhattika = adhi + atta + ika) exclusively denotes the six sense faculties, and is contrasted with “external” (bāhira), which exclusively denotes the six sense objects (though according to the Abhidhamma, dhammāyatana denot
es the objects of manoviññāṇa and the mental concomitants of all viññāṇa). Despite the similarity, the dyad ajjhattika–bāhira is not synonymous with the dyad ajjhatta–bahiddhā; the latter marks the distinction between what pertains to oneself and what is external to oneself. The sense faculties of other beings are ajjhattika but bahiddhā , while one’s own pigmentation, voice, scent, etc., are ajjhatta but bāhira.

  2 35:1–22 are composed in accordance with templates met with earlier; see Concordance 3 for the correlations. In this saṃyutta, each template is instantiated twice, first with the internal bases, then with the external ones.

  3 Spk distinguishes the different types of “eyes” referred to in the canon. These are first divided into two general classes: the eye of knowledge (ñāṇacakkhu) and the physical eye (maṃsacakkhu). The former is fivefold: (i) the Buddha eye (buddhacakkhu), the knowledge of the inclinations and underlying tendencies of beings, and the knowledge of the degree of maturity of their spiritual faculties; (ii) the Dhamma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge of the three lower paths and fruits; (iii) the universal eye (samantacakkhu ), the Buddha’s knowledge of omniscience; (iv) the divine eye (dibbacakkhu), the knowledge arisen by suffusion of light (which sees the passing away and rebirth of beings); and (v) the wisdom eye (paññācakkhu), the discernment of the Four Noble Truths. The physical eye is twofold: (i) the composite eye (sasambhāracakkhu), the physical eyeball; and (ii) the sensitive eye (pasādacakkhu), i.e., the sensitive substance in the visual apparatus that responds to forms (perhaps the retina and optic nerve). Here the Blessed One speaks of the sensitive eye as the “eye base.” The ear, etc., should be similarly understood. Mind (mano) is the mind of the three planes, which is the domain of exploration with insight (tebh̄makasammasanacāracitta ).For the commentarial treatment of the sense bases, see Vism 444–46 (Ppn 14:36–53). Hamilton challenges the commentarial classification of the first five sense bases under the rūpakkhandha, arguing from the fact that the standard definition of the form aggregate in the suttas does not include them. In her view, the sense faculties are powers of perception partaking of both material and mental characteristics and thus unclassifiable exclusively under rūpa (Identity and Experience, pp. 14–22). By the same logic, however, it might be argued that the five external sense bases should not be assigned to the rūpakkhandha, for again the suttas do not place them there. The plain fact is that the correlations between the khandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are not made explicit in the Nikāyas at all, but only in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, which classifies both the first five internal and external sense bases under rūpa. The five faculties and four sense objects (excluding the tactile object) are categorized as “derivative form” (up̄d̄ r̄pa), i.e., form derived from the four primary elements; the tactile object is classified under three of the primary elements: earth (hardness or softness), heat (hotness or coolness), and air (pressure and motion). The suttas themselves do not enumerate the types of derivative form, and the Abhidhamma texts seem to be filling in this lacuna.

  4 Spk: Mental phenomena: the mental-phenomena object of the three planes (dhamm̄ ti tebh̄makadhamm̄rammạạ).I render dhammā here as “mental phenomena” rather than as “mental object”—the standard rendering—in compliance with the idea, stressed in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, that the dhammāyatana comprises not only the types of objects peculiar to the mind base (man̄yatana), but also all the mental phenomena associated with consciousness of any type, that is, as including the associated feeling, perception, and volitional formations. See the definition of the dhammāyatana at Vibh 72, and the explanation at Vism 484 (Ppn 15:14). The three planes are the sensuous plane, the form plane, and the formless plane.

  5 Spk: The “internalness” of the sense faculties should be understood as stemming from the strength of desire and lust for them. For people regard the six internal bases like the interior of a house, the six external bases like the house’s vicinity. Just as the desire and lust of people are extremely strong in relation to what is inside the house and they don’t let anyone unknown enter, so is it in relation to the six internal bases. But as people’s desire and lust are not so strong in relation to the house’s vicinity, and they don’t forcibly prevent others from walking by, so is it in relation to the external sense bases.

  6 Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha’s knowledge of omniscience; (ii) the all of the sense bases (āatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) the all of personal identity (sakk̄yasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended.The four planes are the three mundane planes (see n. 4) and the supramundane plane (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbāna).

  7 Tassa vācāvatthur ev’ assa. Spk: It would be just a mere utterance. But if one passes over the twelve sense bases, one cannot point out any real phenomenon.

  8 Yathā taṃ bhikkhave avisayasmiṃ. Spk: People become vexed when they go outside their domain. Just as it is outside one’s domain to cross a deep body of water while carrying a stone palace on one’s head, or to drag the sun and moon off their course, and one would only meet with vexation if one makes the attempt, so too in this case.

  9 It might seem that in adding factors of experience not enumerated among the twelve sense bases—namely, consciousness, contact, and feeling—the Buddha has just now violated his own decree that the “all” comprises everything. However, the factors mentioned here (and below) can be classified among the twelve bases. The six types of consciousness are included in the mind base (man̄yatana). Mind (mano) as a separate factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes narrower in scope than the mind base; according to the commentarial system it denotes the bhavaṅgacitta or subliminal life-continuum. Among the bases, contact and feeling are included in the base of mental phenomena (dhamm̄yatana), along with other mental concomitants and dhammārammaṇa, the objects of mind-consciousness. Mind-consciousness itself, according to Spk, comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness (manodv̄r̄vajjanacitta) and the javanas. On these technical terms from the Abhidhamma, see CMA 3:8–11.

  10 Sabbaṃ abhiññā pariññā pahānāya. Spk glosses: sabbaṃ abhijānitvā parijānitvā pajahanatthāya. On the distinction between abhiññā and pariññā, see III, n. 42.

  11 Spk: In this sutta the three kinds of full understanding are discussed: full understanding of the known, full understanding by scrutinization, and full understanding as abandonment. See I, n. 36, III, n. 42.

  12 Cakkhuviññāṇaviññātabbā dhammā. Spk gives several alternative explanations to show how these might differ from rūpā: “He shows this, taking into account the same form taken in above (by the word r̄p̄); or else rūpa takes into account form that actually comes into range (of consciousness), while this denotes form that does not come into range. This is the decision here: Above (all form) is included, whether or not it comes into range, but here the three aggregates associated with consciousness are included, because they are to be cognized along with eye-consciousness. The same method applies to the remaining terms.” This explanation seems to me contrived.

  13 This sutta, often called “The Fire Sermon,” is the third discourse of the Buddha as recorded in the narrative of his ministry at Vin I 34–35. According to this source, the thousand bhikkhus were former jaṭila (matted-hair) ascetics under the leadership of the three Kassapa brothers. The Buddha had converted them by a series of miracles, after which he preached the present sermon. The sermon gains special meaning from the fact that before their conversion these ascetics had been devoted to the fire sacrifice. The full account is at Vin I 24–34; see Ñāṇamoli, Life of the Buddha, pp. 54–60, 64–69.Spk: Having led the thousand bhikk
hus to Gayā’s Head, the Blessed One reflected, “What kind of Dhamma talk would be suitable for them?” He then realized, “In the past they worshipped the fire morning and evening. I will teach them that the twelve sense bases are burning and blazing. In this way they will be able to attain arahantship.” In this sutta the characteristic of suffering is discussed.

  14 Se and Ee read andhabhūtaṃ, but I prefer Be addhabhūtaṃ, which Spk supports with its gloss: Addhabhūtan ti adhibhūtaṃ ajjhotthaṭaṃ, upaddutan ti attho; “weighed down: overcome, overloaded, meaning oppressed.” See I, v. 203 and I, n. 121; 22:1 (III 1,20) and III, n. 3. Norman explains that addhabhūta might have developed from the aorist addhabhavi = ajjhabhavi (< *adhya-bhavi ). Once the origin of the aorist was no longer understood, the verb was assumed to be addhabhavati with a past participle addhabhūta; see GD, p. 356, n. 968.

  15 Sabbamaññitasamugghātasāruppaṃ paṭipadaṃ. “Conceiving” (maññanā) is the distortional thought process governed by craving, conceit, and views; the notions that arise from such modes of thought are also called conceivings (with the past participle maññita). They include the ideas “I am,” “I am this,” and all other notions derived from these root errors; see 35:248 (IV 202,18–27). The most extensive survey of conceiving is the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (MN No. 1); see Bodhi, Discourse on the Root of Existence, for a translation of the sutta and its commentary.