The Connected Discourses of the Buddha

by Bhikkhu Bodhi

  106 Quoted at Vism 324,9-15 (Ppn 9:119), which calls it the Haliddavasana Sutta.

  107 Spk refers back to its comment recorded in n. 98. The other sects, according to Spk, do not have any original teachings on the abandonment of the five hindrances or the development of the divine abodes but plagiarize them from the Buddha.

  108 Kiṃgatikā kiṃparamā kiṃphalā kiṃpariyosānā.

  109 This conjunction of the enlightenment factors with the four divine abodes is unusual. On their own momentum the divine abodes lead to rebirth in the brahmā world rather than to Nibbāna (see MN II 82,24-27, II 207-8, AN II 128-29). When integrated into the structure of the Buddha’s path, however, they can be used to generate concentration of sufficient strength to serve as a basis for insight, which in turn brings enlightenment. A striking instance is at MN I 351,18-352,2. Spk: The monk develops the three jhānas based on lovingkindness, then takes this as a basis for developing insight and attains arahantship. The enlightenment factors are developed by insight and the path.

  110 At AN III 169-170, this practice is discussed more fully, with reference to the benefits of each contemplation. At DN III 112,25-13,10 it is called a “spiritual power which is taintless, acquisitionless, and noble” (ayaṃ iddhi anāsavā anupadhikā ariyā), and Paṭis II 212-13 calls it “the noble ones’ spiritual power” (ariyiddhi); further explanation is given at Vism 381-82 (Ppn 12:36-38). The following is condensed from Spk: (i) to perceive the repulsive in the unrepulsive (appaṭikkūle paṭikkūlasaññī) one pervades an unrepulsive object (e.g., a sensually attractive person) with the idea of foulness or attends to it as impermanent; (ii) to perceive the unrepulsive in the repulsive (paṭikkūle appaṭikkūlasaññī ) one pervades a repulsive object (e.g., a hostile person) with lovingkindness or attends to it as elements; (iii) and (iv) simply extend the first two modes of perception to both types of objects conjointly; and (v) is self-explanatory.

  111 Spk: This teaching is brought in for one who is unable to reach arahantship after exploring formations based on jhāna through lovingkindness.Spk explains idhapaññassa as if it were a bahubbīhi compound meaning “one of mundane wisdom” (lokiyapaññassa); the expression also occurs at Dhp 375b and AN V 300,14. Mp V 78,10-11 explains it as “wisdom in regard to this teaching” (imasmiṃ sāsane paññā), which sounds more convincing than Spk’s gloss.

  In the commentaries the four divine abodes are regarded as practices that lead to form-sphere jhāna (see Vism 111,15-16; Ppn 3:107). While the Nikāyas do not draw explicit connections between the divine abodes and levels of jhāna, in several places they describe the divine abodes as means to rebirth in the brahmā world or the form realm (see n. 109). Thus Spk is compelled to give a laboured explanation of the puzzling stipulations made here about the “upper limit” of each meditation subject, particularly in regard to the formless attainments; the passage is also at Vism 324-25 (Ppn 9:120-23). In brief: (i) one who abides in lovingkindness can easily apply his mind to a beautiful colour kasiṇa and quickly attain the beautiful liberation (i.e., jhāna based on a colour kasiṇa); (ii) one who abides in compassion recognizes the danger in form and thus develops the base of the infinity of space, which is the escape from form; (iii) one who abides in altruistic joy apprehends the joyful consciousness of beings and thus easily enters the base of the infinity of consciousness; and (iv) one who abides in equanimity is skilled in diverting his mind from pleasure and pain, and thus can easily divert it to the absence of any concrete entity in the base of nothingness.

  112 The sutta is also at AN III 230-36, but without the last paragraph on the enlightenment factors. See too Ja No. 185 (II 99-101).

  113 Spk applies the idea of the threefold escape (nissaraṇa) to each hindrance: by suppression (vikkhambhananissaraṇa) through jhāna; in a particular respect (tadaṅga-) through insight; and by eradication (samuccheda-) through the path. Thus: (i) sensual desire is suppressed by the first jhāna based on foulness and eradicated by the path of arahantship (since kāmacchanda is here interpreted widely enough to include desire for any object, not only for sensual pleasures); (ii) ill will is suppressed by the first jhāna based on lovingkindness and eradicated by the path of nonreturning; (iii) sloth and torpor are suppressed by the perception of light (i.e., visualization of a bright light, like the disc of the sun or the full moon) and eradicated by the path of arahantship; (iv) restlessness and remorse are suppressed by serenity, remorse is eradicated by the path of nonreturning and restlessness by the path of arahantship; and (v) doubt is suppressed by the defining of phenomena (dhammavavatthāna ; see Vism 587-89; Ppn 18:3-8) and eradicated by the path of stream-entry.

  114 Prince Abhaya was a son of King Bimbisāra, though not the crown prince.

  115 See III, n. 92.

  116 This, in effect, is a declaration that he has attained stream-entry.

  117 The skeleton (aṭṭhika) is one of the ten meditation subjects on foulness (asubhakammaṭṭhāna) mentioned at Vism 178-79 (Ppn 6:1-11). So too the corpses listed below at 46:58-61: the worm-invested (puḷuvaka), the livid (vinīlaka), the fissured (vicchiddaka), and the bloated (uddhumātaka). Each becomes associated with the enlightenment factors when the concentration it induces is made a basis for developing insight and arriving at the supramundane path.

  118 Sati vā upādisese. Spk glosses: gahaṇasese upādānasese vijjamānamhi ; “(if there is) a remainder of grasping, a remainder of clinging, existing.” Upādisesa is found in two technical senses: (i) when contrasted with aññā, final knowledge, it means a residue of defilements, the minimum residue that the nonreturner must eliminate to attain arahantship; and (ii) in relation to Nibbāna, it denotes the five aggregates, which persist until the arahant expires. Nibbāna as experienced by the arahant during life is called the saupādisesanibbānadhātu , “the Nibbāna element with a residue (= the five aggregates) remaining”; as attained at his death it is the anupādisesanibbānadhātu, “the Nibbāna element without residue remaining.” The commentaries take upādi in this context to mean what is clung to (upādīyati).Although I translate upādisesa in the present passage as “residue of clinging,” I do so simply for the sake of clarity, not because I am convinced that upādi actually stands for upādāna. The whole expression may simply be an idiom meaning “an (unspecified) residue.” At MN II 257,1 foll., saupādisesa and anupādisesa are used in relation to the noxious matter left behind in a wound, and in that context “clinging” in any sense is irrelevant. It is possible the expression was a current medical idiom to which the Buddha simply ascribed a new meaning.

  119 Of the meditation subjects mentioned below: (67) the perception of foulness (asubhasaññā) is the contemplation of the thirty-one (or thirty-two) parts of the body, dealt with at AN V 109,19-27, elaborated at Vism 239-66 (Ppn 8:42-144); (68) the perception of death (maraṇasaññā), usually called mindfulness of death, is at AN III 304-8, elaborated at Vism 229-39 (Ppn 8:1-41); (69) the perception of the repulsiveness of food (āhāre paṭikkūlasaññā) is occasionally mentioned in the suttas but explained in detail at Vism 341-47 (Ppn 11:1-26); (70) the perception of non-delight in the entire world (sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā) is defined at AN V 111,3-8 as the removal of all clinging, etc., to the world; (74) the perception of abandonment (pahānasaññā ) is defined at AN V 110,13-20 as reflection leading to the removal of defiled thoughts; and (75-76) the perception of dispassion (virāgasaññā) and the perception of cessation (nirodhasaññā) are defined at AN V 110,22-111,3 as discursive contemplations on Nibbāna, though elsewhere virāgānupassanā and nirodhānupassanā are treated as advanced contemplations of insight (e.g., at Paṭis II 67; Vism 629,3-5; Ppn 20:90).

  120 Ee wrongly numbers these suttas “99-100,” which throws off the subsequent numbers. (Feer has corrected this error in his introduction to Part V, p. v.) The following errors in Ee’s numbering scheme should also be noted: Ee’s block “100-110 (1-12)”—corresponding to my “111 (1)-120 (10)”—counts twelve suttas though there are only ten. (The
summary verse in Be includes taṇhā-tasināya, but as the two are merged only ten suttas are counted.) Ee’s block “154-164 (1-10)”—corresponding to my block “165 (1)-174 (10)”—has the right number of suttas but numbers them as if there were eleven.

  121 I follow the method of Ee, which ends with 175. Apparently three repetitions of the entire series should be understood for each of the three ways of describing the enlightenment factors. Here the other two methods—“the Deathless as its ground” series and the “slants towards Nibbāna” series—are mentioned only in the last sutta.47. Satipaṭṭhānasaṃyutta

  122 What follows is the uddesa (condensed statement) of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (DN No. 22; MN No. 10) without the niddesa (elaboration). Full-length commentaries on the text are at Sv III 741-61 and Ps II 244-66; the commentary in Spk is much abridged. The relevant passages, with excerpts from the subcommentary, are translated in Soma, The Way of Mindfulness, pp. 35-64.The commentaries offer two derivations of satipaṭṭhāna: one from sati + upaṭṭhāna, “the establishment of mindfulness”; the other from sati + paṭṭhāna, “the foundation of mindfulness.” The former emphasizes the act of setting up mindfulness, the latter the objects to which mindfulness is applied. While the commentaries lean towards the derivation from sati + paṭṭhāna, the former is certainly more original and is supported by the Skt smṛtyupasthāna. See too the common expressions, upaṭṭhitasati, “with mindfulness established” (e.g., at 54:13; V 331,10, etc.) and parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā, “having established mindfulness in front of him” (e.g., at 54:1; V 311,13, etc.). Paṭis, by consistently glossing sati with upaṭṭhāna, also shows a preference for this derivation. For a brief explanation of the expression according to the commentarial method, see Vism 678-79 (Ppn 22:34).

  123 Ekāyano ayaṃ maggo is often translated “This is the only way” (Soma) or “This is the sole way” (Nyanaponika), implying that the Buddha’s way of mindfulness is an exclusive path. The commentary to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, however, gives five explanations of the phrase, of which only one suggests exclusivity (see Sv III 743-44; Ps I 229-30; translated in Soma, The Way of Mindfulness, pp. 36-39). Spk here mentions only the first: ekamaggo ayaṃ bhikkhave maggo, na dvedhāpathabhūto; “a single path, bhikkhus, is this path, not a forked path.” Ekāyana magga occurs elsewhere in the Nikāyas only at MN I 74,14-15 foll., where it clearly means a path leading straight to its destination. I thus understand the metaphorical use of the phrase to be a way of indicating that satipaṭṭhāna leads straight to “the purification of beings,” etc.; perhaps the way of mindfulness is being contrasted with other types of meditation that do not always lead straight to the goal. For a fuller discussion, see Gethin, The Buddhist Path to Awakening, pp. 59-66. The word should not be confused with ekayāna, “one vehicle,” the central theme of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra.Spk explains the “method” (ñāya) as the Noble Eightfold Path. Thus, by developing the path of satipaṭṭhāna, which is mundane in the preliminary phase, one eventually achieves the supramundane path. On ñāya, see II, n. 122.

  124 For a translation of the commentarial passage on this basic formula, see Soma, The Way of Mindfulness, pp. 51-64. An early word gloss is at Vibh 194-95. Gethin discusses the basic formula, Buddhist Path to Awakening, pp. 47-53.A few key points: The repetitive phrase “contemplating the body in the body” (kāye kāyānupassī) serves “to determine the object (the body) by isolating it” from other things such as feeling, mind, etc., and to show that one contemplates only the body as such, not as permanent, pleasurable, a self, or beautiful. Similarly in regard to the other three establishments. “Ardent” (ātāpī) connotes energy, “clearly comprehending” (sampajāno) implies wisdom. “Covetousness and displeasure” (abhijjhā-domanassa) are code words for the first two hindrances, and thus their removal may be understood to imply some success in concentration. Thus altogether four of the five spiritual faculties (indriya) are indicated here, and while faith is not mentioned it is clearly a prerequisite for taking up the practice in the first place.

  Spk glosses vineyya: tadaṅgavinayena vā vikkhambhanavinayena vā vinayitvā, “having removed: having removed by removal in a particular respect or by removal through suppression.” “Removal in a particular respect” signifies temporary removal by deliberate restraint or by insight, “removal through suppression” temporary removal by the attainment of jhāna. The phrase need not be understood to mean that one must first abandon the hindrances before one starts to develop the four establishments of mindfulness. It would be sufficient to have temporarily suspended “covetousness and displeasure” through dedication to the practice itself.

  125 The same advice is at 36:7 (IV 211,1-19). Spk comments at length on the practice of clear comprehension. For a translation see Soma, The Way of Mindfulness, pp. 83-132, and Bodhi, Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship, pp. 96-134. Briefly, the four are: (1) clear comprehension of purpose-fulness (sātthaka-sampajañña), discerning a worthy purpose in one’s intended action; (2) clear comprehension of suitability (sappāya-sampajañña), discerning a suitable means of achieving one’s aim; (3) clear comprehension of the resort (gocara-sampajañña), maintaining awareness of one’s meditation subject when engaged in various activities; and (4) clear comprehension as nondelusion (asammoha-sampajañña ), discerning one’s actions as conditioned processes devoid of a substantial self. For a good contemporary explanation, see Nyanaponika, The Heart of Buddhist Meditation, pp. 46-57.

  126 Spk: This bhikkhu, it is said, after asking the Buddha to explain a meditation subject, had just roamed here and there and did not devote himself to solitude. Therefore the Buddha spoke thus to restrain him.

  127 Spk: The view is that of one’s responsibility for one’s own action (kammassakatādiṭṭhi), i.e., belief in kamma and its fruits, which implies as well belief in rebirth.The Buddha’s statement here establishes that right view (the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path) and right conduct (factors 3-5) are the basis for the successful practice of mindfulness meditation.

  128 Spk says nothing, but Sv III 765,15-18 and Ps I 249,24-27 explain in regard to mindfulness of breathing: “At one time in his own and at another in another’s respiration-body, he dwells in contemplation of the body. By this there is reference to the time when the yogi’s mind moves repeatedly back and forth (internally and externally by way of object) without laying aside the familiar subject of meditation” (The Way of Mindfulness, p. 74). In relation to the other three establishments, the commentaries give basically the same explanation, without addressing the problem of how one without psychic abilities can contemplate another person’s feelings and states of mind.

  129 Interestingly, the first section of the contemplation of phenomena deals with the five hindrances, showing how the application of mindfulness can turn even defilements into the raw material for the development of the practice.

  130 The parable of the hawk and the quail is also related in the Sakuṇagghi Jātaka (No. 168; Jā II 58-59), with the Bodhisatta as the quail and Devadatta as the hawk. For additional references, see KS 5:125, n. 1. Though sakuṇagghi is a feminine, this need not imply the hawk is female. Ajjhapattā is a reduplicated aorist which, in the Pāli tradition, became transformed into a past participle; see von Hinüber, “Traces of the Reduplicated Aorist in Pāli,” in Selected Papers, pp. 52-61. The conjunction of two finite verbs here seems hard to account for, as normally an absolutive would precede a finite verb.

  131 PED does not list apatthaddhā, but CPD explains it as a past participle < Skt apa-stambh. Ja II 59,17,20 reads atthaddhā/ thaddhā. Be and Ee have sake bale asaṃvadamānā, Se sake bale avacamānā; Spk explains it as though it were not a negation: saṃvadamānā ti sammā vadamānā, attano balassa suṭṭhu vaṇṇaṃ vadamānā; “boasting: speaking fully, thoroughly praising her own strength.”

  132 Cp. 35:243 (IV 185,7-15; 186,23-30).

  133 Be reads tasmiṃ yeva kaṭṭhakataṅgāre avassajjetvā, followed by Ee (whi
ch differs only in having avasajjetvā); Se has tasmiṃ yeva makkaṭaṃ uddharitvā avissajjetvā, an obvious rewording of the received text to make it more intelligible. Neither Spk nor Spk-pṭ offers any help. CPD calls kaṭṭhakataṅgāre a “problematic reading of uncertain meaning” and supposes the sentence to be corrupt. However, in a recent review of Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Bhikkhu Pāsādiko points out that the Wörterbuch has an entry kāṣṭha-kaḍambara corresponding to kaṭṭhakataṅgāra of the Pāli; on this basis he suggests amending our text to read kaṭṭhakaliṅgare āvajjetvā, which he renders “having fastened [the monkey] just to that wooden staff [of his].” Pāsādiko translates the Chinese version of the Saṃyuktāgama text thus: “Hardly has the hunter arrived when he takes the staff, fastens [the monkey] to it and goes away, carrying [the load] on his shoulder” (pp. 191-92). I accept the amendation of kataṅgāre to kaliṅgare, though I think it likely that the latter refers, not to the hunter’s staff, but to the same (tasmiṃ yeva) block of wood on which the monkey was trapped by the pitch. Elsewhere kaliṅgara means log or block (see 20:8, Dhp 41), though I know of no instance where it means a staff. I also do not see how āvajjetvā could mean “having fastened,” and prefer to retain the verb given in the text. The sense then is that the hunter secures the monkey to the block of wood to which it is stuck and then goes off with the block, bringing the monkey along.