Samyuttanikaya 22.8.5: 7. Khajjanīyasuttavaṇṇanā

In the seventh, "past lives" (pubbenivāsaṃ) is not said with reference to recollection by means of direct knowledge, but it is said with reference to recluses and brahmans recollecting past lives by means of insight. Therefore he said: "All these recollect the five aggregates of clinging, or one among them." For in the case of one recollecting by means of direct knowledge, aggregates, aggregates of clinging, things connected with the aggregates, and concepts also serve as an object. "He recollects just form" (rūpaṃyeva anussarati): for one recollecting in this way does not recollect any other being or person, but recollects only the aggregate of form that has ceased in the past. In the case of feeling and the rest, this is also the method. The section on voidness is finished.

Now, in order to show the characteristic of voidness, he said "And what, monks, do you say is form?" and so forth. For just as a man searching for a lost ox, even if he sees a red or black draft-ox while a herd of cattle is roaming about, cannot come to a definite conclusion by that alone, thinking, "This is my ox." Why? Because others like it exist. But when he sees a mark such as a spear or a spike on an area of its body, he reaches the definite conclusion: "This belongs to me." In the same way, even when voidness has been spoken of, as long as the characteristic of voidness has not been spoken of, it remains unspoken; but when the characteristic has been spoken of, it is said to have been spoken. For voidness is like the ox; the characteristic of voidness is like the mark on the ox. Just as when the mark on the ox is not discerned, the ox is not properly discerned, but when it is discerned, the ox is said to be discerned, so too, when the characteristic of voidness is not spoken of, voidness remains unspoken, but when it is spoken of, it is said to have been spoken. Thus, in order to show the characteristic of voidness, he said "And what, monks, do you say is form?" and so forth.

Therein, 'and why' (kiñca) is an inquiry about the reason: for what reason do you call it form (rūpa); for what reason is this called form? Such is the meaning. 'Because it is deformed' (ruppatīti kho): here, 'because' (iti) indicates the reason; the meaning is: because it is deformed, therefore it is called form. 'It is deformed' means it is disturbed, struck, oppressed, broken; this is the meaning. In 'it is deformed by cold' and so forth, being deformed by cold is evident first of all in the Lokantarika hell. Between every three world-systems there is one Lokantarika hell, measuring eight thousand leagues across. Below it there is no earth, nor above it is there light from the moon, sun, lamps, or jewels; there is constant darkness. The beings reborn there have bodies three gāvutas in size; clinging with long, broad nails to the mountain slopes like bats, they hang upside down. When crawling along they come within reach of one another's hands, then, thinking 'We have found food!', they grapple with one another, turn over, and fall into the water that sustains the world; and when a wind strikes them, they snap off like the fruits of the madhuka tree and fall into the water. As soon as they have fallen into the extremely caustic water, they dissolve with a sizzling sound like a lump of dough dropped into boiling oil. Thus being deformed by cold is evident in the Lokantarika hell. In regions cold with snowfall, such as the country of Mahiṃsaka and others, this is evident indeed. For there beings' bodies are broken by the cold, and they even reach the end of life.

Being deformed by heat is evident in the great Avīci hell. Being deformed by hunger is evident in the realm of ghosts and in times of famine. Being deformed by thirst is evident among the Kālakañjika asuras and others. One Kālakañjika asura, it is said, unable to bear his thirst, went down into the great Ganges, a league deep and a league wide. Wherever he went, the water was cut off, smoke arose, and it was as though he were walking on a heated stone slab. While he was wandering here and there listening to the sound of water, night turned to dawn. Then, seeing him early in the morning as they were going on their alms round, about thirty monks walking for alms asked: 'Who are you, good sir?' 'Venerable sirs, I am a ghost.' 'What are you seeking?' 'Drinking water, venerable sirs.' 'This Ganges is full, do you not see it?' 'It is of no use to me, venerable sirs.' 'Then lie down on the bank of the Ganges; we will pour drinking water into your mouth.' He lay on his back on the sandbank. The monks took out about thirty bowls, brought water, and poured it into his mouth. While they were doing this, the time [for alms] drew near. Then they said: 'It is our time for the alms round, good sir; surely you have gotten a mere taste?' The ghost said: 'Venerable sirs, if even half a handful of the water poured from the thirty bowls by the thirty venerable ones has passed down my throat, may I never be released from the state of a ghost!' Thus being deformed by thirst is evident in the realm of ghosts.

Being deformed by gadflies and the like is evident in regions abundant in gadflies, flies, and so forth. And here, 'gadflies' (ḍaṃsā) are copper-brown flies. 'Mosquitoes' (makasā) are just mosquitoes. 'Winds' (vātā) should be understood in terms of wind in the belly, wind in the back, and so forth. For when wind-disease arises in the body, it breaks the hands, feet, back, and so forth, making one blind in one eye, hunchbacked, or a cripple. 'Heat' (ātapo) is the heat of the sun. Being deformed by it is evident in sandy deserts and the like. One woman, it is said, falling behind her caravan at night in a sandy desert, when the sun rose by day and the sand became heated, was unable to put down her feet; so she took the basket off her head and stepped on it. Gradually, as the basket grew scorching hot and she was unable to stand on it, she laid her outer cloth over it and stepped on it. When that too grew scorched, she laid down face-down the little child she was holding in her arms, and stepping on him while he was actually crying out, she died along with him in that very spot, overcome by the heat.

'Reptiles' (sarīsapā) are whatever long-bodied creatures move by crawling. Being deformed through contact with them should be understood in terms of those bitten by venomous snakes and the like. Thus, of the two characteristics of phenomena—by way of the general and the particular—the Blessed One first showed the particular characteristic of the form aggregate. For this belongs to the form aggregate alone, not to feeling and the rest; therefore it is called the particular characteristic. But the characteristic of impermanence, suffering, and non-self belongs to feeling and the rest as well; therefore that is called the general characteristic.

In 'And why, monks, do you call it feeling?' and so forth, it should be understood in the manner already spoken of for the previous [section]. What is not like the previous, this is the clarification: 'it feels pleasure too' (sukhampi vedayati) means it feels, experiences a pleasant object. The method is the same for both subsequent terms as well. But how has this object come to be called pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure? Through being the condition for pleasure and so forth. And this meaning has already appeared in the Mahālisutta (SN 3.60): 'And because, Mahāli, form is pleasant, tied to pleasure, descended into pleasure...' And here in 'it feels', it is feeling alone that feels, not another being or person. For feeling has the characteristic of being experienced; therefore, dependent on the physical base and the object, feeling alone feels. Thus here the Blessed One analyzed and showed the particular characteristic of feeling as well.

'It perceives blue too' (nīlampi sañjānāti) means, having done the preparatory work on a blue flower or cloth, bringing about access or absorption, it perceives. For this perception is valid as preparatory perception, access perception, and absorption perception; and the perception arising as 'blue, blue' is also valid. The method is the same for yellow and the rest. Here too, the Blessed One analyzed and showed the particular characteristic of perception, which has the characteristic of perceiving.

Regarding 'they construct the conditioned as form for the sake of formness': just as one cooks gruel precisely for gruelness, or a cake precisely for cakeness, so too, it constructs—accumulates, bunches together, produces, is the meaning—precisely form, which has received the name 'conditioned' because it is made by factors coming together, for the sake of formness, so that it becomes what is called constructed form, for the state of that, for the state of form. In the case of feeling and so forth, the method is the same. But here is the summary: it constructs, produces, form arising together with itself and the associated states of feeling and so forth. Here too, the Blessed One analyzed and demonstrated just the individual characteristic of volition, which has the characteristic of willing.

Regarding 'it cognizes sour too': it cognizes 'sour' with respect to the sourness of mango, hog-plum, citron, and so forth. This is the method in all expressions. Moreover, here 'bitter' means various kinds such as neem and pointed gourd. 'Pungent' means various kinds such as long pepper and black pepper. 'Sweet' means various kinds such as ghee and molasses. 'Alkaline' means various kinds such as eggplant, coconut, winged bean vine, and bamboo shoots. 'Non-alkaline' means whatever fruits or mixed greens such as *kāra*-leaves. 'Salty' means various kinds such as salted gruel, salted fish, and salted rice. 'Unsalted' means various kinds such as unsalted gruel, unsalted fish, and unsalted rice. Regarding 'therefore it is called consciousness': because it knows these distinctions such as sour through the mutually distinct nature of sourness and so on, therefore it is called consciousness. Thus here too, the Blessed One analyzed and demonstrated just the individual characteristic of consciousness, which has the characteristic of cognizing.

Because perception is distinct by way of apprehending the appearance and shape of an object, it is classified at the eye-door. Because consciousness is distinct by way of apprehending the individual distinction of an object even without appearance and shape, it is classified at the tongue-door. But for the purpose of unconfused discernment of the intrinsic nature of these—perception, consciousness, and wisdom—the distinctions among 'perceives', 'cognizes', and 'understands' should be understood here. In this regard, the difference lies merely in the prefix; the word 'knows' is non-distinct. Yet its distinction should be understood through the sense of knowing. For perception is merely the perceiving of an object by way of blue and so forth; it cannot bring about the penetration of characteristics as impermanent, suffering, and non-self. Consciousness both knows the object by way of blue and so forth and brings about the penetration of characteristics by way of impermanence and so forth; but it cannot, by striving upward, bring about the manifestation of the path. Wisdom knows the object by way of blue and so forth, brings about the penetration of characteristics by way of impermanence and so forth, and, by striving upward, also brings about the manifestation of the path.

For instance, when a heap of coins has been placed on a moneychanger's tray, and three people—an inexperienced child, a villager, and a master moneychanger—stand looking on: the inexperienced child knows only that the coins are varied, colorful, square, or round; he does not know, 'This is an article of enjoyment and use for human beings, regarded as a jewel.' The villager knows that they are varied and so on, and that they are regarded as jewels for the enjoyment and use of human beings; but he does not know, 'This one is counterfeit, this is genuine, this is substandard, this is refined.' The master moneychanger knows that they are varied, knows that they are regarded as jewels, and knows that they are counterfeit and so on. And in knowing, whether by seeing the appearance, hearing the sound, smelling the odor, tasting the flavor, or weighing the lightness or heaviness in his hand, he knows: 'It was made in such-and-such a village,' or 'It was made in such-and-such a market-town, in such-and-such a city, in the shadow of such-and-such a mountain, on the bank of such-and-such a river,' and 'It was made by such-and-such a master.' Even so, perception, like the inexperienced child's seeing of the coins, knows merely the object by way of blue and so forth. Consciousness, like the villager's seeing of the coins, both knows the object by way of blue and so forth and brings about the penetration of characteristics by way of impermanence and so forth. Wisdom, like the master moneychanger's seeing of the coins, knows the object by way of blue and so forth, brings about the penetration of characteristics by way of impermanence and so forth, and, by striving upward, also brings about the manifestation of the path.

However, that distinction among them is difficult to penetrate. Therefore the Venerable Nāgasena said:

“‘A difficult thing, great king, has been done by the Blessed One.’—‘What difficult thing, venerable Nāgasena, has been done by the Blessed One?’—‘A difficult thing, great king, has been done by the Blessed One, in that he has declared the demarcation of these immaterial mental states occurring with a single object, saying: “This is contact, this is feeling, this is perception, this is volition, this is consciousness.”’

For just as if one were to place these five oils—sesame oil, mustard oil, mahua oil, castor oil, and animal fat—into a single vessel, churn them with a double churning-stick all day, and then separately extract each one, saying, 'This is sesame oil, this is mustard oil,' which would be a difficult thing, this is more difficult than that. But the Blessed One, because of his thorough penetration by omniscient knowledge, being the Master of Dhamma, the King of Dhamma, made a demarcation of these immaterial states occurring with a single object. This meaning should also be understood by the separate drawing out of water at the place where the five great rivers enter the ocean, saying, 'This is water of the Ganges, this of the Yamunā.'

Thus, having spoken of the characteristic of non-self by means of two sections—emptiness by the first section and the characteristic of emptiness by the second—now, in order to show the characteristic of suffering, he began with "There, monks," and so forth. There, "I am devoured": it does not mean that form devours by repeatedly tearing off flesh like a dog; rather, just as one wearing dirty clothes, referring to the distress caused by that, says, "My clothes are devouring me," so it should be understood that this also devours, meaning it produces distress. "Has practiced": having made virtue the beginning, he has practiced up to the path of arahantship. But here, a practitioner endowed with powerful knowledge, sharp intellect, and superior wisdom, striving in the place of exertion, whether pierced by a stake or a thorn, or struck by a weapon, or seized and being eaten by a tiger or other beast, renders that feeling negligible, comprehends his basic meditation subject, and attains arahantship itself—such a one is said to have "practiced for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to feeling," like Pītamalla Thera, like Kuṭumbiyaputta Mahātissa Thera, like the monk lying in the mouth of a tiger among about thirty monks in the Vattanī forest, and like the elder pierced by a thorn.

It is said that when twelve monks had struck the gong and were engaged in exertion in the forest, one of them, having struck the gong just as the sun set, stepped down onto the walkway; while walking up and down, crushing about transversely, he stepped on a thorn concealed by grass. The thorn came out through the back of his foot. A feeling arose as though he had been pierced through by a heated ploughshare. The elder thought: "Shall I extract this thorn, or the thorn that has continually pierced and remained?" It occurred to him: "Because of being pierced by this thorn, there is no fear in hell and the like; it is only the thorn that has continually pierced and remained [that should be extracted]." Rendering that feeling negligible, he walked up and down all night, and when the night had brightened, he gave a sign to another. That one came and asked: "What is it, Bhante?" "I have been pierced by a thorn, friend." "At what time, Bhante?" "Just yesterday evening, friend." "Why did you not call us? We would have extracted the thorn and poured oil there as well." "Friend, we were striving to extract only the thorn that has continually pierced and remained." "Were you able to extract it, Bhante?" "Friend, it has been extracted by me in part." The remaining stories are detailed in the commentaries to the Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas in the exposition of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta.

"What do you think, monks?": why was this begun? In this section only the characteristic of suffering was spoken of, not the characteristic of impermanence. This was begun in order to show that. It was also begun in order to show all three characteristics combined together. "He diminishes, does not amass": he destroys the round of rebirth, he does not accumulate at all. "He relinquishes, does not grasp": he lets go of that very thing, he does not take hold of it. "He scatters, does not pile up": he disperses, he does not gather into a heap. "He smokes out, does not smoke up": he extinguishes, he does not kindle.

"Seeing thus, monks": why was this begun? It was begun with the intention: "I will show the great one whose taints are destroyed, who stands having destroyed the round of rebirth." Alternatively, by this much insight was spoken of; now this was begun to show the four paths together with insight. Or, by this much the first path was spoken of; now this was begun to show the three higher paths together with insight. Alternatively, by this much three paths were spoken of; now this was begun to show the path of arahantship together with insight.

"Together with Pajāpati": together with the king of the devas, Pajāpati. "They pay homage from afar": they pay homage from a distance; even while he stands far off, they pay homage, just as to the Venerable Nīta Thera.

The elder, it is said, went forth after leaving a family of flower-scavengers. Having attained arahantship at the very razor's edge, he thought: "I went forth this very day, and this very day my work of going forth has reached its peak. I will fulfill the practice of the great noble lineage, adorned with delight in developing contentment with the four requisites." For the sake of rags from a dust heap, he entered Sāvatthī and wandered about searching for cloth. Then a Great Brahmā, emerging from an attainment and looking at the realm of human beings, saw the elder and, having raised his hands in reverent salutation, stood paying homage, thinking: "Having gone forth this very day, having attained arahantship at the razor's edge this very day, he searches for cloth to fulfill the practice of the great noble lineage." Another Great Brahmā saw him and asked: "Whom are you paying homage to?" "I am paying homage to Nīta Thera." "For what reason?" "Having gone forth this very day, having attained arahantship at the razor's edge this very day, he searches for cloth to fulfill the practice of the great noble lineage." He too stood paying homage to him. Then another, and another—seven hundred Great Brahmās stood paying homage. Therefore it is said:

“Those seven hundred lofty deities, / Brahmās having emerged from their mansions, / Pay homage to Nīta with confident hearts: / ‘The one whose taints are destroyed takes rags from the dust heap.’

“Those seven hundred lofty deities, / Brahmās having emerged from their mansions, / Pay homage to Nīta with confident hearts: / ‘The one whose taints are destroyed makes [robes from] rags from the dust heap.’

“‘The one whose taints are destroyed washes rags from the dust heap’; / ‘The one whose taints are destroyed dyes rags from the dust heap’; / ‘The one whose taints are destroyed wears rags from the dust heap.’”

Thus the Blessed One in this discourse turned back the teaching from the three realms of existence and seized the pinnacle of arahantship. At the conclusion of the teaching, five hundred monks were established in arahantship. The seventh.