4 : Opposing Viewpoints

§ 4.1  “Once, monks, in this same Sāvatthī, there was a certain king, and the king said to a certain man, ‘Come, my good man. Gather together all the people in Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth.’”

“Responding, ‘As you say, your majesty,’ to the king, the man—having rounded up all the people in Sāvatthī who had been blind from birth—went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the people in Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.’

“‘Very well then, I say, show the blind people an elephant.’

“Responding, ‘As you say, your majesty,’ to the king, the man showed the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed the elephant’s head, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed the elephant’s ear, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed the elephant’s tusk… the elephant’s trunk… the elephant’s body… the elephant’s foot… the elephant’s hindquarters… the elephant’s tail… the tuft at the end of the elephant’s tail, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’

“Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the blind people have seen the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to do.’

“Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them, ‘Blind people, have you seen the elephant?’

“‘Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.’

“‘Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.’

“The blind people who had been shown the elephant’s head said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a jar.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s ear said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s tusk said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a plowshare.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s trunk said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s body said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a granary.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s foot said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s hindquarters said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.’

“Those who had been shown the elephant’s tail said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.’

“Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the elephant’s tail said, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.’

“Saying, ‘The elephant is like this, it’s not like that. The elephant’s not like that, it’s like this,’ they struck one another with their fists. That gratified the king.

“In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind & eyeless. They don’t know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don’t know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, ‘The Dhamma is like this, it’s not like that. The Dhamma’s not like that, it’s like this.’”

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

§ 4.2  Thus the Blessed One answered, having been asked by Sakka the deva-king. Gratified, Sakka was delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One’s words: “So it is, O Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. Hearing the Blessed One’s answer to my question, my doubt is now cut off, my perplexity is overcome.… Whereas other outside contemplatives & brahmans gave me no chance to ask them these questions, the Blessed One has answered at length, so that he has removed the arrow of my uncertainty & perplexity.”

“Deva-king, do you recall having asked other contemplatives & brahmans these questions?”

“Yes, venerable sir, I recall having asked other contemplatives & brahmans these questions.”

“If it’s no inconvenience, could you tell me how they answered?”

“It’s no inconvenience when sitting with the Blessed One or one who is like him.”

“Then tell me, deva-king.”

“Having gone to those whom I considered to be contemplatives & brahmans living in isolated dwellings in the wilderness, I asked them these questions. But when asked by me, they were at a loss. Being at a loss, they asked me in return, ‘What is your name?’

“Being asked, I responded, ‘I, dear sir, am Sakka, the deva-king.’

“So they questioned me further, ‘But what kamma did you do to attain to this state?’

“So I taught them the Dhamma as far as I had heard & mastered it. And they were gratified with just this much: ‘We have seen Sakka, the deva-king, and he has answered our questions!’ So, instead of my becoming their disciple, they simply became mine. But I, venerable sir, am the Blessed One’s disciple, a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.” — DN 21

§ 4.3  “Monks, there ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this world devolves. When the world is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahmās). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time. Then there ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this world evolves. When the world is evolving, an empty Brahma palace appears. Then a certain being—from the exhaustion of his life span or the exhaustion of his merit—falls from the company of the Radiant and re-arises in the empty Brahmā palace. And there he still stays mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“After dwelling there alone for a long time, he experiences displeasure & agitation: ‘O, if only other beings would come to this world!’

“Then other beings, through the ending of their life span or the ending of their merit, fall from the company of the Radiant and reappear in the Brahmā palace, in the company of that being. And there they still stay mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“Then the thought occurred to the being who reappeared first: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by me. Why is that? First the thought occurred to me, “O, if only other beings would come to this world!” And thus my direction of will brought these beings to this world.’ As for the beings who reappear later, this thought occurred to them: ‘This is Brahmā… Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. We were created by this Brahmā. Why is that? We saw that he appeared here before, while we appeared after.’

“Now in that case, monks, the being who appeared first was longer-living, more beautiful, and more influential. The beings who appeared after were short-living, less beautiful, and less influential.

“And there is the possibility that one of those beings, falling from that company, comes to this world. Coming to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, and through right attention—reaches the sort of awareness-concentration whereby he, with his concentrated mind, remembers that previous lifetime but not any before it. So he says, ‘This Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, is the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. We were created by this Brahmā. He is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. As for us, who were created by that Brahmā, we are inconstant, not everlasting, short-lived, subject to falling and coming to this world.” — DN 1

§ 4.4  “Monks, these five ancient brahmanical traditions are now observed among dogs but not among brahmans. Which five?

“In the past, brahman males mated only with brahman females and not with non-brahman females. At present, brahman males mate with brahman females and with non-brahman females. At present, male dogs mate only with female dogs and not with female non-dogs. This is the first ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.

“In the past, brahman males mated with brahman females only in-season and not out-of-season. At present, brahman males mate with brahman females in-season and out-of-season. At present, male dogs mate with female dogs only in-season and not out-of-season. This is the second ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.

“In the past, brahman males did not buy or sell brahman females, but took up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction simply through mutual attraction. At present, brahman males buy and sell brahman females, and take up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction simply through mutual attraction. At present, male dogs do not buy or sell female dogs, but take up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction simply through mutual attraction. This is the third ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.

“In the past, brahmans did not make a stash of wealth, grain, silver, or gold. At present, brahmans make stashes of wealth, grain, silver, & gold. At present, dogs do not make a stash of wealth, grain, silver, or gold. This is the fourth ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.

“In the past, brahmans searched for alms for their morning meal in the morning, and for their evening meal in the evening. At present, brahmans, having eaten as much as they like, swelling their bellies, leave taking the leftovers. At present, dogs search for alms for their morning meal in the morning, and for their evening meal in the evening. This is the fifth ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.

“These, monks, are the five ancient brahmanical traditions that are now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.” – AN 5:191

§ 4.5  On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Nāḷandā in the Pāvārika Mango Grove. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “The brahmans of the Western lands, venerable sir—those who carry water pots, wear garlands of water plants, purify with water, & worship fire—can take (the spirit of) a dead person, lift it out, instruct it, & send it to heaven. But the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened, can arrange it so that all the world, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, a heavenly world.”

“Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!’ What do you think? Would that man—because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people—at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!’ What do you think? Would that boulder—because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people—rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“So it is with any man who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart—(saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world!’—still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.

“Now what do you think? There is the case where a man is one who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; he refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; he is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell!’ What do you think? Would that man—because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people—at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart (saying,) ‘Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!’ What do you think? Would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“So it is with any man who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart—(saying,) ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell!’—still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.” — SN 42:6

§ 4.6  Puṇṇikā:

§ 4.7  Then the brahman student Assalāyana went with a large group of brahmans to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to that?”

“But, Assalāyana, the brahmans’ brahman-women are plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and nursing (their children). And yet the brahmans, being born through the birth canal, say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”

“Even though Master Gotama says that, still the brahmans think, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’” …

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is it only a brahman who is capable of taking a loofah & bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust & dirt, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior.… Even a brahman.… Even a merchant.… Even a worker.… (Members of) all four castes are capable of taking a loofah & bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust & dirt.”

“So what strength is there, Assalāyana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, ‘Brahmans are the superior caste… Only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans. Only brahmans are the sons & offspring of Brahmā: born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā’?” — MN 93

§ 4.8  Then Puṇṇa Koliyaputta, an ox-practice ascetic, and Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, Puṇṇa Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one side, whereas Seniya, the naked dog-practice ascetic, exchanged courteous greetings with the Blessed One and, after an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, sat down to one side, hunched up like a dog.

As they were sitting there, Puṇṇa Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic said to the Blessed One, “This Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, does what is hard to do. He eats food thrown on the ground. He has for a long time undertaken and perfectly conformed to that dog-practice. What is his destination? What his future course?”

“Enough, Puṇṇa. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”

A second time… A third time Puṇṇa Koliyaputta the ox-practice ascetic said to the Blessed One, “This Seniya, a naked dog-practice ascetic, does what is hard to do. He eats food thrown on the ground. He has undertaken and perfectly conformed to that dog-practice. What is his destination? What his future course?”

“Apparently, Puṇṇa, I don’t get leave from you [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, Puṇṇa. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’ So I will simply answer you. There is the case where a certain person develops the dog-practice fully and without lapse, develops the dog-habit fully and without lapse, develops the dog-mind fully and without lapse, develops dog-behavior fully and without lapse. Having developed the dog-practice fully and without lapse, the dog-habit fully and without lapse, the dog-mind fully and without lapse, dog-behavior fully and without lapse, he—with the breakup of the body, after death—reappears in the company of dogs.

”But if he is of a view such as this: ‘By this habit or practice or asceticism or holy life I will become one deva or another,’ that is his wrong view. For a person of wrong view, Puṇṇa, there is one of two destinations, I tell you: hell or the animal womb. Thus when succeeding, Puṇṇa, the dog-practice leads to the animal womb; when failing, to hell.”

When this was said, Seniya, the naked dog-practice ascetic, sobbed & burst into tears. So the Blessed One said to Puṇṇa Koliyaputta, the ox-practice ascetic, “That was what I didn’t get leave from you, Puṇṇa [to avoid the matter by saying], ‘Enough, Puṇṇa. Put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’”

“I’m not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have for a long time undertaken and perfectly conformed to this dog-practice.” — MN 57

§ 4.9  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Park. Then in the early morning, having adjusted his under robe and carrying his bowl & outer robe, he went into Kapilavatthu for alms. Having gone for alms in Kapilavatthu, after the meal, returning from his alms round, he went to the Great Wood for the day’s abiding. Plunging into the Great Wood, he sat down at the root of a young clump of bamboo for the day’s abiding.

Daṇḍapānin [“Stick-in-hand”] the Sakyan, out roaming & rambling for exercise, also went to the Great Wood. Plunging into the Great Wood, he went to the Blessed One under the young clump of bamboo. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he stood to one side. As he was standing there, he said to the Blessed One, “What is the contemplative’s doctrine? What does he proclaim?”

“The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort (of doctrine) where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine; such is what I proclaim.”

When this was said, Daṇḍapānin the Sakyan—shaking his head, wagging his tongue, raising his eyebrows so that his forehead was wrinkled in three furrows—left, leaning on his stick.” — MN 18

§ 4.10  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rājagaha on Vulture’s Peak Mountain, in the Boar’s Cave. Then LongNails the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he stood to one side. As he was standing there, he said to the Blessed One, “Master Gotama, I am of the view, of the opinion, that ‘All is not pleasing to me.’”

“But this view of yours, Aggivessana—’All is not pleasing to me’—is even that not pleasing to you?” — MN 74

§ 4.11  [King Ajātasattu, speaking to the Buddha:] “Another time I went to Sañjaya Velaṭṭhaputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: ‘Venerable Sañjaya, there are these common craftsmen elephant-trainers, horse-trainers, charioteers, archers, standard bearers, camp marshals, supply corps officers, high royal officers, commandos, military heroes, armor-clad warriors, leather-clad warriors, domestic slaves, confectioners, barbers, bath attendants, cooks, garland-makers, laundrymen, weavers, basket-makers, potters, calculators, accountants, and any other craftsmen of a similar sort. They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here & now. They give happiness & pleasure to themselves, to their parents, wives, & children, to their friends & colleagues. They put in place an excellent presentation of offerings to contemplatives & brahmans, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to a heavenly rebirth. Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here & now?’

“When this was said, Sañjaya Velaṭṭhaputta said to me, ‘If you ask me if there exists another world (after death), if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. If you asked me if there isn’t another world… both is and isn’t… neither is nor isn’t… if there are beings who transmigrate… if there aren’t… both are and aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tathāgata exists after death… doesn’t… both… neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’

“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here & now, Sañjaya Velaṭṭhaputta answered with evasion. Just as if a person, when asked about a mango, were to answer with a breadfruit; or, when asked about a breadfruit, were to answer with a mango; in the same way, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here & now, Sañjaya Velaṭṭhaputta answered with evasion. The thought occurred to me: ‘This—among these contemplatives & brahmans—is the most foolish and confused of all. How can he, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here & now, answer with evasion?’ Still the thought occurred to me: ‘How can anyone like me think of disparaging a contemplative or brahman living in his realm?’ Yet I neither delighted in Sañjaya Velaṭṭhaputta’s words nor did I protest against them. Neither delighting nor protesting, I was dissatisfied. Without expressing dissatisfaction, without accepting his teaching, without adopting it, I got up from my seat and left.” — DN 2

§ 4.12  [Prince Pāyāsi:] “There is the case, Master Kassapa, where I have friends, colleagues, & relatives who take life, take what is not given, engage in illicit sex, tell lies, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are excessively greedy, malevolent, and hold to wrong views. Then, at a later time, they become sick & in pain, severely ill. When I know, ‘They will not recover from this sickness,’ I go to them and say, ‘There are some contemplatives & brahmans who teach this doctrine, who hold to this view: “Those who take life, take what is not given, engage in illicit sex, tell lies, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are excessively greedy, malevolent, and hold to wrong views—at the break-up of the body, after death, will appear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.” You, my good men, take life… hold to wrong views. If what those good contemplatives & brahmans say is true, then you—at the break-up of the body, after death—will appear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. So if, at the break-up of the body, after death, you appear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell, having come from there, inform me: “There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.” You, my good men, are trustworthy & responsible. Whatever you have seen will be just as if I have seen it myself.’

“But they, having responded, ‘As you say,’ neither come to inform me nor do they send a messenger.

“This is the reason, Master Kassapa, for which I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”

[Ven. Kumāra Kassapa:] “Very well, prince, in that case, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit.

“What do you think, prince? Suppose that your men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to you, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, venerable sir. Decree for him whatever punishment you wish.’ And you might say to them, ‘Very well then, my good men, having bound him with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, and having shaved him bald, march him to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads, evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, in the execution ground, cut off his head.’

“They—responding, ‘Very good,’ to you—having bound that man with a stout rope… would evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, would sit him down in the execution ground. Now, would that thief get leave from the executioners by saying, ‘Wait, my good executioners, until I return from visiting my friends, colleagues, & relatives in that village or town over there’? Or would the executioners cut off his head right while it was babbling?”

“Master Kassapa, he wouldn’t get leave from the executioners… They would cut off his head right while it was babbling.”

“So Prince, when even a human thief can’t get leave from human executioners, ‘Wait, my good executioners, until I return from visiting my friends, colleagues, & relatives in that village or town over there,’ how would your friends, colleagues, & relatives who take life… and hold to wrong views, on the break-up of the body, after death, having appeared in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell, get leave from the hell-wardens by saying, ‘Wait, my good hell-wardens, while we go inform Prince Pāyāsi: “There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions”’?

“It’s from this line of reasoning, prince, that you can believe, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.’”

“Even though you say that, Master Kassapa, I still believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’

“Do you have a line of reasoning for believing that…?”

“Yes…”

“How so?”

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where I have friends, colleagues, & relatives who refrain from taking life, from taking what is not given, from engaging in illicit sex, from telling lies, from speaking divisively, from speaking harshly, from engaging in idle chatter, who are not excessively greedy, not malevolent, and hold to right views. Then, at a later time, they become sick & in pain, severely ill. When I know, ‘They will not recover from this sickness,’ I go to them and say, ‘There are some contemplatives & brahmans who teach this doctrine, who hold to this view: “Those who refrain from taking life… and who hold to right views—at the break-up of the body, after death, will appear in a good destination, a heavenly world.” You, my good men, refrain from taking life… and who hold to right views. If what those good contemplatives & brahmans say is true, then you—at the break-up of the body, after death—will appear in a good destination, a heavenly world. So if, at the break-up of the body, after death, you appear in a good destination, a heavenly world, having come from there, inform me: “There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.” You, my good men, are trustworthy & responsible. Whatever you have seen will be just as if I have seen it myself.’

“But they, having responded, ‘As you say,’ neither come to inform me nor do they send a messenger.

“This is the reason, Master Kassapa, for which I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”

“Very well, prince, in that case I will give you an analogy, for it is by means of analogies that some observant men understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Suppose a man had fallen head and all into a cesspool, and you were to command your men, ‘Very well then, my good men, pull that man out of the cesspool.’

“They—responding, ‘Very good,’ to you—would pull that man out of the cesspool. Then you would tell them, ‘Very well, then, scrape the excrement thoroughly off that man’s body with bamboo scrapers’ … ‘scrub his body well three times with yellow loam’ … ‘having anointed him with oil, give him a good bath three times with fine soap powder’ … ‘trim his hair & beard’ … ‘offer him expensive garlands, expensive ointments, & expensive clothes.’ They would offer the man expensive garlands, expensive ointments, & expensive clothes. Then you would tell them, ‘Very well then, having led him up to the palace, provide him with the five strings of sensuality.’ They, having led the man up to the palace, would provide him with the five strings of sensuality.

“Now, what do you think, prince? Would that man—well-bathed, well-anointed, his hair & beard trimmed, ornamented with garlands & ornaments, dressed in white clothes, having been led up to the excellence of the upper palace, enjoying himself well-supplied & replete with the five strings of sensuality—want to be submerged again in that cesspool?”

“No, Master Kassapa. Why is that? Because the cesspool is filthy—not only filthy, but also reckoned as filthy, foul-smelling & reckoned as foul-smelling, disgusting & reckoned as disgusting, loathsome & reckoned as loathsome.”

“In the same way, prince, human beings are, for devas, filthy & reckoned as filthy, foul-smelling & reckoned as foul-smelling, disgusting & reckoned as disgusting, loathsome & reckoned as loathsome. For devas, the smell of human beings wafts up 100 leagues. So how would your friends who refrain from taking life… and who hold right views, at the break-up of the body, after death, appearing in a good destination, a heavenly world, come back & inform you, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions’?

“It’s from this line of reasoning, prince, that you can believe, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.’”

“Even though you say that, Master Kassapa, I still believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’

“Do you have a line of reasoning for believing that…?”

“Yes…”

“How so?”

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where I have friends, colleagues, & relatives who refrain from taking life… and hold to right views. Then, at a later time, they become sick & in pain, severely ill. When I know, ‘They will not recover from this sickness,’ I go to them and say, ‘There are some contemplatives & brahmans who teach this doctrine, who hold to this view: “Those who refrain from taking life… and who hold to right views—at the break-up of the body, after death, will appear in a good destination, a heavenly world, in the company of the devas of the Thirty-three.” You, my good men, refrain from taking life… and who hold to right views. If what those good contemplatives & brahmans say is true, then you—at the break-up of the body, after death—will appear in a good destination, a heavenly world, in the company of the devas of the Thirty-three. So if, at the break-up of the body, after death, you appear in a good destination, a heavenly world, as companions of the devas of the Thirty-three, having come from there, inform me: “There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.” You, my good men, are trustworthy & responsible. Whatever you have seen will be just as if I have seen it myself.’

“But they, having responded, ‘As you say,’ neither come to inform me nor do they send a messenger.

“This is the reason, Master Kassapa, for which I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”

“Very well, prince, in that case, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit.

“One human century, prince, is a single day & night for the devas of the Thirty-three. Thirty of those days are a month. Twelve of those months are a year. And 1,000 of those divine years is the average life-span of the devas of the Thirty-three. Suppose that your friends, colleagues, & relatives… having appeared in a good destination, a heavenly world, as companions of the devas of the Thirty-three, were to think, ‘Let’s enjoy ourselves, well-supplied & replete with the five divine strings of sensuality for two or three days, and then we’ll go inform Prince Pāyāsi, “There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.” Would they come to inform you, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions’?”

“No, Master Kassapa. We would have been long-since dead.” …

“It’s from this line of reasoning, prince, that you can believe, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.’”

“Even though you say that, Master Kassapa, I still believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’

“Do you have a line of reasoning for believing that…?”

“Yes…”

“How so?”

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where my men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to me, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, venerable sir. Decree for him whatever punishment you wish.’ And I say, ‘Very well then, my good men, having placed this man while still alive in a clay jar, having sealed the mouth, having covered it with a damp skin, having plastered it with a thick layer of damp clay, having set it in a furnace, light the fire.’

“They—responding, ‘Very good,’ to me—having placed the man while still alive in a clay jar, having sealed the mouth, having covered it with a damp skin, having plastered it with a thick layer of damp clay, having set it in a furnace, light the fire. When we know, ‘The man has died,’ then—removing the jar, breaking through the seal, opening the mouth—we look carefully, (thinking,) ‘Maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping.…’

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where my men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to me, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, venerable sir. Decree for him whatever punishment you wish.’ And I say, ‘Very well then, my good men, having weighed this man with a scale while still alive, having strangled him to death with a bowstring, weigh him with the scale again.’

“They—responding, ‘Very good,’ to me—having weighed the man with a scale while still alive, having strangled him to death with a bowstring, weigh him with the scale again. When he is alive, he is lighter, more flexible, and more malleable. But when he has died, he is heavier, stiffer, and less malleable.

“This is the reason, Master Kassapa, for which I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”  …

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where my men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to me, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, venerable sir. Decree for him whatever punishment you wish.’ And I say, ‘Very well then, my good men, take this man’s life without damaging his outer skin, inner skin, flesh, tendons, bones, & bone marrow, and maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’

“They—responding, ‘Very good,’ to me—take his life without damaging his outer skin, inner skin, flesh, tendons, bones, & bone marrow. When he is half-dead, I say to them, ‘Very well, then, my good men, lay this man on his back, and maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’ They lay the man on his back, but we don’t see his soul escaping. ‘In that case, lay him face down, and maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’ They lay him face down, but we don’t see his soul escaping. ‘Turn him on one side… turn him on the other side… Stand him up… Stand him upside down… Hit him with your hand… Hit him with a stone… Hit him with a stick… Hit him with a knife… Shake him down, shake him from side to side, shake him up, and maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’ They shake him down, shake him from side to side, shake him up, but we don’t see his soul escaping.’ And even though he still has eyes, and there are forms, he is not sensitive to that medium; he still has ears, and there are sounds, he is not sensitive to that medium; he has a nose… a tongue… a body, and there are tactile objects, but he is not sensitive to that medium.

“This is the line of reasoning, Master Kassapa, why I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”

“Very well, prince, in that case I will give you an analogy, for it is by means of analogies that some observant men understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Once, prince, a conch-trumpeter, carrying his conch-trumpet, went to an outlying district. He went to a certain village and, on arrival, stood in the middle of the village, blew his conch-trumpet three times and, placing it on the ground, sat to one side. The thought occurred to the people in the outlying district, ‘Of what is that the sound—so delightful, so pleasing, so bewitching, so captivating, so compelling?’ Gathering around the conch-trumpeter, they asked him, ‘Of what is that the sound—so delightful, so pleasing, so bewitching, so captivating, so compelling?’

“‘That is called a conch-trumpet, whose sound is so delightful, so pleasing, so bewitching, so captivating, so compelling.’

“They lay the conch-trumpet on its back (and said), ‘Speak, good conch-trumpet! Speak, good conch-trumpet!’ but the conch-trumpet didn’t make a sound.

“They turned the conch-trumpet face down… turned it on one side… turned it on the other side… stood it up… stood it upside down… hit it with a hand… hit it with a stone… hit it with a stick… hit it with a knife… shook it down, shook it from side to side, shook it up, (and said,) ‘Speak, good conch-trumpet! Speak, good conch-trumpet!’ but the conch-trumpet didn’t make a sound.

“Then the thought occurred to the conch-trumpeter, ‘What fools these people in the outlying district are, in that they would search for the sound of a conch-trumpet in such an inappropriate way!’ As they looked on, he picked up the conch-trumpet, blew on it three times, and then, carrying it with him, left.

“Then the thought occurred to the people of the outlying district, ‘So it seems that this thing called a conch-trumpet, when accompanied by a man, accompanied by effort, & accompanied by wind, makes a sound. But when not accompanied by a man or by effort or by wind, the conch-trumpet doesn’t make a sound.’

“In the same way, prince, this body—when accompanied by life-force, accompanied by warmth, & accompanied by consciousness—goes and comes back, stands, sits, and lies down, sees forms with the eye, hears sounds with the ear, smells aromas with the nose, tastes flavors with the tongue, touches tactile objects with the body, and cognizes ideas with the intellect. But when it is not accompanied by life-force, not accompanied by warmth, & not accompanied by consciousness, it doesn’t go or come back, doesn’t stand, sit, or lie down, doesn’t see forms with the eye, doesn’t hear sounds with the ear, doesn’t smell aromas with the nose, doesn’t taste flavors with the tongue, doesn’t touch tactile objects with the body, and doesn’t cognize ideas with the intellect. It’s from this line of reasoning that you can believe, ‘There is another world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, there is the fruit & result of good & bad actions.’

“Even though you say that, Master Kassapa, I still believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’

“Do you have a line of reasoning for believing that…?”

“Yes…”

“How so?”

“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where my men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to me, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, venerable sir. Decree for him whatever punishment you wish.’ And I say, ‘Very well then, my good men, cut open this man’s outer skin, and perhaps we’ll see his soul.’ They cut open the man’s outer skin, but we don’t see his soul. Then I say, ‘Very well then, my good men, cut open this man’s inner skin… his flesh… his tendons… his bones… his bone marrow. Perhaps we’ll see his soul.’ They cut open the man’s bone marrow, but we don’t see his soul.

“This is the line of reasoning, Master Kassapa, why I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’”

“Very well, prince, in that case I will give you an analogy, for it is by means of analogies that some observant men understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Once, prince, there was a coiled-haired fire worshiper who lived in the wilderness in a leaf hut. Then a caravan migrated away from a certain country and, having spent one night around the fire worshipper, left. The thought occurred to the coiled-haired fire worshiper, ‘What if I were to go to the caravan camp? Perhaps I might something useful there.’ So, getting up early, the coiled-haired fire worshiper went to the caravan camp and, on arrival, saw an abandoned baby boy there, lying on its back. On seeing it, the thought occurred to him, ‘It wouldn’t be fitting for me if a human being died while I was looking on. What if I, taking this baby back to the hermitage, were to take care of him, feed him, and bring him up?’ So the coiled-haired fire worshiper, taking the baby back to the hermitage, took care of him, fed him, and brought him up.

“When the boy was ten or twelve years of age, the coiled-haired fire worshiper had some business to do in the countryside, so he said to the boy, ‘I want to go to the countryside, my son. Tend to the fire, my son. Don’t let the fire go out. If the fire should go out, this is the ax, these are the sticks, this is the fire-starter. Having started a fire, tend to the fire.’

“Then the coiled-haired fire worshiper, having instructed the boy in this way, went into the countryside. As the boy was absorbed in play, the fire went out. The thought occurred to him, ‘Father said this to me: “Tend to the fire, my son. Don’t let the fire go out. If the fire should go out, this is the ax, these are the sticks, this is the fire-starter. Having started a fire, tend to the fire.” What if I, having started a fire, were to tend to the fire?’ So he cut open the fire-starter with the ax, (thinking,) ‘Perhaps I’ll get fire.’ But he didn’t get fire. He sliced the fire-starter into two pieces… three pieces… four pieces… five pieces… ten pieces… twenty pieces… he made it into shavings. Having made it into shavings, he pounded them in a mortar. Having pounded them in a mortar, he winnowed them before a high wind, (thinking,) ‘Perhaps I’ll get fire.’ But he didn’t get fire.

“Then the coiled-haired fire worshiper, having finished his business in the countryside, went to the hermitage and, on arrival, said to the boy, ‘My son, you let the fire go out?’ [And the boy told him what had happened.]

“Then the thought occurred to the coiled-hair fire worshiper, ‘What a fool, this boy! How inexperienced, in that he would search for fire in such an inappropriate way!’ So, while the boy looked on, he got (another) fire-starter, started a fire, and said to the boy, ‘This, my son, is how a fire is to be started, not the foolish, inexperienced, inappropriate way you looked for fire.’

“In the same way, prince, you are looking for the next world in a foolish, inexperienced, inappropriate way. Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Don’t let it lead to your long-term harm & suffering!”

“Even though you say this, Master Kassapa, I can’t relinquish this evil viewpoint. King Pasenadi of Kosala knows of me, as do kings further away, that ‘Prince Pāyāsi holds to this doctrine, holds to this view: “There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.”’ If I relinquish this evil viewpoint, they will say this of me, ‘What a fool is Prince Pāyāsi, how inexperienced, in that he held to what was bad to hold.’ I will stick with it out of anger. I will stick with it out of contempt. I will stick with it out of spite.” …

“Very well, prince, in that case I will give you an analogy, for it is by means of analogies that some observant men understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Once, prince, a certain swineherd went from his village to another village. There he saw a heap of discarded dried dung. On seeing it, the thought occurred to him, ‘This heap of discarded dried dung would be food for my pigs. What if I were to take this dried dung from here?’ So, having spread out his upper robe, having heaped the dried dung on it, having tied it into a bundle, having lifted it onto his head, he went back. While he was going along the road, a great out-of-season shower fell. So he went along all smeared, carrying his burden of dung, oozing & dripping with dung, even to the tips of his nails.

“People seeing him said, ‘Are you crazy? Are you mad? How can you, all smeared, carry a burden of dung, oozing & dripping with dung, even to the tips of your nails?’

“’You’re the ones who are crazy! You’re the ones who are mad! This is food for my pigs!’

“In the same way, prince, you speak, as it were, like the dung-carrier. Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Don’t let it lead to your long-term harm & suffering!”

“Even though you say this, Master Kassapa, I can’t relinquish this evil viewpoint. King Pasenadi of Kosala knows of me, as do kings further away, that ‘Prince Pāyāsi holds to this doctrine, holds to this view: “There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.”’ If I relinquish this evil viewpoint, they will say this of me, ‘What a fool is Prince Pāyāsi, how inexperienced, in that he held to what was bad to hold.’ I will stick with it out of anger. I will stick with it out of contempt. I will stick with it out of spite.” …

“Very well, prince, in that case I will give you an analogy, for it is by means of analogies that some observant men understand the meaning of what is being said.

“Once, prince, the inhabitants of a certain countryside migrated away. Then one friend said to his friend, ‘Come, friend, let’s go to that countryside. Perhaps we’ll gain some wealth.’

“‘As you say, friend,’ the other friend responded to him.

“So they went to the countryside, to a certain village, and there they saw a heap of discarded hemp. On seeing it, one friend said to the other, ‘Here is a heap of discarded hemp. So then: You tie up a bundle of hemp, and I’ll tie up a bundle of hemp, and then each of us, carrying a bundle of hemp, will go along.’

“Responding, ‘As you say, friend,’ the other friend tied up a bundle of hemp.

“Then, each of them carrying a bundle of hemp, they arrived at another village. There they saw a heap of discarded hemp thread. On seeing it, the first friend said to the other friend, ‘This heap of discarded hemp thread is what we wanted the hemp for. So then: You throw away your bundle of hemp, and I’ll throw away my bundle of hemp, and each of us, carrying a bundle of hemp thread, will go along.’

“‘This bundle of hemp has been brought with difficulty and is well tied up. It’s enough for me. You do as you think best.’

“So the first friend, throwing away his bundle of hemp, took a bundle of hemp thread. Then they arrived at another village, and there they saw a heap of discarded hemp cloth. On seeing it, the first friend said to the other friend, ‘This heap of discarded hemp cloth is what we wanted the hemp & hemp thread for. So then: You throw away your bundle of hemp, and I’ll throw away my bundle of hemp thread, and each of us, carrying a bundle of hemp cloth, will go along.’

“‘This bundle of hemp has been brought with difficulty and is well tied up. It’s enough for me. You do as you think best.’

“So the first friend, throwing away his bundle of hemp thread, took a bundle of hemp cloth. Then they arrived at another village, and there they saw a heap of discarded wool… wool thread… wool cloth… cotton… cotton thread… cotton cloth… iron… copper… tin… lead… silver… gold. On seeing it, the first friend said to the other friend, ‘This heap of discarded gold is what we wanted the hemp & hemp thread & hemp cloth & wool & wool thread & wool cloth & cotton & cotton thread & cotton cloth & iron & copper & tin & lead & silver for. So then: You throw away your bundle of hemp, and I’ll throw away my bundle of silver, and each of us, carrying a bundle of gold, will go along.’

“‘This bundle of hemp has been brought with difficulty and is well tied up. It’s enough for me. You do as you think best.’

“So the first friend, throwing away his bundle of silver, took a bundle of gold.

“They returned to their own village. There the friend who came carrying the bundle of hemp gave no delight to his mother & father, to his wife & children, to his friends & colleagues, nor did he gain any joy or happiness from it himself. But as for the friend who came carrying the bundle of gold, he gave delight to his mother & father, to his wife & children, to his friends & colleagues, and he gained joy & happiness from it himself.

“In the same way, prince, you speak, as it were, like the hemp-carrier. Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Relinquish your evil viewpoint, prince! Don’t let it lead to your long-term harm & suffering!”

“Actually, I was gratified and won over by Master Kassapa’s very first analogy. It’s just that, wanting to hear the artfulness of his responses to questions, I thought I should treat him as an opponent.

“Magnificent, Master Kassapa! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to set out a lamp in the darkness so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Kassapa—through many lines of reasoning—made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of monks. May Master Kassapa remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life.” — DN 23

§ 4.13  Now on that occasion, 500 Licchavis had gathered at a meeting hall on some business or other. So Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son went to those Licchavis and, on arrival, said to them, “Come out, good Licchavis! Come out, good Licchavis! Today will be my discussion with Gotama the contemplative! If he takes the position with me that was taken with me by his famous disciple, the monk named Assaji, then just as a strong man, seizing a long-haired ram by the hair, would drag him to and drag him fro and drag him all around, in the same way I, statement by statement, will drag Gotama the contemplative to and drag him fro and drag him all around. Just as a strong distillery worker, throwing a large distiller’s strainer into a deep water tank and grabbing it by the corners, would drag it to and drag it fro and drag it all around, in the same way I, statement by statement, will drag Gotama the contemplative to and drag him fro and drag him all around. Just as a strong distillery ruffian, grabbing a horse-hair strainer by the corners, would shake it down and shake it out and thump it, in the same way I, statement by statement, will shake Gotama the contemplative down and shake him out and thump him. Just as a sixty-year old elephant, plunging into a deep pond, would amuse itself playing the game of hemp-washing, in the same way I will amuse myself playing the game of hemp-washing Gotama the contemplative, as it were. Come on out, good Licchavis! Come on out, good Licchavis! Today will be my discussion with Gotama the contemplative!”

Then some of the Licchavis said, “Who is Gotama the contemplative that he will refute the statement of Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son? It’s Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son who will refute the statement of Gotama the contemplative.” Some of the Licchavis said, “Who is Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son that he will refute the statement of Gotama the contemplative? It’s Gotama the contemplative who will refute the statement of Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son.”

So Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, surrounded by 500 Licchavis, went to the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest.

Now on that occasion a large number of monks were doing walking meditation in the open air. So Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son went up to the monks and said, “Where, masters, is Master Gotama now? We want to see Master Gotama.”

“The Blessed One, Aggivessana, having plunged into the Great Forest, is sitting under a certain tree for the day’s abiding.”

Then Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son together with a large group of Licchavis plunged into the Great Forest and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with the Blessed One. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. Some of the Licchavis, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. Some of the Licchavis exchanged courteous greetings with the Blessed One and, after an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, sat to one side. Some of the Licchavis, having raised their hands palm-to-palm in front of the chest, sat to one side. Some of the Licchavis, after announcing their name and clan, sat to one side. Some of the Licchavis, staying silent, sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “I would like to question Master Gotama on a certain point, if Master Gotama would grant me the favor of an answer to the question.”

“Ask, Aggivessana, as you see fit.”

“How does Master Gotama discipline his disciples? Or what part of his instruction is generally presented to his disciples?”

“Aggivessana, I discipline my disciples in this way; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples: ‘Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.’ This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples.”

“A simile occurs to me, Master Gotama.”

“Let it occur to you, Aggivessana.”

“Just as any seeds that exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation, all do so in dependence on the earth; or just as any activities requiring strength that are done, all are done in dependence on the earth; in the same way, Master Gotama, an individual with form as self, taking a stance on form, produces merit or demerit. An individual with feeling as self… with perception as self… with fabrications as self… with consciousness as self, taking a stance on consciousness, produces merit or demerit.”

“Then, Aggivessana, are you saying, ‘Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self’?”

“Yes, Master Gotama, I’m saying that ‘Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.’ As does this great multitude.”

“What does this great multitude have to do with you? Please focus just on your own assertion.”

“Yes, Master Gotama, I’m saying that ‘Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.’”

“Very well then, Aggivessana, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Would a consecrated, noble-warrior king—such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha—wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished?”

“Yes, Master Gotama, he would wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished. Even these oligarchic groups, such as the Vajjians & Mallans, wield the power in their own domains to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished, to say nothing of a consecrated, noble-warrior king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala, or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha. He would wield it, and he would deserve to wield it.”

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Form is my self,’ do you wield power over that form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus’?”

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent.

A second time, the Blessed One said to Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son: “What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Form is my self,’ do you wield power over that form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus’?”

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent a second time.

Then the Blessed One said to him, “Answer now, Aggivessana. This is not the time to be silent. When anyone doesn’t answer when asked a legitimate question by the Tathāgata up to three times, his head splits into seven pieces right here.”

Now on that occasion the spirit [yakkha] Vajirapāṇin [Thunderbolt-in-Hand], carrying an iron thunderbolt, was poised in the air above Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, (thinking,) “If Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son doesn’t answer when asked a legitimate question by the Blessed One up to three times, I will split his head into seven pieces right here.”

The Blessed One saw the spirit Vajirapāṇin, as did Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son. So Saccaka—afraid, terrified, his hair standing on end—seeking shelter in the Blessed One, seeking a cave/asylum in the Blessed One, seeking refuge in the Blessed One—said to the Blessed One, “Let Master Gotama ask me. I will answer.”

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Form is my self,’ do you wield power over that form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn’t consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Feeling is my self… Perception is my self… Fabrications are my self… Consciousness is my self,’ do you wield power over that consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn’t consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

“What do you think, Aggivessana? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, Master Gotama.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, Master Gotama.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“…Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, Master Gotama.”…

“…Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, Master Gotama.”…

“…Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, Master Gotama.”…

“What do you think, Aggivessana? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, Master Gotama.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, Master Gotama.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When one adheres to stress, holds to stress, is attached to stress, and envisions of stress that ‘This is mine; this is my self; this is what I am,’ would he comprehend stress or dwell having totally destroyed stress?”

“How could that be, Master Gotama? No, Master Gotama.”

“That being the case, Aggivessana, don’t you adhere to stress, hold to stress, aren’t you attached to stress, and don’t you envision of stress that ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“How could that not be the case, Master Gotama? Yes, Master Gotama.”

“Suppose a man—in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood—were to enter a forest taking a sharp ax. There he would see a large plantain trunk: straight, young, immature. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, cut off the crown. Having cut off the crown, he would unfurl the leaf sheaths. Unfurling the leaf sheaths, he wouldn’t even find sapwood there, to say nothing of heartwood. In the same way, Aggivessana, when you are interrogated, rebuked, & pressed by me with regard to your own statement, you are empty, void, mistaken. But it was you who made this statement before the assembly in Vesālī: ‘I see no contemplative or brahman, the head of an order, the head of a group, or even one who claims to be an arahant, rightly self-awakened, who—engaged in debate with me—would not shiver, quiver, shake, & break out in sweat under the armpits. Even if I were to engage a senseless stump in debate, it—engaged with me in debate—would shiver, quiver, & shake, to say nothing of a human being.’ But now some drops of sweat coming out of your forehead, drenching your upper robe, are landing on the ground, whereas now I have no sweat on my body.” And the Blessed One uncovered his golden-colored body to the assembly.

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son fell silent, abashed, sitting with his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

Then Dummukha [BadMouth] the Licchavi-son—sensing that Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent, abashed, sitting with his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words—said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, a simile has occurred to me.”

“Let it occur to you, Dummukha,” the Blessed One said.

“Suppose, venerable sir, that not far from a village or town was a pond. There in it was a crab. Then a number of boys & girls, leaving the village or town, would go to the pond and, on arrival, would go down to bathe in it. Taking the crab out of the water, they would place it on the ground. And whenever the crab extended a leg, the boys or girls would cut it off, break it, and smash it with sticks or stones right there, so that the crab—with all its legs cut off, broken, & smashed—would be unable to get back in the water as before. In the same way, whatever Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son’s writhings, capers, & contortions, the Blessed One has cut them off, broken them, and smashed them all, so that Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son is now unable to approach the Blessed One again for the purpose of debate.”

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son said to Dummukha the Licchavi-son, “Just you wait, Dummukha. Just you wait, Dummukha. You’re a big-mouth, Dummukha. We’re not taking counsel with you. We’re here taking counsel with Master Gotama.” [Then, turning to the Buddha,] “Let that be, Master Gotama, our words & those of other ordinary contemplatives & brahmans—prattled prattling, as it were.” — MN 35

§ 4.14  On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Nāḷandā in the Pāvārika Mango Grove. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman, a disciple of the Nigaṇṭhas, went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to him: “Headman, how does Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta teach the Dhamma to his disciples?”

“Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta teaches the Dhamma to his disciples in this way, venerable sir: ‘All those who take life are destined for a plane of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal… All those who indulge in illicit sex… All those who tell lies are destined for a plane of deprivation, are destined for hell. Whatever one keeps doing frequently, by that is one led (to a state of rebirth).’ That’s how Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta teaches the Dhamma to his disciples.”

“If it’s true that ‘Whatever one keeps doing frequently, by that is one led (to a state of rebirth),’ then no one is destined for a plane of deprivation or destined to hell in line with Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta’s words. What do you think, headman? If a man is one who takes life, then taking into consideration time spent doing & not doing, whether by day or by night, which time is more: the time he spends taking life or the time he spends not taking life?”

“If a man is one who takes life, venerable sir, then taking into consideration time spent doing & not doing, whether by day or by night, then the time he spends taking life is less, and the time he spends not taking life is certainly more. If it’s true that ‘Whatever one keeps doing frequently, by that is one led (to a state of rebirth),’ then no one is destined for a plane of deprivation or destined to hell in line with Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta’s words.” — SN 42:8

§ 4.15  [The Buddha:] “So I asked them further, ‘Friend Nigaṇṭhas, what do you think? When there is fierce striving, fierce exertion, do you feel fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment? And when there is no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, do you feel no fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment?’

“‘Yes, friend…’

“‘… Then it’s not proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past.” …

“‘If it were the case that when there was fierce striving, fierce exertion, you felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment; and when there was no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, you still felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment, then—that being the case—it would be proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past.…” But because when there is fierce striving, fierce exertion, you feel fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment; and when there was no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, you feel no fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment, then—that being the case—it is not proper for you to assert that, “Whatever a person experiences—pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain—all is caused by what was done in the past.” — MN 101

§ 4.16  “Once, Mahānāma, when I was staying near Rājagaha on Vulture Peak Mountain, a number of Nigaṇṭhas were at Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili, practicing continuous standing: rejecting seats, experiencing fierce, sharp, racking pains due to exertion. So, emerging from my seclusion in the late afternoon, I went to the Nigaṇṭhas at Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili and on arrival asked them, ‘Why are you practicing continuous standing: rejecting seats, experiencing fierce, sharp, racking pains due to exertion?’ When this was said, the Nigaṇṭhas said to me, ‘Friend, the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta is all-knowing, all-seeing, and claims total knowledge & vision thus: “Whether I am walking or standing, sleeping or awake, knowledge & vision are continuously & continually established in me.” He has told us, “Nigaṇṭhas, there are evil actions that you have done in the past. Exhaust them with these painful austerities. When in the present you are restrained in body, restrained in speech, and restrained in mind, that is the non-doing of evil action for the future. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted.” We approve of that (teaching), prefer it, and are gratified by it.’

“When this was said, I asked them, ‘But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful qualities and the attainment of skillful qualities in the here-&-now?’

“‘No, friend.’

“‘So, friends, it seems that you don’t know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist; you don’t know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them; you don’t know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past; you don’t know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted; you don’t know what is the abandoning of unskillful qualities and the attainment of skillful qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, those in the world who are murderers, bloody-handed doers of what is cruel, when they are later reborn among human beings, go forth with the Nigaṇṭhas.’

“‘But, friend Gotama, it’s not the case that pleasure is to be attained through pleasure. Pleasure is to be attained through pain. For if pleasure were to be attained through pleasure, then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha would attain pleasure, for he lives in greater pleasure than you, friend Gotama.’

“‘Surely the venerable Nigaṇṭhas said that rashly and without reflecting… for instead, I should be asked, “Who lives in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha or Master Gotama?”’

“‘Yes, friend Gotama, we said that rashly and without reflecting… but let that be. We now ask you, Master Gotama: Who lives in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha or Master Gotama?’

“‘In that case, Nigaṇṭhas, I will question you in return. Answer as you like. What do you think? Can King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha—without moving his body, without uttering a word—dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for seven days & nights?’

“‘No, friend.”

“‘… for six days & nights.… for five days & nights… for a day & a night?’

“‘No, friend.”

“‘Now, I—without moving my body, without uttering a word—can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night… for two days & nights… for three… four… five… six… seven days & nights. So what do you think? That being the case, who dwells in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha or me?’

“‘That being the case, Master Gotama dwells in greater pleasure than King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha.’” — MN 14

§ 4.17  “Such is the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas. And, such being the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas, ten legitimate deductions can be drawn that give grounds for censuring them.

“[1] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on what was done in the past, then obviously the Nigaṇṭhas have done bad things in the past, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains.

“[2] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, then obviously the Nigaṇṭhas have been created by an evil supreme god, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains.

“[3] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on sheer luck, then obviously the Nigaṇṭhas have evil luck, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains.

“[4] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on birth, then obviously the Nigaṇṭhas have had an evil birth, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains.

“[5] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on efforts in the here-&-now, then obviously the Nigaṇṭhas have evil efforts in the here-&-now, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains.

“[6] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on what was done in the past, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.

“[7] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.

“[8] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on sheer luck, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.

“[9] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on birth, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.

“[10] If beings experience pleasure & pain based on efforts in the here-&-now, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.

“Such is the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas, monks. And, such being the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas, these ten legitimate deductions can be drawn that give grounds for censuring them. This is how striving is fruitless, how exertion is fruitless.” — MN 101

§ 4.18  Now on that occasion Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta arrived at Macchikāsaṇḍa together with a large company of Nigaṇṭhas. Citta the householder heard, “Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, they say, has arrived at Macchikāsaṇḍa together with a large company of Nigaṇṭhas.” So together with a large number of lay followers he went to Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta said to him, “Householder, are you convinced with Gotama the contemplative’s saying, ‘There is a concentration without directed thought and evaluation; there is the cessation of directed thought & evaluation’?”

“No, venerable sir, I don’t go by conviction in the Blessed One’s saying, ‘There is a concentration without directed thought and evaluation; there is the cessation of directed thought & evaluation.’”

When this was said, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta gazed smugly at his own following and said, “See that, venerable sirs? How straightforward is this Citta the householder! How unfraudulent is this Citta the householder! How undeceitful is this Citta the householder! Whoever would imagine that directed thought & evaluation could be made to cease might imagine that the wind could be bound by a net. Whoever would imagine that directed thought & evaluation could be made to cease might imagine that he could enclose the current of the Ganges with his fist.”

[Citta:] “What do you think, venerable sir? Which is more exquisite: knowledge or conviction?”

“Knowledge is more exquisite than conviction, householder.”

“Venerable sir, whenever I want, I—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enter & remain in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whenever I want, I—with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enter & remain in the second jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation—internal assurance. Whenever I want, I—with the fading of rapture—remain equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sense pleasure with the body, and I enter & remain in the third jhāna, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ Whenever I want, I—with the abandoning of pleasure & pain, as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress—enter & remain in the fourth jhāna: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.

“Thus knowing, thus seeing, venerable sir, I don’t go by conviction in any other contemplative’s or brahman’s saying, ‘There is a concentration without directed thought and evaluation; there is the cessation of directed thought & evaluation.’

When this was said, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta looked askance at his own following and said, “See that, venerable sirs? How unstraightforward is this Citta the householder! How fraudulent is this Citta the householder! How deceitful is this Citta the householder!”

“First, venerable sir, I learned this statement from you: ‘See that, venerable sirs? How straightforward is this Citta the householder! How unfraudulent is this Citta the householder! How undeceitful is this Citta the householder!’ But now I learn this statement: ‘See that, venerable sirs? How unstraightforward is this Citta the householder! How fraudulent is this Citta the householder! How deceitful is this Citta the householder!’ If your first statement is true, then your last statement is false. But if your last statement is true, then your first statement is false.” — SN 41:8

§ 4.19  Then Pañcakaṅga went to Uggāhamāna and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggāhamāna said to him, “I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.”

Then Pañcakaṅga neither delighted in Uggāhamāna’s words nor did he protest against them. Neither delighting nor protesting, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, “I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One’s presence.”

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggāhamāna.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakaṅga: “In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggāhamāna’s words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought ‘body’ does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought ‘speech’ does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought ‘resolve’ does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought ‘livelihood’ does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother’s milk? So, according to Uggāhamāna’s words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.” — MN 78

§ 4.20  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder left Sāvatthī in the middle of the day to see the Blessed One, but the thought then occurred to him, “Now is not the right time to see the Blessed One, for he is in seclusion. And it is not the right time to see the mind-developing monks, for they are in seclusion. What if I were to visit the park of the wanderers of other persuasions?” So he headed to the park of the wanderers of other persuasions.

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of bestial topics, making a great noise and racket. They saw Anāthapiṇḍika the householder coming from afar, and on seeing him, hushed one another: “Be quiet, good sirs. Don’t make any noise. Here comes Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, a disciple of the contemplative Gotama. He is one of those disciples of the contemplative Gotama, clad in white, who lives in Sāvatthī. These people are fond of quietude, trained in quietude, and speak in praise of quietude. Maybe, if he perceives our group as quiet, he will consider it worth his while to come our way.” So the wanderers fell silent.

Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder went to where the wanderers of other persuasions were staying. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, “Tell us, householder, what views the contemplative Gotama has.”

“Venerable sirs, I don’t know entirely what views the Blessed One has.”

“Well, well. So you don’t know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has. Then tell us what views the monks have.”

“I don’t even know entirely what views the monks have.”

“So you don’t know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has or even that the monks have. Then tell us what views you have.”

“It wouldn’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his position, and then it won’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have.”

When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, “The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

Another wanderer said to Anāthapiṇḍika, “The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

Another wanderer said, “The cosmos is finite…”…”The cosmos is infinite…”…”The soul & the body are the same…”…”The soul is one thing and the body another…”…”After death a Tathāgata exists…”…”After death a Tathāgata does not exist…”…”After death a Tathāgata both does & does not exist…”…”After death a Tathāgata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”

When this had been said, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder said to the wanderers, “As for the venerable one who says, ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,” his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress.” [Similarly for the other positions.]

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, “We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have.”

“Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have.”

“So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress.”

“Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be.”

When this was said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. — AN 10:93