Majjhima Nikāya (Middle-Length Discourses)

“What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is restrained in the fourfold constraint, is restrained in all that is to be restrained, is bridled in all that is to be restrained, has shaken off evil in all that is to be restrained, and is curbed in all that is to be restrained. When going out and coming back they injure many little creatures. Now, what result does the Jain Ñātika say they would incur?” “Sir, the Jain Ñātika says that unintentional acts are not very blameworthy.” “But if they are intentional?” “Then they are very blameworthy.” “But where does the Jain Ñātika say that intention is classified?” “In the mental rod, sir.” “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said that you would debate on the basis of truth.” “Even though the Buddha says this, still the physical rod is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or the mental rod.”

“What do you think, householder? Is this Nāḷandā successful and prosperous, populous and full of people?” “Indeed it is, sir.” “What do you think, householder? Suppose a man were to come along with a drawn sword and say: ‘In one hour I will reduce all the living creatures within the bounds of Nāḷandā to one heap and mass of flesh!’ What do you think, householder? Could he do that?” “Sir, even ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty men couldn’t do that. How impressive is one measly man?” “What do you think, householder? Suppose an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power, who has achieved mastery of the mind, were to come along and say: ‘I will reduce Nāḷandā to ashes with a single malevolent act of will!’ What do you think, householder? Could he do that?” “Sir, an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power, who has achieved mastery of the mind, could reduce ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty Nāḷandās to ashes with a single malevolent act of will. How significant is one measly Nāḷandā?” “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said that you would debate on the basis of truth.” “Even though the Buddha says this, still the physical rod is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or the mental rod.” “What do you think, householder? Have you heard how the wildernesses of Daṇḍaka, Kaliṅga, Mejjha, and Mātaṅga came to be that way?” “I have, sir.”

“What have you heard?” “I heard that it was because of a malevolent act of will by seers that the wildernesses of Daṇḍaka, Kaliṅga, Mejjha, and Mātaṅga came to be that way.” “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said that you would debate on the basis of truth.”

“Sir, I was already delighted and satisfied by the Buddha’s very first simile. Nevertheless, I wanted to hear the Buddha’s various solutions to the problem, so I thought I’d oppose you in this way. Excellent, sir! Excellent! As if he were righting the overturned, or revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or lighting a lamp in the dark so people with clear eyes can see what’s there, the Buddha has made the teaching clear in many ways. I go for refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

“Householder, you should act after careful consideration. It’s good for well-known people such as yourself to act after careful consideration.” “Now I’m even more delighted and satisfied with the Buddha, since he tells me to act after careful consideration. For if the followers of other religions were to gain me as a disciple, they’d carry a banner all over Nāḷandā, saying: ‘The householder Upāli has become our disciple!’ And yet the Buddha says: ‘Householder, you should act after careful consideration. It’s good for well-known people such as yourself to act after careful consideration.’ For a second time, I go for refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

“For a long time now, householder, your family has been a well-spring of support for the Jain ascetics. You should consider giving to them when they come.” “Now I’m even more delighted and satisfied with the Buddha, since he tells me to consider giving to the Jain ascetics when they come. I have heard, sir, that the ascetic Gotama says this: ‘Gifts should only be given to me, not to others. Gifts should only be given to my disciples, not to the disciples of others. Only what is given to me is very fruitful, not what is given to others. Only what is given to my disciples is very fruitful, not what is given to the disciples of others.’ Yet the Buddha encourages me to give to the Jain ascetics. Well, sir, we’ll know the proper time for that. For a third time, I go for refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Then the Buddha taught the householder Upāli step by step, with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He revealed the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. And when he knew that Upāli’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he revealed the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Upāli: “Everything that is liable to arise is liable to cease.” Then Upāli saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. He went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. He said to the Buddha, “Well, now, sir, I must go. I have many duties, and much to do.” “Please, householder, go at your convenience.”

And then the householder Upāli approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. He got up from his seat, bowed and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right. Then he went back to his own home, where he addressed the gatekeeper, “My good gatekeeper, from this day forth close the gate to Jain monks and nuns, and open it for the Buddha’s monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. If any Jain ascetics come, say this to them: ‘Wait, sir, do not enter. From now on the householder Upāli has become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama. His gate is closed to Jain monks and nuns, and opened for the Buddha’s monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. If you require almsfood, wait here, they will bring it to you.’” “Yes, sir,” replied the gatekeeper.

Dīgha Tapassī heard that Upāli had become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama. He went to the Jain Ñātika and said to him, “Sir, they say that the householder Upāli has become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama.” “It is impossible, Tapassī, it cannot happen that Upāli could become Gotama’s disciple. But it is possible that Gotama could become Upāli’s disciple.” For a second time … and a third time, Dīgha Tapassī said to the Jain Ñātika, “Sir, they say that the householder Upāli has become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama.” “It is impossible, Tapassī, it cannot happen that Upāli could become Gotama’s disciple. But it is possible that Gotama could become Upāli’s disciple.” “Well, sir, I’d better go and find out whether or not Upāli has become Gotama’s disciple.” “Go, Tapassī, and find out whether or not Upāli has become Gotama’s disciple.”

Then Dīgha Tapassī went to Upāli’s home. The gatekeeper saw him coming off in the distance and said to him, “Wait, sir, do not enter. From now on the householder Upāli has become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama. His gate is closed to Jain monks and nuns, and opened for the Buddha’s monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. If you require almsfood, wait here, they will bring it to you.” Saying, “No, worthy man, I do not require almsfood,” he turned back and went to the Jain Ñātika and said to him, “Sir, it’s really true that Upāli has become Gotama’s disciple. Sir, I couldn’t get you to accept that it wasn’t a good idea for the householder Upāli to rebut the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine. For the ascetic Gotama is deceitful. He knows a conversion trick, and uses it to convert the disciples of other religions. The householder Upāli has been converted by the ascetic Gotama’s conversion trick!” “It is impossible, Tapassī, it cannot happen that Upāli could become Gotama’s disciple. But it is possible that Gotama could become Upāli’s disciple.” For a second time … and a third time, Dīgha Tapassī told the Jain Ñātika that it was really true. “It is impossible … Well, Tapassī, I’d better go and find out for myself whether or not Upāli has become Gotama’s disciple.”

Then the Jain Ñātika went to Upāli’s home together with a large following of Jain ascetics. The gatekeeper saw him coming off in the distance and said to him: “Wait, sir, do not enter. From now on the householder Upāli has become a disciple of the ascetic Gotama. His gate is closed to Jain monks and nuns, and opened for the Buddha’s monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. If you require almsfood, wait here, they will bring it to you.” “Well then, my good gatekeeper, go to Upāli and say: ‘Sir, the Jain Ñātika is waiting outside the gates together with a large following of Jain ascetics. He wishes to see you.’” “Yes, sir,” replied the gatekeeper. He went to Upāli and relayed what was said. Upāli said to him, “Well, then, my good gatekeeper, prepare seats in the hall of the middle gate.” “Yes, sir,” replied the gatekeeper. He did as he was asked, then returned to Upāli and said, “Sir, seats have been prepared in the hall of the middle gate. Please go at your convenience.”

Then Upāli went to the hall of the middle gate, where he sat on the highest and finest seat. He addressed the gatekeeper, “Well then, my good gatekeeper, go to the Jain Ñātika and say to him: ‘Sir, Upāli says you may enter if you wish.’” “Yes, sir,” replied the gatekeeper. He went to the Jain Ñātika and relayed what was said. Then the Jain Ñātika went to the hall of the middle gate together with a large following of Jain ascetics.

Previously, when Upāli saw the Jain Ñātika coming, he would go out to greet him and, having wiped off the highest and finest seat with his upper robe, he would embrace him and sit him down. But today, having seated himself on the highest and finest seat, he said to the Jain Ñātika, “There are seats, sir. Please sit if you wish.”

When he said this, the Jain Ñātika said to him: “You’re mad, householder! You’re a moron! You said: ‘I’ll go and refute the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine.’ But you come back caught in the vast net of his doctrine. Suppose a man went to deliver a pair of testicles, but came back castrated. Or they went to deliver eyes, but came back blinded. In the same way, you said: ‘I’ll go and refute the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine.’ But you come back caught in the vast net of his doctrine. You’ve been converted by the ascetic Gotama’s conversion trick!”

“Sir, this conversion trick is excellent. This conversion trick is lovely! If my loved ones—relatives and kin—were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. If all the aristocrats, brahmins, peasants, and menials were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. If the whole world—with its gods, Māras, and divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. Well then, sir, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said.

Once upon a time, there was an old brahmin, elderly and senior. His wife was a young brahmin lady who was pregnant and about to give birth. Then she said to the brahmin, ‘Go, brahmin, buy a baby monkey from the market and bring it back so it can be a playmate for my child.’ When she said this, the brahmin said to her, ‘Wait, my dear, until you give birth. If your child is a boy, I’ll buy you a male monkey, but if it’s a girl, I’ll buy a female monkey.’ For a second time … For a third time she said to the brahmin, ‘Go, brahmin, buy a baby monkey from the market and bring it back so it can be a playmate for my child.’ Then that brahmin, because of his love for the brahmin lady, bought a male baby monkey at the market, brought it to her, and said, ‘I’ve bought this male baby monkey for you so it can be a playmate for your child.’ When he said this, she said to him, ‘Go, brahmin, take this monkey to Rattapāṇi the dyer and say, “Worthy Rattapāṇi, I wish to have this monkey dyed the color of yellow greasepaint, pounded and re-pounded, and pressed on both sides.”’ Then that brahmin, because of his love for the brahmin lady, took the monkey to Rattapāṇi the dyer and said, ‘Worthy Rattapāṇi, I wish to have this monkey dyed the color of yellow greasepaint, pounded and re-pounded, and pressed on both sides.’ When he said this, Rattapāṇi said to him, ‘Sir, this monkey can endure a dying, but not a pounding or a pressing.’ In the same way, the doctrine of the foolish Jains looks fine initially—for fools, not for the astute—but can’t endure being scrutinized or pressed. Then some time later that brahmin took a new pair of garments to Rattapāṇi the dyer and said, ‘Worthy Rattapāṇi, I wish to have this new pair of garments dyed the color of yellow greasepaint, pounded and re-pounded, and pressed on both sides.’ When he said this, Rattapāṇi said to him, ‘Sir, this pair of garments can endure a dying, a pounding, and a pressing.’ In the same way, the doctrine of the Buddha looks fine initially—for the astute, not for fools—and it can endure being scrutinized and pressed.”

“Householder, the king and his retinue know you as a disciple of the Jain Ñātika. Whose disciple should we remember you as?”

When he had spoken, the householder Upāli rose from his seat, arranged his robe over one shoulder, raised his cupped palms in the direction of the Buddha, and said to the Jain Ñātika, “Well then, sir, hear whose disciple I am: The attentive one, free of delusion, with hard-heartedness dissolved, victor in battle; he’s untroubled and very even-minded, with the virtue of an elder and the wisdom of a saint, immaculate in the midst of it all: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He has no indecision, he’s content, joyful, he has spat out the world’s bait; he has completed the ascetic’s task as a man, a man who bears his final body; he’s beyond compare, he’s stainless: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He’s free of doubt, he’s skillful, he’s a trainer, an excellent charioteer; supreme, with brilliant qualities, confident, his light shines forth; he has cut off conceit, he’s a hero: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. The boss bull, immeasurable, profound, sagacious; he is the maker of sanctuary, knowledgeable, firm in principle and restrained; he has slipped his chains and is liberated: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He’s a giant, living remotely, he’s ended the fetters and is liberated; he’s skilled in debate and cleansed, with banner lowered, desireless; he’s tamed, and doesn’t proliferate: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He is the seventh seer, free of deceit, with three knowledges, he has attained to divinity, he has bathed, he knows philology, he’s tranquil, he understands what is known; he is Sakka the Able, Purindada the Firstgiver: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. The Noble One, evolved, he has attained the goal and explains it; he is mindful, discerning, neither leaning forward nor pulling back, he’s unstirred, attained to mastery: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. Transcendent, he practices absorption, no inner thoughts arising, he is pure, independent and fearless; secluded, he has reached the peak, crossed over, he helps others across: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He’s peaceful, his wisdom is vast, with great wisdom, he’s free of greed; he is the Realized One, the Holy One, unrivaled, unequaled, self-assured, and subtle: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple. He has cut off craving and is awakened, free of fuming, unsullied; a mighty spirit worthy of offerings, best of men, inestimable, grand, he has reached the peak of glory: he is the Buddha, and I am his disciple.”

“But when did you compose these praises of the ascetic Gotama’s beautiful qualities, householder?” “Sir, suppose there was a large heap of many different flowers. A deft garland-maker or their apprentice could tie them into a colorful garland. In the same way, the Buddha has many beautiful qualities to praise, many hundreds of such qualities. Who, sir, would not praise the praiseworthy?”

Unable to bear this honor paid to the Buddha, the Jain Ñātika spewed hot blood from his mouth there and then.

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Koliyans, where they have a town named Haliddavasana.

Then Puṇṇa the Koliyan, a cow votary, and the naked ascetic Seniya, a dog votary, went to the Buddha. Puṇṇa bowed to the Buddha and sat down to one side, while Seniya exchanged greetings and polite conversation with him before sitting down to one side curled up like a dog. Puṇṇa said to the Buddha, “Sir, this naked ascetic Seniya the dog votary does a hard thing: he eats food placed on the ground. For a long time he has undertaken that observance to behave like a dog. Where will he be reborn in his next life?” “Enough, Puṇṇa, let it be. Don’t ask me that.” For a second time … and a third time, Puṇṇa said to the Buddha, “Sir, this naked ascetic Seniya does a hard thing: he eats food placed on the ground. For a long time he has undertaken that observance to behave like a dog. Where will he be reborn in his next life?” “Clearly, Puṇṇa, I’m not getting through to you when I say: ‘Enough, Puṇṇa, let it be. Don’t ask me that.’ Nevertheless, I will answer you.

Take someone who develops the dog observance fully and uninterruptedly. They develop a dog’s ethics, a dog’s mentality, and a dog’s behavior fully and uninterruptedly. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of dogs. But if they have such a view: ‘By this precept or observance or fervent austerity or spiritual practice, may I become one of the gods!’ This is their wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm. So if the dog observance succeeds it leads to rebirth in the company of dogs, but if it fails it leads to hell.”

When he said this, Seniya cried and burst out in tears. The Buddha said to Puṇṇa, “This is what I didn’t get through to you when I said: ‘Enough, Puṇṇa, let it be. Don’t ask me that.’” Seniya said, “Sir, I’m not crying because of what the Buddha said. But, sir, for a long time I have undertaken this observance to behave like a dog. Sir, this Puṇṇa is a cow votary. For a long time he has undertaken that observance to behave like a cow. Where will he be reborn in his next life?” “Enough, Seniya, let it be. Don’t ask me that.” For a second time … and a third time Seniya said to the Buddha, “Sir, this Puṇṇa is a cow votary. For a long time he has undertaken that observance to behave like a cow. Where will he be reborn in his next life?” “Clearly, Seniya, I’m not getting through to you when I say: ‘Enough, Seniya, let it be. Don’t ask me that.’ Nevertheless, I will answer you.

Take someone who develops the cow observance fully and uninterruptedly. They develop a cow’s ethics, a cow’s mentality, and a cow’s behavior fully and uninterruptedly. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of cows. But if they have such a view: ‘By this precept or observance or fervent austerity or spiritual practice, may I become one of the gods!’ This is their wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm. So if the cow observance succeeds it leads to rebirth in the company of cows, but if it fails it leads to hell.”

When he said this, Puṇṇa cried and burst out in tears. The Buddha said to Seniya, “This is what I didn’t get through to you when I said: ‘Enough, Seniya, let it be. Don’t ask me that.’” Puṇṇa said, “Sir, I’m not crying because of what the Buddha said. But, sir, for a long time I have undertaken this observance to behave like a cow. I am quite confident that the Buddha is capable of teaching me so that I can give up this cow observance, and the naked ascetic Seniya can give up that dog observance.” “Well then, Puṇṇa, listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.” “Yes, sir,” he replied. The Buddha said this:

“Puṇṇa, I declare these four kinds of deeds, having realized them with my own insight. What four? There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results; dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

And what are dark deeds with dark results? It’s when someone makes hurtful choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they’re reborn in a hurtful world, where hurtful contacts strike them. Touched by hurtful contacts, they experience hurtful feelings that are absolutely painful—like the beings in hell. This is how a being is born from a being. For your deeds determine your rebirth, and when you’re reborn contacts strike you. This is why I say that sentient beings are heirs to their deeds. These are called dark deeds with dark results.

And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a pleasing world, where pleasing contacts strike them. Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience pleasing feelings of absolute happiness—like the gods of universal beauty. This is how a being is born from a being. For your deeds determine your rebirth, and when you’re reborn contacts strike you. This is why I say that sentient beings are heirs to their deeds. These are called bright deeds with bright results.

And what are dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results? It’s when someone makes both hurtful and pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a world that is both hurtful and pleasing, where hurtful and pleasing contacts strike them. Touched by both hurtful and pleasing contacts, they experience both hurtful and pleasing feelings that are a mixture of pleasure and pain—like humans, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. This is how a being is born from a being. For what you do brings about your rebirth, and when you’re reborn contacts strike you. This is why I say that sentient beings are heirs to their deeds. These are called dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results.

And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds? It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds. These are the four kinds of deeds that I declare, having realized them with my own insight.”

When he had spoken, Puṇṇa the Koliyan said to the Buddha, “Excellent, sir! Excellent! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

And Seniya the naked ascetic said to the Buddha, “Excellent, sir! Excellent! … I go for refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. Sir, may I receive the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence?”

“Seniya, if someone formerly ordained in another sect wishes to take the going forth, the ordination in this teaching and training, they must spend four months on probation. When four months have passed, if the mendicants are satisfied, they’ll give the going forth, the ordination into monkhood. However, I recognize individual differences in this matter.” “Sir, if four months probation are required in such a case, I’ll spend four years on probation. When four years have passed, if the mendicants are satisfied, let them give me the going forth, the ordination into monkhood.”

And the naked ascetic Seniya received the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence. Not long after his ordination, Venerable Seniya, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness. He understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is nothing further for this place.” And Venerable Seniya became one of the perfected.

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.

Then Prince Abhaya went up to the Jain ascetic of the Ñātika clan, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Jain Ñātika said to him,

“Come, prince, refute the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine. Then you will get a good reputation: ‘Prince Abhaya refuted the doctrine of the ascetic Gotama, so mighty and powerful!’” “But sir, how am I to do this?” “Here, prince, go to the ascetic Gotama and say to him: ‘Sir, may the Realized One utter speech that is disliked by others?’ When he’s asked this, if he answers: ‘He may, prince,’ say this to him, ‘So what then, sir, is the difference between you and an ordinary person? For even an ordinary person may utter speech that is disliked by others.’ But if he answers, ‘He may not, prince,’ say this to him: ‘So why then, sir, did you declare of Devadatta: “Devadatta is going to a place of loss, to hell, there to remain for an eon, irredeemable”? Devadatta was angry and upset with what you said.’ When you put this dilemma to him, the Buddha won’t be able to either spit it out or swallow it down. He’ll be like a man with an iron cross stuck in his throat, unable to either spit it out or swallow it down.”

“Yes, sir,” replied Abhaya. He rose from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Jain Ñātika, keeping him on his right. Then he went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. Then he looked up at the sun and thought, “It’s too late to refute the Buddha’s doctrine today. I shall refute his doctrine in my own home tomorrow.” He said to the Buddha, “Sir, would the Buddha, together with three other monks, please accept tomorrow’s meal from me?” The Buddha consented with silence.

Then, knowing that the Buddha had consented, Abhaya rose from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right, before leaving. Then when the night had passed, the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, went to Abhaya’s home, and sat down on the seat spread out. Then Abhaya served and satisfied the Buddha with his own hands with delicious fresh and cooked foods. When the Buddha had eaten and washed his hand and bowl, Abhaya took a low seat, sat to one side,

and said to him, “Sir, may the Realized One utter speech that is disliked by others?” “This matter is not categorical, prince.” “Then the Jains have lost in this, sir.” “But prince, why do you say that the Jains have lost in this?” Then Abhaya told the Buddha all that had happened.

Now at that time a little baby boy was sitting in Prince Abhaya’s lap. Then the Buddha said to Abhaya, “What do you think, prince? If—because of your negligence or his nursemaid’s negligence—your boy were to put a stick or stone in his mouth, what would you do to him?” “I’d try to take it out, sir. If that didn’t work, I’d cradle his head with my left hand and take it out using a hooked finger of my right hand, even if it drew blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the boy, sir.”

“In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, and which is disliked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful and disliked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, but which is liked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful, even if it is liked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has sympathy for sentient beings.”

“Sir, there are astute aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics who come to see you with a question already planned. Do you think beforehand that if they ask you like this, you’ll answer like that, or does the answer just strike you on the spot?”

“Well then, prince, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, prince? Are you skilled in the various parts of a chariot?” “I am, sir.” “What do you think, prince? When they come to you and ask: ‘What’s the name of this chariot part?’ Do you think beforehand that if they ask you like this, you’ll answer like that, or does the answer appear to you on the spot?” “Sir, I’m well-known as a charioteer skilled in a chariot’s parts. All the major and minor parts are well-known to me. The answer just appears to me on the spot.”

“In the same way, when astute aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics come to see me with a question already planned, the answer just strikes me on the spot. Why is that? Because the Realized One has clearly penetrated the principle of the teachings, so that the answer just strikes him on the spot.”

When he had spoken, Prince Abhaya said to the Buddha, “Excellent, sir! Excellent! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then the chamberlain Pañcakaṅga went up to Venerable Udāyī, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, how many feelings has the Buddha spoken of?” “Chamberlain, the Buddha has spoken of three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral. The Buddha has spoken of these three feelings.” When he said this, Pañcakaṅga said to Udāyī, “Sir, Udāyī, the Buddha hasn’t spoken of three feelings. He’s spoken of two feelings: pleasant and painful. The Buddha said that neutral feeling is included as a peaceful and subtle kind of pleasure.”

For a second time, Udāyī said to Pañcakaṅga, “The Buddha hasn’t spoken of two feelings, he’s spoken of three.” For a second time, Pañcakaṅga said to Udāyī, “The Buddha hasn’t spoken of three feelings, he’s spoken of two.”

And for a third time, Udāyī said to Pañcakaṅga, “The Buddha hasn’t spoken of two feelings, he’s spoken of three.” And for a third time, Pañcakaṅga said to Udāyī, “The Buddha hasn’t spoken of three feelings, he’s spoken of two.” But neither was able to persuade the other.

Venerable Ānanda heard this discussion between Udāyī and Pañcakaṅga. Then he went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and informed the Buddha of all they had discussed. When he had spoken, the Buddha said to him,

“Ānanda, the explanation by the mendicant Udāyī, which the chamberlain Pañcakaṅga didn’t agree with, was quite correct. But the explanation by Pañcakaṅga, which Udāyī didn’t agree with, was also quite correct. In one explanation I’ve spoken of two feelings. In another explanation I’ve spoken of three feelings, or five, six, eighteen, thirty-six, or a hundred and eight feelings. I’ve explained the teaching in all these different ways. This being so, you can expect that those who don’t concede, approve, or agree with what has been well spoken will fight, quarrel, and dispute, continually wounding each other with barbed words. I’ve explained the teaching in all these different ways. This being so, you can expect that those who do concede, approve, or agree with what has been well spoken will live in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other with kindly eyes.

There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation. What five? Sights known by the eye, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Sounds known by the ear … Smells known by the nose … Tastes known by the tongue … Touches known by the body, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation. The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation is called sensual pleasure.

There are those who might say that this is the highest pleasure and happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. This is a pleasure that is finer than that.

There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when, with the fading away of rapture, a mendicant enters and remains in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, experiencing for themselves the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when, with the giving up of pleasure and pain and the disappearance of former happiness and sadness, a mendicant enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite consciousness. …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. …

There is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is a pleasure that is finer than that.

There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is a pleasure that is finer than that.

It’s possible that wanderers of other religions might say, ‘The ascetic Gotama spoke of the cessation of perception and feeling, and he includes it in happiness. What’s up with that?’ When wanderers of other religions say this, you should say to them, ‘Reverends, when the Buddha describes what’s included in happiness, he’s not just referring to pleasant feeling. The Realized One describes pleasure as included in happiness wherever it is found, and in whatever context.’” That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda approved what the Buddha said.

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was wandering in the land of the Kosalans together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants when he arrived at a village of the Kosalan brahmins named Sālā.

The brahmins and householders of Sālā heard: “It seems the ascetic Gotama—a Sakyan, gone forth from a Sakyan family—wandering in the land of the Kosalans has arrived at Sālā, together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants. He has this good reputation: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those fit for training, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’ He has realized with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras, and divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and he makes it known to others. He teaches Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he reveals a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. It’s good to see such perfected ones.”

Then the brahmins and householders of Sālā went up to the Buddha. Before sitting down to one side, some bowed, some exchanged greetings and polite conversation, some held up their cupped palms toward the Buddha, some announced their name and clan, while some kept silent. The Buddha said to them:

“So, householders, is there any teacher you’re happy with, in whom you have acquired grounded faith?” “No, sir.” “Since you haven’t found a teacher you’re happy with, you should undertake and implement this sure bet teaching. For when the sure bet teaching is undertaken, it will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what is the sure bet teaching?

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are such things as mother and father, and beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there’s no meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will shun good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is no other world is wrong view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is no other world is wrong purpose. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is no other world is wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is no other world they contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in persuading another that there is no other world they are persuading them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong purpose, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no other world, when this individual person’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is another world, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let us grant that those who say that there is no other world are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in this very life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, a nihilist.’ But if there really is another world, they hold a losing hand on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.

Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there is meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will shun bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is another world is right view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is another world is right purpose. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is another world is right speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is another world they don’t contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in persuading another that there is another world they are persuading them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right purpose, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is another world, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let us grant that those who say that there is no other world are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in this very life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms a positive teaching.’ So if there really is another world, they hold a winning hand on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do nothing wrong when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit.’

And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘The one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do a bad deed when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, merit comes of that, and an outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is merit and outcome of merit.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that the one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, etc. You can expect that they will shun good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since action actually does have an effect, their view that action is ineffective is wrong view. Since action actually does have an effect, their thought that action is ineffective is wrong purpose. Since action actually does have an effect, their speech that action is ineffective is wrong speech. Since action actually does have an effect, in saying that action is ineffective they contradict those perfected ones who teach that action is effective. Since action actually does have an effect, in persuading another that action is ineffective they are persuading them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong purpose, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no effective action, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is effective action, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let us grant that those who say that there is no effective action are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in this very life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, one who denies the efficacy of action.’ But if there really is effective action, they hold a losing hand on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.

Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that the one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, etc. You can expect that they will shun bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since action actually does have an effect, their view that action is effective is right view. Since action actually does have an effect, their thought that action is effective is right purpose. Since action actually does have an effect, their speech that action is effective is right speech. Since action actually does have an effect, in saying that action is effective they don’t contradict those perfected ones who teach that action is effective. Since action actually does have an effect, in persuading another that action is effective they are persuading them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right purpose, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is effective action, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let us grant that those who say that there is no effective action are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in this very life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms the efficacy of action.’ So if there really is effective action, they hold a winning hand on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There is no cause or reason for the corruption of sentient beings. Sentient beings are corrupted without cause or reason. There’s no cause or reason for the purification of sentient beings. Sentient beings are purified without cause or reason. There is no power, no energy, no human strength or vigor. All sentient beings, all living creatures, all beings, all souls lack control, power, and energy. Molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes of rebirth.’

And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is a cause and reason for the corruption of sentient beings. Sentient beings are corrupted with cause and reason. There is a cause and reason for the purification of sentient beings. Sentient beings are purified with cause and reason. There is power, energy, human strength and vigor. It is not the case that all sentient beings, all living creatures, all beings, all souls lack control, power, and energy, or that, molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes of rebirth.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there’s no cause or reason for the corruption of sentient beings, etc. You can expect that they will shun good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since there actually is causality, their view that there is no causality is wrong view. Since there actually is causality, their thought that there is no causality is wrong purpose. Since there actually is causality, their speech that there is no causality is wrong speech. Since there actually is causality, in saying that there is no causality they contradict those perfected ones who teach that there is causality. Since there actually is causality, in persuading another that there is no causality they are persuading them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong purpose, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let us grant that those who say that there is no causality are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in this very life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, one who denies causality.’ But if there really is causality, they hold a losing hand on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.

Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there is a cause and reason for the corruption of sentient beings, etc. You can expect that they will shun bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since there actually is causality, their view that there is causality is right view. Since there actually is causality, their thought that there is causality is right purpose. Since there actually is causality, their speech that there is causality is right speech. Since there actually is causality, in saying that there is causality they don’t contradict those perfected ones who teach that there is causality. Since there actually is causality, in persuading another that there is causality they are persuading them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right purpose, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, persuading others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is causality, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let us grant that those who say that there is no causality are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in this very life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms causality.’ So if there really is causality, they hold a winning hand on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in this very life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this sure bet teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There are no totally formless states of meditation.’

And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There are totally formless states of meditation.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

“A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘Some ascetics and brahmins say that there are no totally formless meditations, but I have not seen that. Some ascetics and brahmins say that there are totally formless meditations, but I have not known that. Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are no totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that it’s a sure bet I will be reborn among the gods who are formed and made of mind. If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that it’s a sure bet I will be reborn among the gods who are formless and made of perception. Now, owing to form, bad things are seen: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, backbiting, and lies. But those things don’t exist where it is totally formless.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding forms.

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There is no such thing as the total cessation of continued existence.’

And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is such a thing as the total cessation of continued existence.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

“A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘Some ascetics and brahmins say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of continued existence, but I have not seen that. Some ascetics and brahmins say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of continued existence, but I have not known that. Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of continued existence are correct, it is possible that it’s a sure bet I will be reborn among the gods who are formless and made of perception. If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of continued existence are correct, it is possible that I will be fully extinguished in this very life. The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of continued existence is close to greed, yoking, relishing, attachment, and grasping. The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of continued existence is close to non-greed, non-yoking, non-relishing, non-attachment, and non-grasping.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding future lives.

Householders, these four individuals are found in the world. What four? One individual mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves. One individual mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others. One individual mortifies themselves and others, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others. One individual doesn’t mortify either themselves or others, committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others. They live without wishes in this very life, quenched, cooled, experiencing bliss, with self become divine.

And what individual mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves? It’s when a person goes naked, ignoring conventions. … And so they live committed to practicing these various ways of mortifying and tormenting the body. This is called an individual who mortifies themselves, being committed to the practice of mortifying themselves.

And what individual mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others? It’s when an individual is a butcher of sheep, pigs, poultry, or deer, a hunter or fisher, a bandit, an executioner, a butcher of cattle, a jailer, or has some other cruel livelihood. This is called an individual who mortifies others, being committed to the practice of mortifying others.