Fearlessness – The Wisdom Beyond Fear

The Prime Net. 1. Talk on Wanderers. So I have heard. Tradition holds that these were the words spoken by Ānanda when reciting the Suttapiṭaka at the First Council following the Buddha’s death. In fact it is a tag signifying that the text has been passed down through oral tradition and the speaker was not present at the events ([dn5:21.10](), [mn127:17.4]()).At one time the Buddha was traveling along the road between Rājagaha and Nāḷandā together with a large Saṅgha of around five hundred mendicants. By convention, suttas do not specify the date, so we have scant internal chronology. It is about fifteen kilometers from Rājagaha (modern Rajgir) to Nāḷandā. “Mendicant” is a literal translation of _bhikkhu_, one who goes for alms.The wanderer Suppiya was also traveling along the same road, together with his pupil, the brahmin student Brahmadatta. “Student” is _antevāsi_, a live-in pupil of a brahmanical master.Meanwhile, Suppiya criticized the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways, This is the Triple Gem that makes up the Buddhist religion. They are not known by that term in the early texts.but his pupil Brahmadatta praised them in many ways. While the disagreement of student and teacher signifies their confusion, it also represents the diversity of views within the brahmanical caste and the openness with which a student could disagree with their teacher.And so both teacher and pupil followed behind the Buddha and the Saṅgha of mendicants directly contradicting each other. Then the Buddha took up residence for the night in the royal rest-house in Ambalaṭṭhikā together with the Saṅgha of mendicants. This was a rest-house set up by the king of Rājagaha about a day’s journey from the capital. It must have been sizable.And Suppiya and Brahmadatta did likewise. There too, Suppiya criticized the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways, but his pupil Brahmadatta praised them in many ways. And so both teacher and pupil kept on directly contradicting each other. Then several mendicants rose at the crack of dawn and sat together in the pavilion, where the topic of evaluation came up: _Saṅkhiyadhamma_ is a unique term. The commentary glosses as _kathādhamma_. Bodhi and Ṭhānissaro effectively just have it as “conversation”. Rhys Davids followed by Walshe have something like “trend of conversation”. But _saṅkhya_ means “evaluation, measuring, calculating”, and here the subject of discussion is the different ways the two parties evaluate the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha. “It’s incredible, reverends, it’s amazing how the diverse convictions of sentient beings have been clearly comprehended by the Blessed One, who knows and sees, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. _Adhimutti_ is something that has been decided, a conviction or belief.For this Suppiya criticizes the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways, while his pupil Brahmadatta praises them in many ways. And so both teacher and pupil followed behind the Buddha and the Saṅgha of mendicants directly contradicting each other.” When the Buddha found out about this discussion on evaluation among the mendicants, he went to the pavilion, where he sat on the seat spread out and addressed the mendicants, This would have been an open air pavilion in the rest-house. By convention, when a teacher or other respected person is to sit, a sitting mat is spread out or made ready for them.“Mendicants, what were you sitting talking about just now? What conversation was left unfinished?” The very first words of the Buddha in the Suttapiṭaka: he asks to hear what others are saying. The mendicants told him what had happened, adding, Here and in similar passages the Pali repeats all and I abbreviate.“This was our conversation that was unfinished when the Buddha arrived.” “Mendicants, if others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and exasperated. The phrasing here is somewhat unusual and specific. They “should not do” what creates bitterness (i.e. judging others). Compare [mn22](), where the same phrases are used. In the Buddha’s case, it has the neutral _hoti_, while for the mendicants it uses _karaṇīya_, as here.You’ll get angry and upset, which would be an obstacle for you alone. Complaining about others does not hurt them, only the one who gets upset.If others were to criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, and you got angry and upset, would you be able to understand whether they spoke well or poorly?” Equanimity is a prerequisite for evaluating facts. “No, sir.” “If others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should explain that what is untrue is in fact untrue: ‘This is why that’s untrue, this is why that’s false. There’s no such thing in us, it’s not found among us.’ If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and excited. You’ll get thrilled, elated, and excited, which would be an obstacle for you alone. If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should acknowledge that what is true is in fact true: ‘This is why that’s true, this is why that’s correct. There is such a thing in us, it is found among us.’ 2. Ethics 2.1. The Shorter Section on Ethics When an ordinary person speaks praise of the Realized One, they speak only of trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics. Ethics (or morality or virtue, _sīla_) is important in the world, but it pales in comparison with the higher dimensions of the Buddha’s path.And what are the trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics that an ordinary person speaks of? Here the Buddha lays out in detail the ethical conduct for mendicant followers. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up killing living creatures. He has renounced the rod and the sword. He’s scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.’ The first and most important precept. It is not just the negative injunction to avoid killing, but also the positive injunction to have compassion for all creatures.Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up stealing. He takes only what’s given, and expects only what’s given. He keeps himself clean by not thieving.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up unchastity. He is celibate, set apart, avoiding the vulgar act of sex.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up lying. He speaks the truth and sticks to the truth. He’s honest and trustworthy, and doesn’t trick the world with his words.’ Just as the precept of not killing implies the positive injunction to live with compassion, the precept against not lying implies the positive injunction to speak the truth.Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up divisive speech. He doesn’t repeat in one place what he heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, he reconciles those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up harsh speech. He speaks in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama has given up talking nonsense. His words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. He says things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘The ascetic Gotama refrains from injuring plants and seeds.’ While Buddhism generally does not consider plant life to be sentient, it is still valuable as part of the ecosystem that supports all life. ‘He eats in one part of the day, abstaining from eating at night and food at the wrong time.’ This is interpreted today as eating only in the morning. ‘He refrains from dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows.’ This and the next three precepts encourage peace of mind for meditation. ‘He refrains from beautifying and adorning himself with garlands, perfumes, and makeup.’ ‘He refrains from high and luxurious beds.’ ‘He refrains from receiving gold and money, The Pali is literally “gold and silver”, but the corresponding Vinaya rule makes it clear that any form of money is included.raw grains, Mendicants should not store up food and cook it themselves.raw meat, women and girls, male and female bondservants, goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, elephants, cows, horses, and mares, and fields and land.’ ‘He refrains from running errands and messages; These items are discussed in detail below.buying and selling; falsifying weights, metals, or measures; bribery, fraud, cheating, and duplicity; mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, and violence.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. The shorter section on ethics is finished. 2.2. The Middle Section on Ethics ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in injuring plants and seeds. These include plants propagated from roots, stems, cuttings, or joints; and those from regular seeds as the fifth. That these are not five “kinds of seeds” but five kinds of “plants grown from seeds” is clear from the Vinaya and its commentary ([Bu Pc 11](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pc11/en/brahmali): _Bhūtagāmo nāma pañca bījajātāni_).The ascetic Gotama refrains from such injury to plants and seeds.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in storing up goods for their own use. For storing up food as a sign of decline, see [dn27:17.5]().This includes such things as food, drink, clothes, vehicles, bedding, fragrance, and material possessions. The ascetic Gotama refrains from storing up such goods.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in seeing shows. This includes such things as dancing, singing, music, performances, and storytelling; clapping, gongs, and kettledrums; art exhibitions and acrobatic displays; battles of elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, chickens, and quails; staff-fights, boxing, and wrestling; combat, roll calls of the armed forces, battle-formations, and regimental reviews. _Uyodhika_ is sometimes said to be “sham fights”, but at [an10.30](), it is not a sham. And the definition at [Bu Pc 50](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pc50/en/brahmali) says _yattha sampahāro dissati_ “where strife is seen”.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such shows.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in gambling that causes negligence. While gambling isn’t mentioned explicitly here, _jūtappamādaṭṭhānānuyoga_ is treated in DN 31 exclusively as gambling, so it seems that is implied.This includes such things as checkers, draughts, checkers in the air, hopscotch, spillikins, board-games, tip-cat, drawing straws, dice, leaf-flutes, toy plows, somersaults, pinwheels, toy measures, toy carts, toy bows, guessing words from syllables, and guessing another’s thoughts. See Some Brief Notes on Games.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such gambling.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still make use of high and luxurious bedding. This includes such things as sofas, couches, woolen covers—shag-piled, colorful, white, embroidered with flowers, quilted, embroidered with animals, double- or single-fringed—and silk covers studded with gems, as well as silken sheets, woven carpets, rugs for elephants, horses, or chariots, antelope hide rugs, and spreads of fine deer hide, with a canopy above and red cushions at both ends. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such bedding.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. This includes such things as applying beauty products by anointing, massaging, bathing, and rubbing; mirrors, ointments, garlands, fragrances, and makeup; face-powder, foundation, bracelets, headbands, fancy walking-sticks or containers, rapiers, parasols, fancy sandals, turbans, jewelry, chowries, and long-fringed white robes. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such beautification and adornment.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in low talk. This includes such topics as _Tiracchānakathā_ literally means “animal talk”. The Pali word for animal, _tiracchāna_ has the sense of “moving horizontally”, and “low talk” is that which does not elevate.talk about kings, bandits, and ministers; talk about armies, threats, and wars; talk about food, drink, clothes, and beds; talk about garlands and fragrances; talk about family, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and heroes; street talk and well talk; talk about the departed; motley talk; tales of land and sea; and talk about being reborn in this or that state of existence. _Bhavābhava_ does not mean “existence and non-existence” but is a distributive compound, “this or that state of existence”. Indian religious texts are full of discussions about different heavens and hells.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low talk.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in arguments. They say such things as: “You don’t understand this teaching and training. I understand this teaching and training. What, you understand this teaching and training? You’re practicing wrong. I’m practicing right. I stay on topic, you don’t. You said last what you should have said first. You said first what you should have said last. What you’ve thought so much about has been disproved. Your doctrine is refuted. Go on, save your doctrine! You’re trapped; get yourself out of this—if you can!” The ascetic Gotama refrains from such argumentative talk.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in running errands and messages. This includes running errands for rulers, ministers, aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or princes who say: “Go here, go there. Take this, bring that from there.” Ascetics roamed over the land, which made them useful as messengers.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such errands.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to chase after other material possessions. This includes trading monastery offerings for profit.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such deceit and flattery.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. The middle section on ethics is finished. 2.3. The Large Section on Ethics ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. The Vinaya explains “low lore” as whatever is non-Buddhist or useless ([Bi Pc 49](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bi-vb-pc49/en/brahmali)), while the commentary says it leads not to emancipation but to heaven.This includes such fields as limb-reading, omenology, divining celestial portents, interpreting dreams, divining bodily marks, divining holes in cloth gnawed by mice, fire offerings, ladle offerings, offerings of husks, rice powder, rice, ghee, or oil; offerings from the mouth, blood sacrifices, palmistry; geomancy for building sites, fields, and cemeteries; exorcisms, earth magic, snake charming, poisons; the crafts of the scorpion, the rat, the bird, and the crow; prophesying life span, chanting for protection, and deciphering animal cries. Reading _khattavijjā_ per variant as _khettavijjā_. _Sara_ in _saraparitta_ means “sound” not “arrow”. Compare with _sarabhañña_ “chanting”.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes reading the marks of gems, cloth, clubs, swords, spears, arrows, weapons, women, men, boys, girls, male and female bondservants, elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams, chickens, quails, monitor lizards, rabbits, tortoises, or deer. The commentary oddly has “earrings or house-gables” for _kaṇṇika_ (“bigears”), but it must be “rabbit”, for which see _sasakaṇṇikā_ at [ja535:76]().The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes making predictions that the king will march forth or march back; or that our king will attack and the enemy king will retreat, or vice versa; or that our king will triumph and the enemy king will be defeated, or vice versa; and so there will be victory for one and defeat for the other. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes making predictions that there will be an eclipse of the moon, or sun, or stars; that the sun, moon, and stars will be in conjunction or in opposition; that there will be a meteor shower, a fiery sky, an earthquake, thunder; that there will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the moon, sun, and stars. And it also includes making predictions about the results of all such phenomena. _(Up)pathagamana_ can hardly mean that the sun, moon, and stars will “go astray”. Rather, _patha_ here has the sense of “range”, so it means “come within range”, which describes an astrological conjunction.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes predicting whether there will be plenty of rain or drought; plenty to eat or famine; an abundant harvest or a bad harvest; security or peril; sickness or health. It also includes such occupations as computing, accounting, calculating, poetry, and cosmology. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, treating impacted fetuses, binding the tongue, or locking the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck. Commentary has _saṅkiraṇa_/_vikiraṇa_ as “saving and spending” (cp. [snp1.6:23.1]()), but it seems unlikely. _Vikiraṇa_ means “scattering” food or sand, while Sanskrit _vikira_ is the ritual scattering of rice. Given the context, I think it refers to the custom of scattering rice at a wedding. For _viruddhagabbhakaraṇa_, _viruddha_ means “obstructed”. The commentary here, in general agreement with the Niddesa on _gabbhakaraṇa_ at [snp4.14](), explains as giving treatments for the survival of the fetus. I omit _hanujappana_ as it is absent from the commentary and seems to have just arisen by confusion.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood. This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs. _Santikamma_ is the Sanskrit _śāntikakarman_, a rite of for averting evil. For _vassakamma_ and _vossakamma_, commentary has “fertile and infertile men” (_vassoti puriso, vossoti paṇḍako_), taking “rain” as a metaphor for “semen” which fertilizes. Such usages do have precedent elsewhere. But in context I take _vassa_ simply as “rain” and _vossa_ as equivalent to Sanskrit _vyavasya_ in the sense of making a settlement for land.The ascetic Gotama refrains from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.’ Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. These are the trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics that an ordinary person speaks of when they speak praise of the Realized One. The longer section on ethics is finished. 3. Views 3.1. Theories About the Past There are other principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. Those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. One meaning of _dhamma_ is “principle” in the sense of a natural law as well as a moral value. Here begins the famous exposition of the sixty-two views. The subtlety of the analysis lies in how, rather than refuting the details of the views, the Buddha traces them all back to their fundamental psychology.And what are these principles? There are some ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past, and assert various hypotheses concerning the past on eighteen grounds. And what are the eighteen grounds on which they rely? 3.1.1. Eternalism There are some ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds. In such contexts, the “self” (_attā_) is a postulated metaphysical entity rather than a simple psychological sense of personal identity. The nature of this “self” or “soul” was endlessly debated. The Buddha rejected all theories of a “self”, and elsewhere it is said that “identity view” underlies all sixty-two views of the Brahmajāla ([sn41.3:4.13]()). The “cosmos” is the _loka_, otherwise translated as “world”. This sometimes refers to the simple physical realm, sometimes to the world of experience, or else, as here, the vast universe as conceived in ancient Indian thought.And what are the four grounds on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives. The practice of _jhāna_ or _samādhi_ has never been regarded as uniquely Buddhist. However, right meditation begins with right view. Since these meditators begin with wrong view, their meditation merely reinforces their error.That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. The recollection of past lives is specific and detailed as it is based on the clear mind of deep immersion. They say: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. This is the Upaniṣadic view of the eternal _atman_ that is the immanent soul of the world or cosmos, _loka_. Elsewhere in the suttas such theorists assert that the self and the cosmos are identical ([sn24.3:1.3](): _so attā so loko_).They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise. The eternal “self” is contrasted with the ephemeral lives of beings. The famous word _saṁsara_ is often understood as a “cycle” of rebirths, but the meaning is, rather, to “wander on” or “transmigrate”.Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives, with features and details. Because of this I know: Their meditative experience revealed a process of transient and changing lives, yet from that they infer that there must be an eternal self. “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’ This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal. And what is the second ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives. That is: one eon of the cosmos contracting and expanding; two, three, four, five, or ten eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. This differs only in the length of time, which is now up to ten eons. A single eon (_kappa_) lasts longer than it would take to wear away a huge mountain by stroking it with a cloth once a century [sn15.5](), while the number of eons is greater than the sands in the Ganges river [sn15.8](). The vast time periods envisaged in early Buddhist texts are comparable with those of modern cosmology in physics. They say: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise. Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives, with features and details. Because of this I know: “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”’ This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal. And what is the third ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives. That is: ten eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding; twenty, thirty, or forty eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding. They remember: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. They say: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise. Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I recollect my many kinds of past lives, with features and details. Because of this I know: “The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”’ This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal. And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: These theorists used a process of logic to arrive at the same conclusion as the meditators. Different groups of ascetic philosophers emphasized contemplation or rational inquiry as the means to the truth. The Buddha acknowledged that both are useful but limited because, as here, they can sometimes lead to mistaken conclusions.‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. I have my doubts about this phrase. Everywhere else, _ito bahiddhā_ means “outside of the Buddhist community”, not “outside of the cases just considered”. Still, the commentary and the Chinese parallel at T 21 agree on this sense. The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ A “view” (_diṭṭhi_) is a relatively fixed framework for understanding the world; a “theory”. The “grounds for views” (_diṭṭhiṭṭhānā_) are the bases from which the views are derived. In this case these are the meditative experiences or the logical reasoning.He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. The word _parāmasati_ means “to take hold” and is often used in the sense “to misapprehend”. _Nibbuti_ is the verb form of _nibbāna_, which derives from the metaphor of “extinguishing” a flame.Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. _Yathābhūtaṁ_ is often translated as “as it really is”, while I usually render it simply as “truly”. It often has a technical sense of seeing “how things came to be (_bhuta_)” as a process of conditionality ([sn12.31:7.1]()). Such direct vision of the truth is an attribute of the stream-enterer, who has realized the first of the four stages of awakening, in contrast with those on the path who still rely on faith or inference ([sn25.1]()). Here it refers to the understanding of feelings from a fivefold perspective. Feelings underlie intellectual theories and arguments, which serve to sate cravings and fears. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. The first recitation section. Long texts are sometimes marked by their “recitation sections” (_bhāṇavāra_), which was the length that would be recited in one session. 3.1.2. Partial Eternalism There are some ascetics and brahmins who are partial eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal on four grounds. Despite being views of the “self and the cosmos”, the main focus in the next four views is the self.And what are the four grounds on which they rely? There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this cosmos contracts. This is the end of an eon. It might be compared with what the physicists call the “big crunch”.As the cosmos contracts, sentient beings are mostly headed for the realm of streaming radiance. The human and similar realms are destroyed in the conflagration at the end of the universe, but sentient beings are sustained by the power of their past kamma. The “realm of streaming radiance” is a Brahmā heaven corresponding to the second _jhāna_.There they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time. There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this cosmos expands. This might be compared with the “big bang” of a cyclic universe.As it expands an empty mansion of Brahmā appears. The realms into which beings are reborn exist interdependently with the beings themselves. The different dimensions correspond with different kinds of kamma.Then a certain sentient being—due to the running out of their life-span or merit—passes away from that host of radiant deities and is reborn in that empty mansion of Brahmā. That is, they pass from a world corresponding to the second _jhāna_ to one corresponding to the first _jhāna_.There they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time. But after staying there all alone for a long time, they become dissatisfied and anxious: ‘Oh, if only another being would come to this state of existence.’ Then other sentient beings—due to the running out of their life-span or merit—pass away from that host of radiant deities and are reborn in that empty mansion of Brahmā in company with that being. These beings are reborn according to their own kamma, and it is just a coincidence that they appear after the first being made their wish.There they too are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time. Now, the being who was reborn there first thinks: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Author, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. The idea of a creator god arose due to ego and delusion.These beings were created by me! Why is that? Because first I thought: “Oh, if only another being would come to this state of existence.” Such was my heart’s wish, and then these creatures came to this state of existence.’ The other creatures appeared after his wish, not because of it. God confuses correlation with causation, a mistake perpetuated by no small number of his followers. And the beings who were reborn there later also think: ‘This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Author, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. And we have been created by him. Why is that? Because we see that he was reborn here first, and we arrived later.’ And the being who was reborn first is more long-lived, beautiful, and illustrious than those who arrived later. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this state of existence. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further. Again, their meditation experience is genuine, but what they infer from it goes beyond the facts. They say: ‘He who is Brahmā—the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Author, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born—is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity. We who were created by that Brahmā are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, perishable, and have come to this state of existence.’ The surviving forms of Indic religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism) typically hold that all creatures ultimately share the same nature and hence can find liberation. Here we see this was not always the case, for these theorists believed that there are inherently different orders of beings in the cosmos. This is not due to their conduct but to the circumstances of their creation.This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal. And what is the second ground on which they rely? There are gods named ‘depraved by play.’ They spend too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. And in doing so, they lose their mindfulness, and they pass away from that host of gods. Note that mindfulness (_sati_) is not held to be a specifically Buddhist virtue. Here it refers to a sense of moral compass and self-awareness, rather than a meditation practice. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this state of existence. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further. They say: ‘The gods not depraved by play don’t spend too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. So they don’t lose their mindfulness, and don’t pass away from that host of gods. They are permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity. But we who were depraved by play spent too much time laughing, playing, and making merry. In doing so, we lost our mindfulness, and passed away from that host of gods. We are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, perishable, and have come to this state of existence.’ Here the difference in beings is attributed not to the circumstances of their creation but to their behavior. It seems that in this view heaven is lost forever.This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal. And what is the third ground on which they rely? There are gods named ‘malevolent’. They spend too much time gazing at each other, so they grow angry with each other, and their bodies and minds get tired. They pass away from that host of gods. The parallel between _manopadosika_ (“malevolent”) and _khiddapadosika_ (“depraved by play”) suggests a rendering “depraved in mind” for _manopadosika_. However, elsewhere in the suttas _manopadosa_ consistently means “malicious intent” ([mn56:13.15](), [mn93:18.30](), [dn26:20.3.](). Also see _mano padūseyya_ at [mn21:20.1]() and [mn28:9.6](). Thus the contrast is between greed and hate. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this state of existence. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect that past life, but no further. They say: ‘The gods who are not malevolent don’t spend too much time gazing at each other, so they don’t grow angry with each other, their bodies and minds don’t get tired, and they don’t pass away from that host of gods. They are permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity. But we who were malevolent spent too much time gazing at each other, we grew angry with each other, our bodies and minds got tired, and we passed away from that host of gods. We are impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, perishable, and have come to this state of existence.’ This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal. And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘That which is called “the eye” or “the ear” or “the nose” or “the tongue” or “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable. That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’ This is mind-body dualism, the idea that the mind is made of a fundamentally different stuff than the body.This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.1.3. The Cosmos is Finite or Infinite There are some ascetics and brahmins who theorize about size, and assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite on four grounds. Here we move from views that conceive of both the self and the cosmos together to those that focus only on the physical extent of the cosmos. It is not clear why these are classified as “views of the past”.And what are the four grounds on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite. Once again the view is inferred from meditation, showing that meditative experience was regarded by some as revealing genuine truths about the physical realm. They say: ‘The cosmos is finite and bounded. Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite. The nature of their meditation is assumed to be the nature of the world itself.Because of this I know: “The cosmos is finite and bounded.”’ This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite. And what is the second ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as infinite. In each of the two previous sets of four views, the views themselseves were the same, only the means of knowing them differed. Here the views themselves differ. The differences take the form of a tetralemma: A, not-A, both A and not-A, neither A nor not-A. This pattern is commonly found in early Buddhism. The final two items are not meant to be obscure or mysterious, but to express genuine possibilities that cannot be captured by a simple duality. They say: ‘The cosmos is infinite and unbounded. The ascetics and brahmins who say that the cosmos is finite are wrong. It is common today to say that one’s own experience is valid for oneself. Clearly that is not how these philosophers thought.The cosmos is infinite and unbounded. Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as infinite. Because of this I know: “The cosmos is infinite and unbounded.”’ This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite. And what is the third ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite vertically but infinite horizontally. It seems seems they perceive the universe as if it expanded like a disc. One might call it a “discworld”. They say: ‘The cosmos is both finite and infinite. The ascetics and brahmins who say that the cosmos is finite are wrong, and so are those who say that the cosmos is infinite. The cosmos is both finite and infinite. Why is that? Because by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus I experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that I meditate perceiving the cosmos as finite vertically but infinite horizontally. Because of this I know: “The cosmos is both finite and infinite.”’ This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite. And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite. The text doesn’t specify what this is, but it might include the view that the ideas “finite” and “infinite” are inadequate to describe the universe. Consider a universe expanding at the speed of light. At any point in time it is not infinite, but as it is impossible to reach its end it is not finite either.The ascetics and brahmins who say that the cosmos is finite are wrong, as are those who say that the cosmos is infinite, and also those who say that the cosmos is both finite and infinite. The cosmos is neither finite nor infinite.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the cosmos is finite or infinite do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.1.4. Endless Flip-floppers There are some ascetics and brahmins who are endless flip-floppers. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops on four grounds. _Vikkhepa_ is “flip-flopping”. _Amarā_ is explained as either “undying” or “eel-like”. _Amarā_ in the sense of “eel” is dubious, since it seems to be found only in the commentary to this term.And what are the four grounds on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. This is a basic requirement for any spiritual teacher.They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might be wrong. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with false speech they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops: Despite their dullness, they have a genuine sense of conscience and wish to avoid breaking precepts.‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ A wise teacher avoids making pronouncements about what they do not understand, but these teachers use this as a cover to hide the fact that they do not understand anything.This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops. And what is the second ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might feel desire or greed or hate or repulsion. Here too they show a certain sincerity to avoid giving rise to unwholesome qualities.That would be grasping on my part. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with grasping they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops. And what is the third ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. Suppose I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful. There are clever ascetics and brahmins who are subtle, accomplished in the doctrines of others, hair-splitters. You’d think they live to demolish convictions with their intellect. They avoid making statements not from a sense of conscience but because of fear of public shaming.They might pursue, press, and grill me about that. I’d be stumped by such a grilling. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with examination they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops. And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin is dull and stupid. Also at [mn76:30.2]().Because of that, whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops: ‘Suppose you were to ask me whether there is another world. If I believed there was, I would say so. Here begins a series of four tetrads that are commonly encountered in the suttas. The first is the belief in an afterlife.But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so. Suppose you were to ask me whether there is no other world … The denial of an afterlife.whether there both is and is not another world … This could include a belief that eternal life is offered only to adherents of a certain religion.whether there neither is nor is not another world … This could include the idea that our intrinsic nature is one with the cosmos, and our separation from that infinitude in this life is only a veil of delusion. Thus there is no other world, because all worlds are this world, but it is also not the case that there is nothing after death.whether there are beings who are reborn spontaneously … This is beings such as the gods or various ghosts and spirits, which are not born organically.whether there are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … This denies the existence of such beings. Not everyone in ancient India believed in the various orders of beings.whether there both are and are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … The belief that beings both spontaneously born and organically born. Perhaps this denies that such a distinction can be made clearly, because both kinds of birth take place within the same order of beings.whether there neither are nor are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … Beings are reborn in other ways.whether there is fruit and result of good and bad deeds … This is the standard Buddhist view of kamma, shared with some, but not all, of the other Indian religions of the time.whether there is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … Doing good or bad has no result; moral nihilism.whether there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … Sometimes good and bad deeds have results, other times not.whether there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … The results of actions are too subtle to be described as good or bad.whether a Realized One exists after death … An awakened one, whether the Buddha or anyone else, exists after death, for example in an eternal state of Nirvana.whether a Realized One doesn’t exist after death … A sage ceases to exist at the time of death. From a Buddhist point of view, this is incoherent since it assumes the underlying attachment to a “self”, which the Realized One has done away with.whether a Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death … For example, their body does not exist but their mind does.whether a Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. If I believed there was, I would say so. A sage is in a subtle state that cannot be characterized in terms of existence or non-existence.But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops. These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who are flip-floppers resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops whenever they’re asked a question. Any ascetics and brahmins who resort to verbal flip-flops and endless flip-flops do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.1.5. Doctrines of Origination by Chance There are some ascetics and brahmins who theorize about chance. They assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance on two grounds. And what are the two grounds on which they rely? There are gods named ‘non-percipient beings’. This is an obscure realm of existence where the operations of consciousness are suspended.When perception arises they pass away from that host of gods. It’s possible that one of those beings passes away from that host and is reborn in this state of existence. Having done so, they go forth from the lay life to homelessness. By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus, they experience an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect the arising of perception, but no further. They say: ‘The self and the cosmos arose by chance. Why is that? Because formerly I didn’t exist. Now, having not been, I’ve sprung into existence.’ This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance. And what is the second ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘The self and the cosmos arose by chance.’ This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance. These are the two grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who theorize about chance assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance. Any ascetics and brahmins who theorize about chance do so on one or other of these two grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. These are the eighteen grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past assert various hypotheses concerning the past. First each section is concluded, then the whole first part is concluded. This kind of formalism is a characteristic of oral tradition. Here it creates there is a nested hierarchy of content, clarifing the sturcture of the content and helping to preserve the text in memory.Any ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past do so on one or other of these eighteen grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. The second recitation section. 3.2. Theories About the Future There are some ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the future, and assert various hypotheses concerning the future on forty-four grounds. This section introduces more tetralemmas. Many of the views describe the self in terms of the five aggregates—form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.And what are the forty-four grounds on which they rely? 3.2.1. Percipient Life After Death There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds. And what are the sixteen grounds on which they rely? They assert: ‘The self is well and percipient after death, and it has form … Usually a self is conceived of as percipient, so that the subject experiences a continuity. The term _aroga_ (“well”) implies that the self survives in a healthy and undamaged form. A naive belief in heavenly rebirth would fall under this view. formless … both having form and formless … neither having form nor formless … finite … infinite … both finite and infinite … neither finite nor infinite … of unified perception … of diverse perception … of limited perception … of limitless perception … experiences nothing but happiness … experiences nothing but suffering … experiences both happiness and suffering … experiences neither happiness nor suffering.’ These are the sixteen grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form do so on one or other of these sixteen grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.2.2. Non-Percipient Life After Death There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds. And what are the eight grounds on which they rely? They assert: ‘The self is well and non-percipient after death, and it has form … Here the self has a physical dimension but no perception. This might include rebirth as a plant or inanimate object. formless … both having form and formless … neither having form nor formless … finite … infinite … both finite and infinite … neither finite nor infinite.’ These are the eight grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form do so on one or other of these eight grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.2.3. Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Life After Death There are some ascetics and brahmins who say there is life after death, and assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds. Buddhism acknowledges a formless realm of neither perception nor non-perception, which is attained through advanced meditation.And what are the eight grounds on which they rely? They assert: ‘The self is well and neither percipient nor non-percipient after death, and it has form … formless … both having form and formless … neither having form nor formless … finite … infinite … both finite and infinite … neither finite nor infinite.’ These are the eight grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form do so on one or other of these eight grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.2.4. Annihilationism There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being on seven grounds. These theorists assert the true existence of a being, thus falling into the fallacy of identity view. For the Buddha, the words “being” or a “self” describe an ongoing process that is conditioned and impermanent, and do not correspond to a genuine metaphysical reality. The distinction between contingent, empirical reality and metaphysical, absolute existence is essential to understanding Buddhism.And what are the seven grounds on which they rely? There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘This self has form, made up of the four primary elements, and produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ This is the materialist view, which accepts only the coarse physical realm. This view is common today, but was also well known in the Buddha’s time.That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. The theorist accepts multiple selves. As self theories evolve, they typically move from more coarse materialist theories towards more subtle conceptions. Sometimes the former view is rejected as being false. Sometimes, as here, the former view is seen not as false, but as incomplete and shallow.But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that is divine, having form, sensual, consuming solid food. “Form” (_rūpa_) includes not just the physical realm of the elements, but various kinds of subtle form (_sukhumarūpa_). These include the energetic or mind-made bodies of beings in various dimensions. _Rūpa_ ultimately refers to the appearance or manifestation of physical properties, and can even include the perception of colors, lights, and shapes in the mind. Here the bodies of the divine beings are not very distant from our own, as they still consume solid food. This probably refers to various nature deities or entities that were believed to consume the food offered to them by humans.You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ Whereas the eternalists believe that their heavenly rebirth will last forever, annihilationists believe that even heaven is limited, and it ends in final annihilation.That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that is divine, having form, mind-made, complete in all its various parts, not deficient in any faculty. This is a more subtle kind of divine rebirth, no longer dependent on physical food. The subtle body still takes on a humanoid form, however, appearing complete in all its limbs. It includes realms produced through the practice of the four _jhānas_.You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite space. Such a rebirth has left even the subtle body behind, becoming sheer consciousness. The word _āyatana_ is from a root meaning “expanse”. It is prominently used in this context, where it refers to a realm or “dimension” of rebirth, and in the analysis of sense experience, where it refers to a “field” of sense experience.You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ This phrase appears incongruous as formless beings do not have a body. However the Chinese parallel at DA 21 does not mention _kāya_ here, so it is likely to have arisen as an error in transmission where an earlier phrase was mistakenly copied.That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that “consciousness is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that “there is nothing at all”, it’s been reborn in the dimension of nothingness. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. Aware that “this is peaceful, this is sublime”, it’s been reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. The extension of the normal description of this state with the phrase “this is peaceful, this is sublime” is found only here and at [an10.99:35.1]().You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being. These are the seven grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being do so on one or other of these seven grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 3.2.5. Extinguishment in the Present Life There are some ascetics and brahmins who speak of extinguishment in the present life. They assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life on five grounds. The Buddha taught of extinguishment (_nibbāna_) in this very life, but not of an “existing being”.And what are the five grounds on which they rely? There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘When this self amuses itself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, that’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’ The hedonist.That is how some assert the extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life. Why is that? Because sensual pleasures are impermanent, suffering, and perishable. Their decay and perishing give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. Here we see the philosophical reasoning that prompts the evolution of more refined conceptions of self.Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, this self enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’ The _jhānas_ are central to Buddhist meditation. As we have seen above, however, if they are undertaken with wrong view, the experience itself will tend to reinforce the attachment to a self.That is how some assert the extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life. The theorist has an experience of a deeper state of meditation, so they know that the first _jhāna_ cannot be the ultimate.Why is that? Because the placing of the mind and the keeping it connected there are coarse. _Jhānas_ are subtle states of refined consciousness in which nothing is coarse when compared to ordinary consciousness. Within each state, however, certain mental factors are coarse relative to others. A meditator proceeds through the _jhānas_ with the successive stilling of the relatively coarser factors in each state.But when the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, this self 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. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’ That is how some assert the extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life. Why is that? Because the rapture and emotional excitement there are coarse. But with the fading away of rapture, this self enters and remains in the third absorption, where it meditates with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, “Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss”. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’ That is how some assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life. Why is that? Because the bliss and enjoyment there are coarse. But giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, this self enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’ That is how some assert the extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. These are the five grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life do so on one or other of these five grounds. Outside of this there is none. It is not clear why the still more subtle states of the formless attainments are not included here.The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. These are the forty-four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the future assert various hypotheses concerning the future. Any ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the future do so on one or other of these forty-four grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. These are the sixty-two grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past and the future assert various hypotheses concerning the past and the future. Any ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future do so on one or other of these sixty-two grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ Even the views of annihilation or extinguishment lead to rebirth, contrary to the beliefs of those who hold them.He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. 4. The Grounds For Assertions About the Self and the Cosmos 4.1. Anxiety and Evasiveness Now, these things are only the feeling of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds … Here the Buddha brings to the fore the notion of feelings which has been briefly mentioned throughout the text. Views are not objective descriptions of the world, but responses to our innermost needs. The word _paritassita_ (“anxiety”) conveys both fear and desire, while _vipphandita_ (“evasiveness”) captures how attachment to theorizing serves as an avoidance strategy. partially eternal on four grounds … finite or infinite on four grounds … or they resort to flip-flops on four grounds … or they assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance on two grounds … they theorize about the past on these eighteen grounds … or they assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds … or that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds … or that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds … or they assert the annihilation of an existing being on seven grounds … or they assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life on five grounds … they theorize about the future on these forty-four grounds … When those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, these things are only the feeling of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving. 4.2. Conditioned by Contact Now, these things are conditioned by contact. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds … The analysis is introducing more elements of dependent origination. The famous twelve links say that contact is the condition for feeling, which in turn causes craving. partially eternal on four grounds … finite or infinite on four grounds … or they resort to flip-flops on four grounds … or they assert that the self and the cosmos arose by chance on two grounds … they theorize about the past on these eighteen grounds … or they assert that the self lives on after death in a percipient form on sixteen grounds … or that the self lives on after death in a non-percipient form on eight grounds … or that the self lives on after death in a neither percipient nor non-percipient form on eight grounds … or they assert the annihilation of an existing being on seven grounds … or they assert the ultimate extinguishment of an existing being in the present life on five grounds … they theorize about the future on these forty-four grounds … When those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, that too is conditioned by contact. 4.3. Not Possible Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact. The text repeats all, but I abbreviate for legibility. In the oral tradition, extensive repetitions serve to reinforce the learning and ensure reliability of transmission. More subtly, they also help deepen understanding and contemplation. After reciting the extensive and complex treatment of the sixty-two views, the reciter takes the time to go over them again and again, letting them settle and consolidate. True learning takes time. 4.4. Dependent Origination Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, all of them experience this by repeated contact through the six fields of contact. Their feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. Finally the process of dependent origination, which has been foreshadowed little by little, is brought to its ultimate conclusion. It still does not include the full twelve factors, but the process beginning with ignorance is implied throughout. 5. The End of the Round When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contact’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, they understand what lies beyond all these things. All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net. They cannot see a way past attachment so long as they theorize in terms of an existing self. Suppose a deft fisherman or his apprentice were to cast a fine-meshed net over a small pond. They’d think: ‘Any sizable creatures in this pond will be trapped in the net. Wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.’ The title is explained with a vivid simile. The Buddha was a master of observation, and constantly drew from everyday experience to illustrate his teachings. The metaphor works on a surface level to illustrate how theorists are trapped. But it also conveys something deeper, a sense of pathos and empathy with the helpless creatures who have no idea why they suffer.In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net. The Realized One’s body remains, but his conduit to rebirth has been cut off. The Buddha is not his body, which is merely the remnant of past kamma. The phrase _bhavanetti_ (“conduit to rebirth”) invokes a channel that leads to a future life.As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more. When the stalk of a bunch of mangoes is cut, all the mangoes attached to the stalk will follow along. This metaphor is found at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.36, where it refers to the separation of the self from the body at death.In the same way, the Realized One’s body remains, but his conduit to rebirth has been cut off. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.” When he had spoken, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha, “It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! What is the name of this exposition of the teaching?” “Well, then, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Net of Meaning’, or else ‘The Net of the Teaching’, or else ‘The Prime Net’, or else ‘The Net of Views’, or else ‘The Supreme Victory in Battle’.” It is not uncommon to find multiple names for the same sutta, and here we see this practice originated with the Buddha himself. When is referred to by name at [sn41.3:2.4]() and [Kd 21:1.8.8](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd1/en/brahmali#1.8.8), however, it is always called the Brahmajāla. That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the galaxy shook.END= NAM MO SHAKYAMUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).GOLDEN ZEN BUDDHIST MONASTERY=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=THE WOMEN OF THE SAKYA CLAN CHAN TANH.AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.14/4/2023.