Saṃyutta Nikāya
3. Khandha Vagga
22. Khandha Saṃyutta
8. Khajjaniya Vagga
The Book of the Kindred Sayings
3. The Book Called the Khandhā-Vagga
Containing Kindred Sayings on the Elements of Sensory Existence and other Subjects
22. Kindred Sayings on Elements
8. On what Must be Devoured
Sutta 79
Khajjanīya Suttaṃ
The Prey[1]
Translated by F. L. Woodward
Edited by Mrs. Rhys Davids
Copyright The Pali Text Society
Commercial Rights Reserved
For details see Terms of Use.
[1][than][bodh][olds] Thus have I heard:—
The Exalted One was staying at Sāvatthī
In jeta Grove,
at Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.
Then the Exalted One said:
"Whatsoever recluses or brahmins, brethren,
remember their divers former lives,
in so doing
all of them remember the five factors of grasping,
or one or other of these factors, thus: -
'Of such and such a body
was I in time past,'
says one;
and so remembering,
it is body, brethren, that he thus remembers.
'I felt thus and thus,'
says he;
and in so remembering
it is feeling that he thus remembers.
'Thus and thus I perceived,'
says he;
and in so remembering,
it is perception that he thus remembers.
'Thus and thus in activity was I,'
says he;
and in thus remembering
it is the activities-compound[2] that he thus remembers.
'Thus and thus conscious was I,'
says he;
and in so remembering
it is consciousness that he remembers.
§
And why, brethren, do ye say 'body'?
One is affected, brethren.
That is why the word 'body' is used.
Affected by what?
Affected by touch of cold and heat,
of hunger and [73] thirst,
of gnats,
mosquitoes,
wind
and sun
and snakes.
0ne is affected, brethren.
That is why ye say 'body.'[3]
■
And why, brethren, do ye say 'feeling'?
One feels, brethren.
That is why the word 'feeling' is used.
Feels what?
Feels pleasure and pain;
feels neutral feelings.
One feels, brethren.
That is why the word 'feeling'[4] is used.
■
And why, brethren, do ye say 'perception'?
One perceives, brethren.
That is why the word 'perception' is used.
Perceives what?
Perceives blue-green,
perceives yellow,
or red,
or white.
One perceives, brethren.
That is why the word 'perception' is used.
■
And why, brethren, do ye say
'the activities-compound'?
Because they compose a compound.
That is why, brethren,
the word 'activities-compound' is used.
And what compound do they compose?
It is body that they compose
into a compound of body.[5]
It is feeling that they compose
into a feeling-compound.
It is perception that they compose
into a perception-compound;
It is the activities that they compose
into an activities-compound;
It is consciousness that they compose
into a consciousness-compound.
They compose a compound, brethren.
Therefore the word '(activities)-compound' is used.
[74] And why, brethren, do ye say 'consciousness'?
One is conscious, brethren.[6]
Therefore the word 'consciousness' is used.
Conscious of what?
Of (flavours) sour or bitter;
acrid or sweet;
alkaline or non-alkaline;
saline or non-saline.
This section is explained by Bhk. Bodhi citing commentary as being intended to show only a representative example in a way similar to the way sight is used as an example for perception previously. "consciousness is analysed by way of the tongue door because it can grasp particular distinctions in an object even when there is no appearance and shape.
— p.p.
One is conscious, brethren.
That is why the word 'consciousness' is used.
§
Then, brethren, the well-taught Ariyan disciple thus reflects:
'I am the prey of body now.[7]
In the past likewise
I was the prey of body,
just as now I am the prey
of this present body.
Moreover, if in future time
I should be enamoured of body,
in future time also
even thus should I be the prey of body,
just as I am now the prey
of this present body.'
Thus reflecting,
he is freed from desire for a past body;
he is not enamoured of a future body;
he is apt for disgust at the present body,
for the turning away from it,
for the ceasing of it.
■
'I am the prey of feeling now.
In the past likewise
I was the prey of feeling,
just as now I am the prey
of this present feeling.
Moreover, if in future time
I should be enamoured of feeling,
in future time also
even thus should I be the prey of feeling,
just as I am now the prey
of this present feeling.'[8]
Thus reflecting,
he is freed from desire for feeling of the past;
he is not enamoured of future feeling;
be is apt for disgust at present feeling,
for turning away from it,
for the ceasing from it.
■
'I am the prey of perception now.
In the past likewise
I was the prey of perception,
just as now I am the prey
of this present perception.
Moreover, if in future time
I should be enamoured of perception,
in future time also
even thus should I be the prey of perception,
just as I am now the prey
of this present perception.'
Thus reflecting,
he is freed from desire for perception of the past;
he is not enamoured of future perception;
be is apt for disgust at present perception,
for turning away from it,
for the ceasing from it.
■
'I am the prey of the activities now.
In the past likewise
I was the prey of the activities,
just as now I am the prey
of these present activities.
Moreover, if in future time
I should be enamoured of the activities,
in future time also
even thus should I be the prey of the activities,
just as I am now the prey
of these present activities.'
Thus reflecting,
he is freed from desire for the activities of the past;
he is not enamoured of future activities;
be is apt for disgust at present activities,
for turning away from them,
for the ceasing from them.
■
'I am the prey of consciousness now.
In the past likewise
I was the prey of consciousness,
just as now I am the prey
of this present consciousness.
Moreover, if in future time
I should be enamoured of consciousness,
in future time also
even thus should I be the prey of consciousness,
just as I am now the prey
of this present consciousness.'
Thus reflecting,
he is freed from desire for consciousness of the past;
he is not enamoured of future consciousness;
be is apt for disgust at present consciousness,
for turning away from it,
for the ceasing from it.
§
What think ye, brethren?
Is body permanent or impermanent?"
[75] "Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent,
is that woe or weal?"
"Woe, lord."
"Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable in nature, -
is it fitting to regard that as:
'This is mine;
this am I;
this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
What think ye, brethren?
Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent,
is that woe or weal?"
"Woe, lord."
"Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable in nature, -
is it fitting to regard that as:
'This is mine;
this am I;
this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
What think ye, brethren?
Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent,
is that woe or weal?"
"Woe, lord."
"Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable in nature, -
is it fitting to regard that as:
'This is mine;
this am I;
this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
What think ye, brethren?
Are the activities permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent,
is that woe or weal?"
"Woe, lord."
"Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable in nature, -
is it fitting to regard that as:
'This is mine;
this am I;
this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
What think ye, brethren?
Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent,
is that woe or weal?"
"Woe, lord."
"Then what is impermanent,
woeful,
unstable in nature, -
is it fitting to regard that as:
'This is mine;
this am I;
this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
§
"Therefore, brethren, every body,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near -
I say, every body
should be thus regarded
as it really is,
by right insight:
'This is not mine;
this am not I;
this is not the Self of me.'[ed1]
■
"Therefore, brethren, every feeling,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near -
I say, every feeling
should be thus regarded
as it really is,
by right insight:
'This is not mine;
this am not I;
this is not the Self of me.'
■
"Therefore, brethren, every perception,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near -
I say, every perception
should be thus regarded
as it really is,
by right insight:
'This is not mine;
this am not I;
this is not the Self of me.'
■
"Therefore, brethren, all activity,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near -
I say, all activity
should be thus regarded
as it really is,
by right insight:
'This is not mine;
this am not I;
this is not the Self of me.'
■
"Therefore, brethren, every consciousness,
be it past,
future
or present,
be it inward or outward,
gross or subtle,
low or high,
far or near -
I say, every consciousness
should be thus regarded
as it really is,
by right insight:
'This is not mine;
this am not I;
this is not the Self of me.'
§
He, brethren, is reckoned an Ariyan disciple
who reduces,
heaps not up;
who abandons,
grasps not;
who scatters,
binds not;
who quenches,
kindles not.
And what does he reduce[9]
and not heap up?
He spreads abroad body, heaps it not up.
He spreads abroad feeling, heaps it not up.
He spreads abroad perception, heaps it not up.
He spreads abroad activity, heaps it not up.
He spreads abroad consciousness, heaps it not up.
■
And what does he abandon, not grasp?
He abandons body, and grasps it not.
He abandons feeling, and grasps it not.
He abandons perception, and grasps it not.
He abandons activity, and grasps it not.
He abandons consciousness, and grasps it not.
■
And what does he scatter and not gather?
He scatters body and gathers it not.
He scatters feeling and gathers it not.
He scatters perception and gathers it not.
He scatters activity and gathers it not.
He scatters consciousness and gathers it not.
■
And what does he quench and not kindle?
He quenches body, and kindles it not.
He quenches feeling, and kindles it not.
He quenches perception, and kindles it not.
He quenches activity, and kindles it not.
He quenches consciousness, and kindles it not.
■
So seeing, brethren, the well-taught Ariyan disciple conceives disgust at body,
at feeling,
at perception,
at the activities,
at consciousness.
Being disgusted
he is repelled by them;
by that repulsion he is released;
by that release he is set free;
knowledge arises:
in the freed man is the freed thing,
and he knows:
'Destroyed is rebirth;
lived is the righteous life;
done is the task;
for life in these conditions
there is no hereafter.'
§
He, brethren, is reckoned
a brother[10] who neither heaps up [76] nor reduces.
Having reduced,
he stands neither abandoning nor grasping.
Having abandoned,
he stands neither scattering nor gathering.
Having scattered,
he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
■
Woodward's construction makes sense only with a great deal of difficulty.
Bhk. Bodhi renders: And what is it that he neither builds up nor dismantles, but abides having dismantled? He neither builds up nor dismantles form, but abides having dismantled it.
Bhk. Thanissaro has a similar construction.
Put in Woodwards terms and Bhk. Bodhi's construction would give us: "And what is it that he neither heaps up nor reduces, but stands having quenched?
He neither heaps up nor reduces body, but stands having reduced it.
I would suggest:
Having got rid of what,
based on what is it
that there is neither heaping up nor reducing?
Based on having got rid of body
there is neither heaping up nor reducing.
— p.p.
Having quenched,
what is it
that he neither heaps up nor reduces?
Having reduced,
it is body
that he stands neither heaping up nor reducing.
Having reduced,
it is feeling
that he stands neither heaping up nor reducing.
Having reduced,
it is perception
that he stands neither heaping up nor reducing.
Having reduced,
it is the activities
that he stands neither heaping up nor reducing.
Having reduced,
it is consciousness
that he stands neither heaping up nor reducing.
■
Having reduced,
what is it
that he stands neither abandoning nor grasping?
Having abandoned,
it is body
that he stands neither abandomng nor grasping
Having abandoned,
it is feeling, perception
that he stands neither abandomng nor grasping
Having abandoned,
it is the activities
that he stands neither abandomng nor grasping
Having abandoned,
it is consciousness
that he stands neither abandoning nor grasping.
■
Having abandoned,
what is it
that he stands neither scattering nor gathering?
Having scattered,
it is body
that he stands neither scattering nor gathering.
Having scattered,
it is feeling
that he stands neither scattering nor gathering.
Having scattered,
it is perception
that he stands neither scattering nor gathering.
Having scattered,
it is the activities
that he stands neither scattering nor gathering.
Having scattered,
it is consciousness
that he stands neititer scattering nor gathering.
■
Having scattered,
what is it
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling?
Having quenched,
it is body
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
Having quenched,
it is feeling
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
Having quenched,
it is perception
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
Having quenched,
it is the activities
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
Having quenched,
it is consciousness
that he stands neither quenching nor kindling.
§
Having quenched,
he stands: -
brethren, it is even such a brother
whose heart is set free,
whom the devas,
with their governor,
and the Brahmas
and their consorts
even from afar do reverence:
'We worship thee, 0 thorough-bred of men!
We worship thee, 0 highest among men!
We do not grasp what thou dost ponder on.'"[11]
[1] Text seems to have a wrong title ('the lion') to this sutta. In the Uddāna, or table of contents at the end of the chapter, it is called Khajjani. The whole chapter is called Khajjanīya (to be eaten). In this section body is likened to a devourer, and at § 85 to a murderer.
"conditioned, caused". The two are not synonyms! To condition is to affect; to cause is to create. Sankhara is neither. It is the act of identification with the created.
— p.p.
[2] Cf. Mrs. C.A. Rhys Davids's analysis of the section in Buddh. Psych., p. 43. The medieval tradition of Burma conceives sankhārā not as compound but as conditioned, caused.
[3] Rūpaṃ ruppati We cannot keep up the play of words here. Form is in-formed, shape is shaped; body is embodied; it lives by these stimuli, without which there is no consciousness of body. Comy. paraphrases ruppati by words meaning 'is troubled, struck, oppressed, broken up' Mrs. Rhys Davids suggests 'affected' as a compromise.
'Afflicted' seems to sum up Buddhaghosa's terms. Comy. points out that these are merely reminiscences of something past and perished, not now existing; and so with all the five factors; they all have the characteristics of 'emptiness.' He misconstrues these various contacts not as referring to this life, but as 'informing' creatures in other spheres - e.g., the cold hell, the hungry-ghost world, etc. He regards 'wind' as referring to flatulence! Etymologically rūpaṃ is not connected with ruppati. This is from rup (lup) to damage; that is probably from varp, shape. See Stede, in Pali Dict.
[4] Text vediyanti, probably an error for sing. vediyati or vedayati. Comy. has both forms and comments on them, but mentions no plural. He says 'no entity feels, but there is just feeling,' omitting the recorder.
[5] Reading with Comy., rūpa-[vedan]atthāya, etc., for text's rūpattāya-vedanattāya.
[6] Comy., sañjānāti, vijānati, pajānāti: three stages of consciousness, to be distinguished ss 'awareness, discrimination, decision.'
"My feet (back, neck, stomach ...) are killing me!"
— p.p.
[7] Comy., khajjāmi, 'body does not rend and eat up the flesh like a worm, but, just as one clothed in a filthy garment suffers discomfort as a consequence of that and says, "the garment eats me up," even so is discomfort to be regarded as consuming him.' Cf. Text 114, vadhakaṃ rūpaṃ, 'body is a murderer.' So inf. 143, vadhako, eso akkhāto At S. iv, 172-5 in the parable, the pañca-kkhandhā are the 'five murderers.'
[8] Comy. illustrates by a story of a bhikkhu who had a thorn in his foot, but did not troublle to pull it out in spite of the pain.
[9] [Ed.: the footnote here points to the following, but is more likely missing. It probably was some note in reference to the Pali 'apacināti', PED: "to get rid of, do away with, diminish, make less."
[10] Bhikkhu, here in its proper sense of 'almsman,' 'owning nothing.'
[11] Cf. Thag. 1084; Brethren, p 367; D. iii, 197-8; Thag. 1179, where the first line of these gāthās occurs in connexion with the praises of the Superman. 'Such a khīṇāsava,' says Comy., 'the devas honour, even as they honoured Nīlatthera (v.l. Nīta and Citta-tthera), who, having made up his mind to end all there and then, while pondering on his resolve, at the moment of having his head shaved on taking the robes, attained Arahantship.' The verse refers to the brother's resolve, on which he pondered.
[ed1] Here Woodward omits without indication the repetition with changes for the other khandhas which is included in the Pali.
