Saɱyutta Nikāya
3. Khandha Vagga
22. Khandha Saɱyutta
1. Pathama Nakula-Pita Vagga
The Connected Discourses of the Buddha
Part II.
The Book of the Aggregates Khandha-Vagga
22. Connected Discourses on the Aggregates
I. Nakulapitā
Namo tassa Bhagavato arahato Sammāsambuddhassa
Homage to the Blessed One,
the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One
Sutta 1
Nakula-Pitā Suttaɱ
Nakulapita
Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Copyright Bhikkhu Bodhi 2000, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications, 2000)
This selection from The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saɱyutta Nikāya by Bhikkhu Bodhi is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/connected-discourses-buddha.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available
at http://www.wisdompubs.org/terms-use.
[1][bit][pts][than] Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Bhaggas at Suɱsumāragira in the Bhesaka'ā Grove, the Deer Park. Then the householder Nakulapitā approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:[1]
"I am old, venerable sir, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage, afflicted in body, often ill. I rarely get to see the Blessed One and the bhikkhus worthy of esteem.[2] let the Blessed One exhort me, venerable sir, let him instruct me, since that would lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time."
"So it is, householder, so it is! This body of yours is afflicted, weighed down, encumbered.[3] If anyone carrying around this body were to claim to be healthy even for a moment, what is that due to other than foolishness? Therefore, householder, you [ 854 ] should train yourself thus: 'Even though I am afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted.' Thus should you train yourself."
Then the householder Nakulapitā, having delighted and rejoiced in the Blessed One's statement, [2] rose from his seat and, having paid homage to the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he approached the Venerable Sāriputta. Having paid homage to the Venerable Sāriputta, he sat down to one side, and the Venerable Sāriputta then said to him:
"Householder, your faculties are serene, your facial complexion is pure and bright. Did you get to hear a Dhamma talk today in the presence of the Blessed One?"
"Why not, venerable sir? Just now I was anointed by the Blessed One with the ambrosia of a Dhamma talk."
"With what kind of ambrosia of a Dhamma talk did the Blessed One anoint you, householder?"
"Here, venerable sir, I approached the Blessed One....
(The householder Nakulapitā repeats his entire conversation with the Buddha.)
"It was with the ambrosia of such a Dhamma talk, venerable sir, that the Blessed One anointed me."
"Didn't it occur to you, householder, to question the Blessed One further as to how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind, and how one is afflicted in body but not afflicted in mind?" [3]
"We would come from far away, venerable sir, to learn the meaning of this statement from the Venerable Sāriputta. It would be good indeed if the Venerable Sāriputta would clear up the meaning of this statement."
"Then listen and attend closely, householder, I will speak."
"Yes, venerable sir," the householder Nakulapitā replied. The Venerable Sāriputta said this:
"How, householder, is one afflicted in body and afflicted in mind? Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling,[4] who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am form, form is mine.'[5] As he lives obsessed by these notions, that form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He regards feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am feeling, feeling is mine.' As he lives obsessed by these notions, that feeling of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of feeling, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He regards perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am perception, perception is mine.' As he lives obsessed by these notions, that perception of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of perception, there arise in ,him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He regards volitional formations as self, or self as possessing volitional formations, or volitional formations as in self, or self as in volitional formations. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am volitional formations, volitional formations are mine.' As he lives obsessed by these notions, those volitional formations of his change and alter. [4] With the change and alteration of volitional formations, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He regards consciousness as self, or self as possessmg consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am consciousness, consciousness is mine.' As he lives obsessed by these notions, that consciousness of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of consciousness, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"It is in such a way, householder, that one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.[6]
"And how, householder, is one afflicted in body but not afflicted in mind? Here, householder, the instructed noble disciple, who is a seer of the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who is a seer of superior persons and is skilled disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard form as self, or as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.[7] He does not live obsessed by the notions: 'I am form, form is mine.' As he lives unobsessed by these notions, that form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there do not arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
He does not regard feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He does not live obsessed by the notions: 'I am feeling, feeling is mine.' As he lives unobsessed by these notions, that feeling of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of feeling, there do not arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He does not regard perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He does not live obsessed by the notions: 'I am perception, perception is mine.' As he lives unobsessed by these notions, that perception of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of perception, there do not arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
[5]"He does not regard volitional formations as self, or self as possessing volitional formations, or volitional formations as in self, or self as in volitional formations. He does not live obsessed by the notions: 'I am volitional formations, volitional formations are mine.' As he lives unobsessed by these notions, those volitional formations of his change and alter. With the change and alteration of volitional formations, there do not arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"He does not regard consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. He does not live obsessed by the notions: 'I am consciousness, consciousness is mine.' As he lives unobsessed by these notions, that consciousness of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of consciousness, there do not arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.
"It is in such a way, householder, that one is afflicted in body but not afflicted in mind."[8]
This is what the Venerable Sāriputta said. Elated, the householder Nakulapitā delighted in the Venerable Sāriputta's statement.
[1]The name means "Nakula's father." His wife is called Nakulamata, "Nakula's mother," though the texts never disclose the identity of Nakula. The Buddha pronounced him and his wife the most trusting (etadaggaɱ vissāsakānaɱ) of his lay disciples (AN I 26). According to Spk, they had been the Blessed One's parents in five hundred past lives and his close relations in many more past lives. For additional references see DPPN 2:3 and Hecker, "Shorter Lives of the Disciples," in Nyanaponika and Hecker, Great Disciples of the Buddha, pp. 375-78.
[2]All three eds. of SN, and both eds. of Spk, read aniccadassāvi, "not always a seer," but the SS reading adhiccadassāvi, "a chance seer," may be more original; CPD also prefers the latter. Spk: "Because of my affliction I am unable to come whenever I want; I get to see (him) only sometimes, not constantly."
Manobhāvaniyā, used in apposition to bhikkhū, has often been misinterpreted by translators to mean "with developed mind." However, the expression is a gerundive meaning literally "who should be brought to mind," i.e., who are worthy of esteem. Spk: "Those great elders such as Sāriputta and Moggallāna are called 'worthy of esteem' ('to be brought to mind') because the mind (citta) grows in wholesome qualities whenever they are seen."
[3]Be and Se read the second descriptive term as aṇḍabhūto, lit. "egg-become," and Spk endorses this with its explanation:
"Aṇḍabhūto: become weak (dubbala) like an egg. For just as one cannot play with an egg by throwing it around or hitting it--since it breaks apart at once--so this body has 'become like an egg' because it breaks apart even if one stumbles on a thorn or a stump." Despite the texts and Spk, Ee addhabhūto may be preferable; see 35:29 and IV, n. 14.
[4]On the commentarial etymology of puthujjana, see II, n. 153. Spk gives a long analysis of this passage; for a translation of the parallel at Ps I 20-25, see Bodhi, Discourse on the Root of Existence, pp. 33-38. The commentaries distinguish between the "uninstructed worldling" (assutavā puthujjana) and the "good worldling" (kalyāṇa puthujjana). While both are worldlings in the technical sense that they have not reached the path of stream-entry, the former has neither theoretical knowledge of the Dhamma nor training in the practice, while the latter has both and is striving to reach the path.
[5]Text here enumerates the twenty types of identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), obtained by positing a self in the four given ways in relation to the five aggregates that constitute personal identity (sakkāya; see 22:105). Identity view is one of the first three fetters to be eradicated by the attainment of the path of stream-entry.
Spk: He regards form as self (rūpaɱ attato samanupassati), by regarding form and the self as indistinguishable, just as the flame of an oil lamp and its colour are indistinguishable. He regards self as possessing form (rūpavantaɱ attānaɱ), when he takes the formless (i.e., the mind or mental factors) as a self that possesses form, in the way a tree possesses a shadow; form as in self (attani rūpaɱ), when he takes the formless (mind) as a self within which form is situated, as the scent is in a flower; self as in form (rūpasmiɱ attānaɱ), when he takes the formless (mind) as a self situated in form, as a jewel is in a casket. He is obsessed by the notions, "I am form, form is mine": he swallows these ideas with craving and views, takes his stand upon them, and grasps hold of them.
Spk states that the identification of each aggregate individually with the self is the annihilationist view (ucchedadiṭṭhi), while the other views are variants of eternalism (sassatadiṭṭhi); thus there are five types of annihilationism and fifteen of eternalism. To my mind this is unacceptable, for eternalist views can clearly be formulated by taking the individual mental aggregates as the self. It also seems to me questionable that a view of self must implicitly posit one (or more) of the aggregates as self; for a view of self to have any meaning or content, it need only posit a relationship between a supposed self and the aggregates, but it need not identify one of the aggregates as self. According to the Buddha, all such positions collapse under analysis. See the "considerations of self" section of the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN II 66-68), translated with commentary in Bodhi, The Great Discourse on Causation, pp. 53-55, 92-98.
[6]Spk: Even for the Buddhas the body is afflicted, but the mind is afflicted when it is accompanied by lust, hatred, and delusion.
[7]This is a common formula describing a disciple whose minimal attainment is stream-entry (sotāpatti). The path of stream-entry eradicates the lower three fetters: identity view, doubt, and grasping of rules and vows.
[8]Spk: Here, nonaffliction of mind is shown by the absence of defilements. Thus in this sutta the worldly multitude is shown to be afflicted in both body and mind, the arahant to be afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind. The seven trainees (sekha: the four on the path and three at the fruition stages) are neither [entirely] afflicted in mind nor [entirely] unafflicted in mind, but they are pursuing nonaffliction of mind (anāturacittataɱ yeva bhajanti).
