8 : Overcoming Objectification

§59. As he was sitting there, Ven. Rādha said to the Blessed One: “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha: when one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception… fabrications…

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’

“Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that’s how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

“In the same way, Rādha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

“You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

“You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

“You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

“You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness—because the ending of craving, Rādha, is unbinding.” — SN 23:2

§60. “Rightly being disenchanted, rightly being dispassioned, rightly released, rightly seeing the total end, rightly breaking through with regard to one thing, a monk is one who puts an end to stress. With regard to which one thing? ‘All beings subsist on nutriment.’” — AN 10:27

§61. “And what are the effluents to be abandoned by seeing? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—doesn’t discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn’t attend to ideas fit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention.

“And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen effluent of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen effluent of sensuality increases; the unarisen effluent of becoming arises in him, and the arisen effluent of becoming increases; the unarisen effluent of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen effluent of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

“And what are the ideas fit for attention that he doesn’t attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen effluent of sensuality doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen effluent of becoming doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen effluent of ignorance doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he doesn’t attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen effluents arise in him, and arisen effluents increase.

“This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’

“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

“The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma—discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn’t attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas fit for attention.

“And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he doesn’t attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen effluent of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen effluent of sensuality increases; the unarisen effluent of becoming arises in him, and the arisen effluent of becoming increases; the unarisen effluent of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen effluent of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he doesn’t attend to.

“And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen effluent of sensuality doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen effluent of becoming doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen effluent of ignorance doesn’t arise in him, and the arisen effluent of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen effluents do not arise in him, and arisen effluents are abandoned.

“He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: self-identification view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing.” — MN 2

§62. Having been given leave by the Blessed One, Sakka the deva-king asked him his first question: “Fettered with what, dear sir—though they think, ‘May we live free from hostility, free from violence, free from rivalry, free from ill will, free from those who are hostile’—do devas, human beings, asuras, nāgas, gandhabbas, & whatever other many kinds of beings there are, nevertheless live in hostility, violence, rivalry, ill will, with those who are hostile?”

Thus Sakka asked his first question of the Blessed One, and the Blessed One, when asked, replied: “Devas, human beings, asuras, nāgas, gandhabbas, & whatever other many kinds of beings there are, are fettered with envy & stinginess, which is why—even though they think, ‘May we live free from hostility, free from violence, free from rivalry, free from ill will, free from those who are hostile’—they nevertheless live in hostility, violence, rivalry, ill will, with those who are hostile.”

Thus the Blessed One answered, having been asked by Sakka the deva-king. Gratified, Sakka was delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One’s words: “So it is, O Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. Hearing the Blessed One’s answer to my question, my doubt is now cut off, my perplexity is overcome.”

Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One’s words, asked him a further question: “But what, dear sir, is the cause of envy & stinginess, what is their origination, what gives them birth, what is their source? When what exists do they come into being? When what doesn’t exist do they not?”

“Envy & stinginess have dear-&-not-dear as their cause, have dear-&-not-dear as their origination, have dear-&-not-dear as what gives them birth, have dear-&-not-dear as their source. When dear-&-not-dear exist, they come into being. When dear-&-not-dear are not, they don’t.”

“But what, dear sir, is the cause of dear-&-not-dear, what is their origination, what gives them birth, what is their source? When what exists do they come into being? When what doesn’t exist do they not?”

“Dear-&-not-dear have desire as their cause, have desire as their origination, have desire as what gives them birth, have desire as their source. When desire exists, they come into being. When desire is not, they don’t.”

“But what, dear sir, is the cause of desire, what is its origination, what gives it birth, what is its source? When what exists does it come into being? When what doesn’t exist does it not?”

“Desire has thinking as its cause, has thinking as its origination, has thinking as what gives it birth, has thinking as its source. When thinking exists, desire comes into being. When thinking is not, it doesn’t.”

“But what, dear sir, is the cause of thinking, what is its origination, what gives it birth, what is its source? When what exists does it come into being? When what doesn’t exist does it not?”

“Thinking has the perceptions & categories of objectification 1 as its cause, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as its origination, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as what gives it birth, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as its source. When the perceptions & categories of objectification exist, thinking comes into being. When the perceptions & categories of objectification are not, it doesn’t.”

“And how has he practiced, dear sir: the monk who has practiced the practice leading to the right cessation of the perceptions & categories of objectification?”

“Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Grief is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Equanimity is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued.

“‘Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of joy, ‘As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of joy is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of joy, ‘As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of joy is to be pursued. And this sort of joy may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. ‘Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“‘Grief is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of grief, ‘As I pursue this grief, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of grief is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of grief, ‘As I pursue this grief, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of grief is to be pursued. And this sort of grief may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. ‘Grief is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“‘Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, ‘As I pursue this equanimity, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of equanimity is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, ‘As I pursue this equanimity, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of equanimity is to be pursued. And this sort of equanimity may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. ‘Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“This is how he has practiced, deva-king: the monk who has practiced the practice leading to the right cessation of the perceptions & categories of objectification.”

Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One’s words, asked him a further question: “But how has he practiced, dear sir: the monk who has practiced for restraint in the Pāṭimokkha?”

“Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Verbal conduct is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Searching is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued.

“‘Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of bodily conduct, ‘As I pursue this bodily conduct, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of bodily conduct is not to be pursued. When one knows of bodily conduct, ‘As I pursue this bodily conduct, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of bodily conduct is to be pursued. ‘Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“‘Verbal conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of verbal conduct, ‘As I pursue this verbal conduct, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of verbal conduct is not to be pursued. When one knows of verbal conduct, ‘As I pursue this verbal conduct, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of verbal conduct is to be pursued. ‘Verbal conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“‘Searching is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a search, ‘As I pursue this search, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,’ that sort of search is not to be pursued. When one knows of a search, ‘As I pursue this search, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,’ that sort of search is to be pursued. ‘Searching is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“This is how he has practiced, deva-king: the monk who has practiced the practice for restraint in the Pāṭimokkha.”

“Forms cognizable by the eye are of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Sounds cognizable by the ear.… Aromas cognizable by the nose.… Flavors cognizable by the tongue.… Tactile sensations cognizable by the body.… Ideas cognizable by the intellect are of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued.”

When this was said, Sakka the deva-king said to the Blessed One, “Dear sir, I understand the detailed meaning of the Blessed One’s brief statement. If, as one pursues a certain type of form cognizable by the eye, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline, that sort of form cognizable by the eye is not to be pursued. But if, as one pursues a certain type of form cognizable by the eye, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase, that sort of form cognizable by the eye is to be pursued.

“If, as one pursues a certain type of sound cognizable by the ear.…

“If, as one pursues a certain type of aroma cognizable by the nose.…

“If, as one pursues a certain type of flavor cognizable by the tongue.…

“If, as one pursues a certain type of tactile sensation cognizable by the body.…

“If, as one pursues a certain type of idea cognizable by the intellect, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline, that sort of idea cognizable by the intellect is not to be pursued. But if, as one pursues a certain type of idea cognizable by the intellect, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase, that sort of idea cognizable by the intellect is to be pursued.

“This is how I understand the detailed meaning of the Blessed One’s brief statement. Hearing the Blessed One’s answer to my question, my doubt is now cut off, my perplexity is overcome.” — DN 21

§63. “From where have there arisen

quarrels, disputes,

lamentation, sorrows, along with stinginess,

conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?

From where have they arisen?

Please tell me.”

“From what is dear

there have arisen

quarrels, disputes,

lamentation, sorrows, along with stinginess,

conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.

Tied up with stinginess

are quarrels & disputes.

In the arising of disputes

is divisiveness.”

“Where is the cause

of things dear in the world,

along with the greeds that go about in the world?

And where is the cause

of the hopes & aims

for the sake of a person’s next life?”

“Desires are the cause

of things dear in the world,

along with the greeds that go about in the world.

And here too is the cause

of the hopes & aims

for the sake of a person’s next life.”

“Now where is the cause

of desire in the world?

And from where have there arisen

decisions, anger, lies, & perplexity,

and all the qualities

described by the Contemplative?”

“What they call

‘appealing’ &

‘unappealing’

in the world:

In dependence on that,

desire arises.

Having seen becoming & not-

with regard to forms,

a person gives rise to decisions in the world;

anger, lies, & perplexity:

these qualities, too,

when there exists

that very pair.

A person perplexed

should train for the path of knowledge,

for it’s in having known

that the Contemplative has spoken

of qualities/dhammas.”1

“Where is the cause

of appealing & un-?

When what isn’t

do they not exist?

And whatever is meant

by becoming & not- :

Tell me,

Where is their cause?”

“Contact is the cause

of appealing & un-.

When contact isn’t,

they do not exist,

along with what’s meant

by becoming & not- :

I tell you,

from here is their cause.”

“Now where is the cause

of contact in the world,

and from where have graspings,

possessions, arisen?

When what isn’t

does there not exist mine-ness?

When what has disappeared

do contacts not touch?”

“Conditioned by name-&-form

is contact.

In longing do graspings,

possessions have their cause.

When longing isn’t,

mine-ness doesn’t exist.

When forms have disappeared

contacts don’t touch.”

“For one how-arriving

does form disappear?

How do pleasure & pain disappear?

Tell me this.

My heart is set

on knowing how

they disappear.”

“One not percipient of perceptions

not percipient of aberrant perceptions,

not unpercipient,

nor percipient of what’s disappeared2:

For one thus-arriving,

form disappears3—

for objectification-classifications4

have their cause in perception.”

“What we have asked,

you’ve expounded to us.

We ask one thing more.

Please tell it.

Do some of the wise

say that just this much is the utmost,

that purity of spirit5 is here?

Or do they say

that it’s other than this?”

“Some of the wise

say that just this much is the utmost,

that purity of spirit is here.

But some of them,

who say they are skilled,

say it’s the moment

with no clinging remaining.

But knowing,

‘Having known, they still are dependent,’6

the sage ponders dependencies.

On knowing them, released,

he doesn’t get into disputes,

doesn’t meet with becoming & not-

: He’s enlightened.” — Sn 4:11

Notes

1. As other passages in this poem indicate (see note 6, below), the goal is not measured in terms of knowledge, but as this passage points out, knowledge is a necessary part of the path to the goal.

2. According to Nd I, “percipient of perceptions” means having ordinary perceptions. “Percipient of aberrant perceptions” means being insane. “Unpercipient” means either having entered the cessation of perception and feeling (see AN 9:33) or the dimension of beings without perception (DN 1 and DN 15). “Percipient of what’s disappeared” (or: having perceptions that have disappeared) means having entered any of the four formless states. Of these four explanations, the last is the least likely, for as the next lines show, this passage is describing the stage of concentration practice in which one is transcending the fourth jhāna and entering the formless attainment of the infinitude of space. A more likely explanation of “percipient of what’s disappeared” would be the act of holding to perceptions of the breath and of pleasure and pain, even though these phenomena have all disappeared in the fourth jhāna (see SN 36:11, AN 9:31, AN 10:20, and AN 10:72).

3. This is the point where the meditator leaves the fourth jhāna and enters the perception of the infinitude of space.

4. Objectification-classifications (papañca-saṅkhā): Nd I defines papañca simply as craving, views, and conceit. A survey of how the term papañca is actually used in the suttas, however, shows that it denotes the mind’s tendency to objectify itself as a being. Then, from that objectification, it searches for nourishment to keep that being in existence, classifying experience in terms conducive to that search and thus giving rise to conflict. As Sn 4:14 points out, the root of the objectification-classifications is the perception, “I am the thinker.”

5. “Spirit” is the usual rendering of the Pāli word, yakkha. According to Nd I, however, in this context the word yakkha means person, individual, human being, or living being.

6. In other words, the sage knows that both groups in the previous verse fall back on their knowledge as a measure of the goal, without comprehending the dependency still latent in their knowledge. The sages in the first group are mistaking the experience of neither perception nor non-perception as the goal, and so they are still dependent on that state of concentration. The sages in the second group, by the fact that they claim to be skilled, show that there is still a latent conceit in their experience of not-clinging, and thus it is not totally independent of clinging. (For more on this point, see MN 102.) Both groups still maintain the concept of a “spirit” that is purified in the realization of purity. Once these dependencies are comprehended, one gains release from disputes and from states of becoming and not-becoming. It is in this way that knowledge is a means to the goal, but the goal itself is not measured or defined in terms of knowledge.

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

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

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

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

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the Banyan Park and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. Having sat down, he [told the monks what had happened]. When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, “Lord, what sort of doctrine is it where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-?”

“If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive speech, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder.” That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, he—the One Well-Gone—got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.

Then, not long after the Blessed One had left, this thought occurred to the monks: “This brief statement the Blessed One made, after which he went into his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning—i.e., ‘If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing to relish… that is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder’: Now who might analyze the unanalyzed detailed meaning of this brief statement?” Then the thought occurred to them, “Ven. Mahā Kaccāna is praised by the Teacher and esteemed by his observant companions in the holy life. He is capable of analyzing the unanalyzed detailed meaning of this brief statement. Suppose we were to go to him and, on arrival, cross-question him about this matter.”

So the monks went to Ven. Mahā Kaccāna and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened, and added,] “Analyze the meaning, Ven. Mahā Kaccāna!”

(He replied:) “Friends, it’s as if a man needing heartwood, looking for heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood—passing over the root & trunk of a standing tree possessing heartwood—were to imagine that heartwood should be sought among its branches & leaves. So it is with you, who—having bypassed the Blessed One when you were face to face with him, the Teacher—imagine that I should be asked about this matter. For knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, he sees. He is the Eye, he is Knowledge, he is Dhamma, he is Brahmā. He is the speaker, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the giver of the deathless, the lord of the Dhamma, the Tathāgata. That was the time when you should have cross-questioned him about this matter. However he answered, that was how you should have remembered it.”

“Yes, friend Kaccāna: Knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, he sees. He is the Eye, he is Knowledge, he is Dhamma, he is Brahmā. He is the speaker, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the giver of the deathless, the lord of the Dhamma, the Tathāgata. That was the time when we should have cross-questioned him about this matter. However he answered, that was how we should have remembered it. But you are praised by the Teacher and esteemed by your observant companions in the holy life. You are capable of analyzing the unanalyzed detailed meaning of this brief statement. Analyze the meaning, Ven. Mahā Kaccāna, without making it difficult!”

“In that case, my friends, listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, friend,” the monks responded to him.

Ven. Mahā Kaccāna said this: “Friends, concerning the brief statement the Blessed One made, after which he went into his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning—i.e., ‘If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive speech, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder’—I understand the detailed meaning to be this:

“Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives [labels in the mind]. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

“Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises.…

“Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises.…

“Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises.…

“Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises.…

“Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

“Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact.1 When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

“When there is the ear.…

“When there is the nose.…

“When there is the tongue.…

“When there is the body.…

“When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

“Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

“When there is no ear.…

“When there is no nose.…

“When there is no tongue.…

“When there is no body.…

“When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

“So, concerning the brief statement the Blessed One made, after which he entered his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning—i.e., ‘If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive speech, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder’—this is how I understand the detailed meaning. Now, friends, if you wish, having gone to the Blessed One, cross-question him about this matter. However he answers is how you should remember it.”

Then the monks, delighting in & approving of Ven. Mahā Kaccāna’s words, got up from their seats and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to him, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened after he had gone into his dwelling, and ended by saying,] “Then Ven. Mahā Kaccāna analyzed the meaning using these words, these statements, these phrases.”

“Mahā Kaccāna is wise, monks. He is a person of great discernment. If you had asked me about this matter, I too would have answered in the same way he did. That is its meaning, and that is how you should remember it.”

When this was said, Ven. Ānanda said to the Blessed One, “Lord, it’s as if a man—overcome with hunger, weakness, & thirst—were to come across a ball of honey. Wherever he might taste it, he would experience a sweet, delectable flavor. In the same way, wherever a monk of capable awareness might investigate the meaning of this Dhamma discourse with his discernment, he would experience gratification, he would experience confidence. What is the name of this Dhamma discourse?”

“Then, Ānanda, you can remember this Dhamma discourse as the ‘Ball of Honey Discourse.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ānanda delighted in the Blessed One’s words. — MN 18

Note

1. The artificiality of this phrase—“delineate a delineation”—seems intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete things. See MN 109, note 2.

§65. “I ask the Kinsman of the Sun, the Great Seer,

about seclusion & the state of peace.

Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,

clinging to nothing in the world?”

“He should put an entire stop

to the root of objectification-classifications:

‘I am the thinker.’

He should train, always mindful,

to subdue any craving inside him.

Whatever truth he may know,

within or without,

he shouldn’t, because of it,

make himself hardened,

for that isn’t called

unbinding by the good.

He shouldn’t, because of it, think himself

better,

lower, or

equal.

Touched by contact in various ways,

he shouldn’t keep theorizing about self.

Stilled right within,

a monk shouldn’t seek peace from another,

from anything else.

For one stilled right within,

there’s nothing embraced,

so how rejected?

As in the middle of the sea

it is still,

with no waves upwelling,

so the monk—unperturbed, still—

should not swell himself

anywhere.” — Sn 4:14

§66. Then Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Sāriputta, “With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection], is it the case that there is anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “…is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “…is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “Being asked if, with the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Being asked if… there is not anything else… there both is & is not anything else… there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “The statement, ‘With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies the non-objectified. The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else… is it the case that there both is & is not anything else… is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies the non-objectified. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, there comes to be the cessation of objectification, the stilling of objectification.” — AN 4:173

§67. “Therefore, monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye [vision] ceases and the perception of form fades. That dimension should be experienced where the ear ceases and the perception of sound fades. That dimension should be experienced where the nose ceases and the perception of aroma fades. That dimension should be experienced where the tongue ceases and the perception of flavor fades. That dimension should be experienced where the body ceases and the perception of tactile sensation fades. That dimension should be experienced where the intellect ceases and the perception of idea fades. That dimension should be experienced.” — SN 35:117