The cause of the ethical conduct and the cause of the unethical conduct. (Apaṇṇakasuttaṃ)
English translation by Bhikkhu Sujato
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was wandering in the land of the Kosalans together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants when he arrived at a village of the Kosalan brahmins named Sālā.
The brahmins and householders of Sālā heard:
“It seems the ascetic Gotama—a Sakyan, gone forth from a Sakyan family—wandering in the land of the Kosalans has arrived at Sālā, together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants. He has this good reputation: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’ He has realized with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and he makes it known to others. He teaches Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he reveals a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. It’s good to see such perfected ones.”
Then the brahmins and householders of Sālā went up to the Buddha. Before sitting down to one side, some bowed, some exchanged greetings and polite conversation, some held up their joined palms toward the Buddha, some announced their name and clan, while some kept silent. The Buddha said to them:
“So, householders, is there some other teacher you’re happy with, in whom you have acquired grounded faith?”
“No, sir.”
“Since you haven’t found a teacher you’re happy with, you should undertake and implement this guaranteed teaching. For when the guaranteed teaching is undertaken, it will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what is the guaranteed teaching?
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are such things as mother and father, and beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there’s no meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will reject good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is no other world is wrong view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is no other world is wrong thought. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is no other world is wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is no other world they contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in convincing another that there is no other world they are convincing them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no other world, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is another world, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no other world are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in the present life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, a nihilist.’ But if there really is another world, they lose on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.
Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there is meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is another world is right view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is another world is right thought. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is another world is right speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is another world they don’t contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in convincing another that there is another world they are convincing them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right thought, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is another world, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no other world are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in the present life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms a positive teaching.’ So if there really is another world, they win on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do nothing wrong when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit.’
And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘The one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do a bad deed when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, merit comes of that, and an outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is merit and outcome of merit.’
What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that the one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, etc. You can expect that they will reject good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since action actually does have an effect, their view that action is ineffective is wrong view. Since action actually does have an effect, their thought that action is ineffective is wrong thought. Since action actually does have an effect, their speech that action is ineffective is wrong speech. Since action actually does have an effect, in saying that action is ineffective they contradict those perfected ones who teach that action is effective. Since action actually does have an effect, in convincing another that action is ineffective they are convincing them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no effective action, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is effective action, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no effective action are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in the present life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, one who denies the efficacy of action.’ But if there really is effective action, they lose on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.
Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that the one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, etc. You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since action actually does have an effect, their view that action is effective is right view. Since action actually does have an effect, their thought that action is effective is right thought. Since action actually does have an effect, their speech that action is effective is right speech. Since action actually does have an effect, in saying that action is effective they don’t contradict those perfected ones who teach that action is effective. Since action actually does have an effect, in convincing another that action is effective they are convincing them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right thought, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is effective action, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no effective action are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in the present life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms the efficacy of action.’ So if there really is effective action, they win on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There is no cause or reason for the corruption of sentient beings. Sentient beings are corrupted without cause or reason. There’s no cause or reason for the purification of sentient beings. Sentient beings are purified without cause or reason. There is no power, no energy, no human strength or vigor. All sentient beings, all living creatures, all beings, all souls lack control, power, and energy. Molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes of rebirth.’
And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is a cause and reason for the corruption of sentient beings. Sentient beings are corrupted with cause and reason. There is a cause and reason for the purification of sentient beings. Sentient beings are purified with cause and reason. There is power, energy, human strength and vigor. It is not the case that all sentient beings, all living creatures, all beings, all souls lack control, power, and energy, or that, molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes of rebirth.’
What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there’s no cause or reason for the corruption of sentient beings, etc. You can expect that they will reject good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since there actually is causality, their view that there is no causality is wrong view. Since there actually is causality, their thought that there is no causality is wrong thought. Since there actually is causality, their speech that there is no causality is wrong speech. Since there actually is causality, in saying that there is no causality they contradict those perfected ones who teach that there is causality. Since there actually is causality, in convincing another that there is no causality they are convincing them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe. And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no causality are correct. Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in the present life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, one who denies causality.’ But if there really is causality, they lose on both counts. For they are criticized by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. They have wrongly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of one side only, leaving out the skillful premise.
Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there is a cause and reason for the corruption of sentient beings, etc. You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.
Moreover, since there actually is causality, their view that there is causality is right view. Since there actually is causality, their thought that there is causality is right thought. Since there actually is causality, their speech that there is causality is right speech. Since there actually is causality, in saying that there is causality they don’t contradict those perfected ones who teach that there is causality. Since there actually is causality, in convincing another that there is causality they are convincing them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they don’t glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as condition—right view, right thought, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘If there is causality, when this individual’s body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let’s assume that those who say that there is no causality are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in the present life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms causality.’ So if there really is causality, they win on both counts. For they are praised by sensible people in the present life, and when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. They have rightly undertaken this guaranteed teaching in such a way that it encompasses the positive outcomes of both sides, leaving out the unskillful premise.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There are no totally formless states of meditation.’
And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There are totally formless states of meditation.’
What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?”
“Yes, sir.”
“A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘Some ascetics and brahmins say that there are no totally formless meditations, but I have not seen that. Some ascetics and brahmins say that there are totally formless meditations, but I have not known that. Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, ‘This is the only truth, other ideas are silly.’ If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are no totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that I will be guaranteed rebirth among the gods who possess form and made of mind. If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that I will be guaranteed rebirth among the gods who are formless and made of perception. Now, owing to form, bad things are seen: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies. But those things don’t exist where it is totally formless.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding forms.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘There is no such thing as the total cessation of future lives.’
And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘There is such a thing as the total cessation of future lives.’
What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?”
“Yes, sir.”
“A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘Some ascetics and brahmins say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of future lives, but I have not seen that. Some ascetics and brahmins say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of future lives, but I have not known that. Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, ‘This is the only truth, other ideas are silly.’ If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of future lives are correct, it is possible that I will be guaranteed rebirth among the gods who are formless and made of perception. If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of future lives are correct, it is possible that I will be fully extinguished in the present life. The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is no such thing as the total cessation of future lives is close to greed, yoking, relishing, attachment, and grasping. The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that there is such a thing as the total cessation of future lives is close to non-greed, non-yoking, non-relishing, non-attachment, and non-grasping.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding future lives.
Householders, these four people are found in the world. What four?
One person mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves.
One person mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others.
One person mortifies themselves and others, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others.
One person doesn’t mortify either themselves or others, committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others. They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, with self become divine.
And what person mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves? It’s when someone goes naked, ignoring conventions. … And so they live committed to practicing these various ways of mortifying and tormenting the body. This is called a person who mortifies themselves, being committed to the practice of mortifying themselves.
And what person mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others? It’s when a person is a butcher of sheep, pigs, poultry, or deer, a hunter or fisher, a bandit, an executioner, a butcher of cattle, a jailer, or has some other cruel livelihood. This is called a person who mortifies others, being committed to the practice of mortifying others.
And what person mortifies themselves and others, being committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others? It’s when a person is an anointed aristocratic king or a well-to-do brahmin. … His bondservants, employees, and workers do their jobs under threat of punishment and danger, weeping, with tearful faces. This is called a person who mortifies themselves and others, being committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others.
And what person doesn’t mortify either themselves or others, committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others, living without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, with self become divine?
It’s when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha … A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone reborn in some good family. … They give up these five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. Then, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption.
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it toward recollection of past lives. … They recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details.
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings. With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, they see sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. … They understand how sentient beings are reborn according to their deeds.
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it toward knowledge of the ending of defilements. They truly understand: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. They truly understand: ‘These are defilements’ … ‘This is the origin of defilements’ … ‘This is the cessation of defilements’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of defilements’. Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
This is called a person who neither mortifies themselves or others, being committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others. They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.”
When he had spoken, the brahmins and householders of Sālā said to the Buddha, “Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! As if he were righting the overturned, or revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or lighting a lamp in the dark so people with clear eyes can see what’s there, Master Gotama has made the teaching clear in many ways. We go for refuge to Master Gotama, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. From this day forth, may Master Gotama remember us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life.”
English translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was wandering in the Kosalan country with a large Sangha of bhikkhus, and eventually he arrived at a Kosalan brahmin village named Sālā.
The brahmin householders of Sālā heard: “The recluse Gotama, the son of the Sakyans who went forth from a Sakyan clan, has been wandering in the Kosalan country with a large Sangha of bhikkhus and has come to Sālā. Now a good report of Master Gotama has been spread to this effect: ‘That Blessed One is accomplished, fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed. He declares this world with its gods, its Māras, and its Brahmās, this generation with its recluses and brahmins, its princes and its people, which he has himself realised with direct knowledge. He teaches the Dhamma good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing, and he reveals a holy life that is utterly perfect and pure.’ Now it is good to see such arahants.”
Then the brahmin householders of Sālā went to the Blessed One. Some paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side; some exchanged greetings with him, and when this courteous and amiable talk was finished, sat down at one side; some extended their hands in reverential salutation towards the Blessed One and sat down at one side; some pronounced their name and clan in the Blessed One’s presence and sat down at one side; some kept silent and sat down at one side.
When they were seated, the Blessed One asked them: “Householders, is there any teacher agreeable to you in whom you have acquired faith supported by reasons?”
“No, venerable sir, there is no teacher agreeable to us in whom we have acquired faith supported by reasons.”
“Since, householders, you have not found an agreeable teacher, you may undertake and practise this incontrovertible teaching; for when the incontrovertible teaching is accepted and undertaken, it will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. And what is the incontrovertible teaching?
i. The Doctrine of Nihilism
A “Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’
B “Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
A.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given…no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
A.ii “Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is no other world’ has wrong view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is no other world’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is no other world’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, one who says ‘there is no other world’ is opposed to those arahants who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another ‘there is no other world’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept an untrue Dhamma, and self-praise and disparagement of others—these several evil unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.
A.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is no other world, then on the dissolution of the body this good person will have made himself safe enough. But if there is another world, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no other world: still this good person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of nihilism. But on the other hand, if there is another world, then this good person has made an unlucky throw on both counts: since he is censured by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. He has wrongly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends only to one side and excludes the wholesome alternative.’
B.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is what is given…there are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, and they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
B.ii “Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is another world’ has right view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is another world’ has right intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is another world’ has right speech. Since there actually is another world, one who says ‘there is another world’ is not opposed to those arahants who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another ‘there is another world’ convinces him to accept true Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept true Dhamma, he does not praise himself and disparage others. Thus any corrupt conduct that he formerly had is abandoned and pure virtue is substituted. And this right view, right intention, right speech, non-opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept true Dhamma, and avoidance of self-praise and disparagement of others—these several wholesome states thus come into being with right view as their condition.
B.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is another world, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, this good person will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no other world: still this good person is here and now praised by the wise as a virtuous person, one with right view who holds the doctrine of affirmation. And on the other hand, if there is another world, then this good person has made a lucky throw on both counts: since he is praised by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. He has rightly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends to both sides and excludes the unwholesome alternative.’
ii. The Doctrine of Non-Doing
A “Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act, when one mutilates or makes others mutilate, when one tortures or makes others inflict torture, when one inflicts sorrow or makes others inflict sorrow, when one oppresses or makes others inflict oppression, when one intimidates or makes others inflict intimidation, when one kills living beings, takes what is not given, breaks into houses, plunders wealth, commits burglary, ambushes highways, seduces another’s wife, utters falsehood—no evil is done by the doer. If, with a razor-rimmed wheel, one were to make the living beings on this earth into one mass of flesh, into one heap of flesh, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing and slaughtering, mutilating and making others mutilate, torturing and making others inflict torture, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving gifts and making others give gifts, making offerings and making others make offerings, because of this there would be no merit and no outcome of merit. By giving, by taming oneself, by restraint, by speaking truth, there is no merit and no outcome of merit.’
B “Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘When one acts or makes others act, when one mutilates or makes others mutilate…utters falsehood—evil is done by the doer. If, with a razor-rimmed wheel, one were to make the living beings on this earth into one mass of flesh, into one heap of flesh, because of this there would be evil and the outcome of evil. If one were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing and slaughtering, mutilating and making others mutilate, torturing and making others inflict torture, because of this there would be evil and the outcome of evil. If one were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving gifts and making others give gifts, making offerings and making others make offerings, because of this there would be merit and the outcome of merit. By giving, by taming oneself, by restraint, by speaking truth, there is merit and the outcome of merit.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
A.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act…there is no merit and no outcome of merit,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
A.ii “Since there actually is doing, one who holds the view ‘there is no doing’ has wrong view. Since there actually is doing, one who intends ‘there is no doing’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is doing, one who makes the statement ‘there is no doing’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is doing, one who says ‘there is no doing’ is opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine that there is doing. Since there actually is doing, one who convinces another ‘there is no doing’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept an untrue Dhamma, and self-praise and disparagement of others—these several evil unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.
A.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is no doing, then on the dissolution of the body this good person will have made himself safe enough. But if there is doing, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no doing: still this good person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of non-doing. But on the other hand, if there is doing, then this good person has made an unlucky throw on both counts: since he is censured by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. He has wrongly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends only to one side and excludes the wholesome alternative.’
B.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act…there is merit and outcome of merit,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, and they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
B.ii “Since there actually is doing, one who holds the view ‘there is doing’ has right view. Since there actually is doing, one who intends ‘there is doing’ has right intention. Since there actually is doing, one who makes the statement ‘there is doing’ has right speech. Since there actually is doing, one who says ‘there is doing’ is not opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine that there is doing. Since there actually is doing, one who convinces another ‘there is doing’ convinces him to accept true Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept true Dhamma, he does not praise himself and disparage others. Thus any corrupt conduct that he formerly had is abandoned and pure virtue is substituted. And this right view, right intention, right speech, non-opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept true Dhamma, and avoidance of self-praise and disparagement of others—these several wholesome states thus come into being with right view as their condition.
B.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is doing, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, this good person will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no doing: still this good person is here and now praised by the wise as a virtuous person, one with right view who holds the doctrine of doing. And on the other hand, if there is doing, then this good person has made a lucky throw on both counts: since he is praised by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. He has rightly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends to both sides and excludes the unwholesome alternative.’
iii. The Doctrine of Non-Causality
A “Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled without cause or condition. There is no cause or condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified without cause or condition. There is no power, no energy, no manly strength, no manly endurance. All beings, all living things, all creatures, all souls are without mastery, power, and energy; moulded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes.’
B “Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There is a cause and condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled owing to a cause and condition. There is a cause and condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified owing to a cause and condition. There is power, energy, manly strength, manly endurance. It is not the case that all beings, all living things, all creatures, all souls are without mastery, power, and energy, or that moulded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
A.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings…they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
A.ii “Since there actually is causality, one who holds the view ‘there is no causality’ has wrong view. Since there actually is causality, one who intends ‘there is no causality’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is causality, one who makes the statement ‘there is no causality’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is causality, one who says ‘there is no causality’ is opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine of causality. Since there actually is causality, one who convinces another ‘there is no causality’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept an untrue Dhamma, and self-praise and disparagement of others—these several evil unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.
A.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is no causality, then on the dissolution of the body this good person will have made himself safe enough. But if there is causality, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no causality: still this good person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of non-causality. But on the other hand, if there is causality, then this good person has made an unlucky throw on both counts: since he is censured by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. He has wrongly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends only to one side and excludes the wholesome alternative.’
B.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is a cause and condition for the defilement of beings…they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, and they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.
B.ii “Since there actually is causality, one who holds the view ‘there is causality’ has right view. Since there actually is causality, one who intends ‘there is causality’ has right intention. Since there actually is causality, one who makes the statement ‘there is causality’ has right speech. Since there actually is causality, one who says ‘there is causality’ is not opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine of causality. Since there actually is causality, one who convinces another ‘there is causality’ convinces him to accept true Dhamma; and because is he convinces another to accept true Dhamma, he does not praise himself and disparage others. Thus any corrupt conduct that he formerly had is abandoned and pure virtue is substituted. And this right view, right intention, right speech, non-opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept true Dhamma, and avoidance of self-praise and disparagement of others—these several wholesome states thus come into being with right view as their condition.
B.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is causality, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, this good person will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no causality: still this good person is here and now praised by the wise as a virtuous person, one with right view who holds the doctrine of causality. And on the other hand, if there is causality, then this good person has made a lucky throw on both counts: since he is praised by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. He has rightly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends to both sides and excludes the unwholesome alternative.’
iv. There Are no Immaterial Realms
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There are definitely no immaterial realms.’
“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely are immaterial realms.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there are definitely no immaterial realms,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely are immaterial realms,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely are no immaterial realms,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the fine-material realms who consist of mind. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely are immaterial realms,” if their word is true then it is certainly possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. The taking up of rods and weapons, quarrels, brawls, disputes, recrimination, malice, and false speech are seen to occur based on material form, but this does not exist at all in the immaterial realms.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with material forms, to the fading away and cessation of material forms.
V. There is no Cessation of Being
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is definitely no cessation of being.’
“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely is a cessation of being.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there is definitely no cessation of being,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.
Four Kinds of Persons
“Householders, there are four kinds of persons to be found existing in the world. What four? Here a certain kind of person torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself. Here a certain kind of person torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others. Here a certain kind of person torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself, and he also torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others. Here a certain kind of person does not torment himself or pursue the practice of torturing himself, and he does not torment others or pursue the practice of torturing others. Since he torments neither himself nor others, he is here and now hungerless, extinguished, and cooled, and he abides experiencing bliss, having himself become holy.
“What kind of person, householders, torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself? Here a certain person goes naked, rejecting conventions…as Sutta 51, §8…Thus in such a variety of ways he dwells pursuing the practice of tormenting and mortifying the body. This is called the kind of person who torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself.
“What kind of person, householders, torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others? Here a certain person is a butcher of sheep…as Sutta 51, §9…or one who follows any other such bloody occupation. This is called the kind of person who torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others.
“What kind of a person, householders, torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself and also torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others? Here some person is a head-anointed noble king or a well-to-do brahmin… as Sutta 51, §10…And then his slaves, messengers, and servants make preparations, weeping with tearful faces, being spurred on by threats of punishment and by fear. This is called the kind of person who torments himself and pursues the practice of torturing himself and who torments others and pursues the practice of torturing others.
“What kind of person, householders, does not torment himself or pursue the practice of torturing himself and does not torment others or pursue the practice of torturing others—the one who, since he torments neither himself nor others, is here and now hungerless, extinguished, and cooled, and abides experiencing bliss, having himself become holy?
“Here, householders, a Tathāgata appears in the world…as Sutta 51, §§12-27 …He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
“This, householders, is called the kind of person who does not torment himself or pursue the practice of torturing himself and who does not torment others or pursue the practice of torturing others—the one who, since he torments neither himself nor others, is here and now hungerless, extinguished, and cooled, and abides experiencing bliss, having himself become holy.”
When this was said, the brahmin householders of Sālā said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the darkness for those with eyesight to see forms. We go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama accept us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge for life.”
สมัยหนึ่ง พระผู้มีพระภาคเสด็จจาริกไปในโกศลชนบทพร้อมด้วยภิกษุสงฆ์เป็นจำนวนมาก เสด็จถึงหมู่บ้านพราหมณ์ของชาวโกศล ชื่อว่าสาลา พราหมณ์และคหบดีชาวบ้านศาลาได้ฟังข่าวว่า พระสมณโคดมผู้เจริญบุตรของเจ้าศากยะ ออกบวชจากสกุลศากะยสกุลแล้ว เสด็จจาริกมาโกศลชนบทพร้อมด้วยภิกษุสงฆ์เป็นจำนวนมาก มาถึงหมู่บ้านศาลาแล้ว ก็กิตติศัพท์อันงามของพระโคดมผู้เจริญนั้นขจรไปแล้วอย่างนี้ว่า แม้เพราะเหตุนี้ๆ พระผู้มีพระภาคพระองค์นั้น เป็นพระอรหันต์ ตรัสรู้เองโดยชอบ ถึงพร้อมด้วยวิชชาและจรณะ เสด็จไปดีแล้ว ทรงรู้แจ้งโลก เป็นสารถีฝึกบุรุษที่ควรฝึก ไม่มีผู้อื่นยิ่งไปกว่า เป็นศาสดาของเทวดาและมนุษย์ทั้งหลาย เป็นผู้เบิกบานแล้ว เป็นผู้จำแนกธรรม พระผู้มีพระภาคพระองค์นั้น ทรงทำโลกนี้ พร้อมทั้งเทวโลก มารโลก พรหมโลก ให้แจ้งชัดด้วยพระปัญญาอันยิ่งของพระองค์เองแล้ว ทรงสอนหมู่สัตว์ พร้อมทั้งสมณพราหมณ์ พร้อมทั้งเทวดาและมนุษย์ให้รู้ตาม พระองค์ทรงแสดงธรรมงามในเบื้องต้น งามในท่ามกลาง งามในที่สุด ทรงประกาศพรหมจรรย์พร้อมทั้งอรรถ พร้อมทั้งพยัญชนะ อันบริสุทธิ์บริบูรณ์สิ้นเชิง ก็การได้เห็นพระอรหันต์ทั้งหลายเช่นนั้น ย่อมเป็นความดี.
ครั้งนั้น พราหมณ์และคหบดีชาวบ้านศาลาพากันเข้าไปเฝ้าพระผู้มีพระภาคยังที่ประทับ บางพวกถวายอภิวาทพระผู้มีพระภาคแล้วนั่งลงในที่สมควร บางพวกได้ปราศรัยกับพระผู้มีพระภาค ครั้นผ่านการปราศรัยพอให้ระลึกถึงกันไปแล้วก็นั่งลงในที่สมควร บางพวกประนมมือไหว้ไปทางพระผู้มีพระภาคแล้วก็นั่งลงในที่สมควร บางพวกประกาศชื่อและโคตรแล้วก็นั่งลงในที่สมควร บางพวกนั่งนิ่งอยู่ในที่สมควร.
พระผู้มีพระภาคได้ตรัสกับพราหมณ์และคหบดีชาวหมู่บ้านศาลา ผู้นั่งเรียบร้อยแล้วว่า พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ศาสดาคนใดคนหนึ่ง ซึ่งเป็นที่ชอบใจของท่านทั้งหลาย เป็นเหตุให้ได้ศรัทธาที่มีเหตุผล มีอยู่หรือไม่.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทูลว่า ภันเต ศาสดาคนใดคนหนึ่ง ซึ่งเป็นที่ชอบใจของข้าพระองค์ทั้งหลาย ที่เป็นเหตุให้ข้าพระองค์ทั้งหลายได้ศรัทธาที่มีเหตุผลนั้น ไม่มีเลย.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย เมื่อท่านทั้งหลายยังไม่ได้ศาสดาที่ชอบใจ พึงสมาทานอปัณณกธรรม1นี้แล้วประพฤติตามเถิด ด้วยว่าอปัณณกธรรมที่ท่านทั้งหลายสมาทานให้บริบูรณ์แล้ว จักเป็นไปเพื่อประโยชน์เกื้อกูล เพื่อความสุขแก่ท่านทั้งหลายตลอดกาลนาน พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ก็อปัณณกธรรมนั้นเป็นอย่างไร คือ
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย มีสมณพราหมณ์พวกหนึ่ง มีคำกล่าวอย่างนี้ มีความเห็นอย่างนี้ว่า ทานที่ให้แล้วไม่มี (ผล) ยัญที่บูชาแล้วไม่มี (ผล) การบูชาที่บูชาแล้วไม่มี (ผล) ผลแห่งกรรมที่สัตว์ทำดีทำชั่วไม่มี โลกนี้ไม่มี โลกหน้า2ไม่มี มารดาไม่มี บิดาไม่มี สัตว์ที่เป็นโอปปาติกะไม่มี สมณพราหมณ์ผู้ดำเนินไปโดยชอบ ปฏิบัติโดยชอบ ผู้ทำให้แจ้งซึ่งโลกนี้และโลกหน้าด้วยปัญญาอันยิ่งเอง แล้วสอนผู้อื่นให้รู้ตามไม่มี.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย มีสมณพราหมณ์พวกหนึ่ง มีคำกล่าวที่เป็นปรปักษ์3โดยตรงต่อสมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น เขากล่าวอย่างนี้ว่า ทานที่ให้แล้วมี (ผล) ยัญที่บูชาแล้วมี (ผล) การบูชาที่บูชาแล้วมี (ผล) ผลแห่งกรรมที่สัตว์ทำดีทำชั่วมี โลกนี้มี โลกหน้ามี มารดามี บิดามี สัตว์ที่เป็นโอปปาติกะมี สมณพราหมณ์ผู้ดำเนินไปโดยชอบ ปฏิบัติโดยชอบ ผู้ทำให้แจ้งซึ่งโลกนี้และโลกหน้าด้วยปัญญาอันยิ่งเอง แล้วสอนผู้อื่นให้รู้ตามก็มี.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ท่านทั้งหลายจะสำคัญความข้อนั้นว่าอย่างไร สมณพราหมณ์เหล่านี้ มีคำกล่าวที่เป็นปรปักษ์โดยตรงต่อกันและกันใช่หรือไม่.
เป็นอย่างนั้น ภันเต.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย บรรดาสมณพราหมณ์ทั้ง ๒ พวกนั้น สมณพราหมณ์เหล่าใดที่มีคำกล่าวอย่างนี้ มีความเห็นอย่างนี้ว่า ทานที่ให้แล้วไม่มี ยัญที่บูชาแล้วไม่มี การบูชาที่บูชาแล้วไม่มี ผลแห่งกรรมที่สัตว์ทำดีทำชั่วไม่มี โลกนี้ไม่มี โลกหน้าไม่มี มารดาไม่มี บิดาไม่มี สัตว์ที่เป็นโอปปาติกะไม่มี สมณพราหมณ์ผู้ดำเนินไปโดยชอบ ปฏิบัติโดยชอบ ผู้ทำให้แจ้งซึ่งโลกนี้และโลกหน้าด้วยปัญญาอันยิ่งเอง แล้วสอนผู้อื่นให้รู้ตามไม่มี ดังนี้ สมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น พึงหวังข้อนี้ได้ คือ จักเว้นจากกุศลธรรมทั้ง ๓ ประการเหล่านี้ คือ กายสุจริต วจีสุจริต มโนสุจริต และจักสมาทานอกุศลธรรมทั้ง ๓ ประการเหล่านี้ คือ กายทุจริต วจีทุจริต มโนทุจริต แล้วประพฤติอยู่ ข้อนั้นเพราะเหตุอะไร เพราะสมณพราหมณ์ผู้เจริญเหล่านั้นไม่เห็นโทษ ไม่เห็นความต่ำทราม ไม่เห็นความเศร้าหมองแห่งอกุศลธรรม ไม่เห็นอานิสงส์ในเนกขัมมะ อันเป็นความบริสุทธิ์ฝ่ายกุศลธรรม ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ ความเห็นของผู้นั้นว่า โลกหน้าไม่มี ความเห็นของเขานั้นเป็นมิจฉาทิฏฐิ ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ แต่เขาดำริว่าโลกหน้าไม่มี ความดำริของเขานั้นเป็นมิจฉาสังกัปปะ ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ แต่เขากล่าววาจาว่า โลกหน้าไม่มี วาจาของเขานั้นเป็นมิจฉาวาจา ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขากล่าวว่าโลกหน้าไม่มี ผู้นี้ย่อมทำตนเป็นปรปักษ์ต่อพระอรหันต์ผู้รู้แจ้งโลกหน้า ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขาทำผู้อื่นให้เข้าใจว่า โลกหน้าไม่มี การกระทำของเขานั้น เป็นอสัทธัมมสัญญัตติ์ (การทำให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจผิดจากความเป็นจริง) และด้วยอสัทธัมมสัญญัตติ์ของเขานั้น เขายังยกตน ยังข่มผู้อื่น เขาละความเป็นผู้มีศีลดีงามในกาลก่อน แล้วตั้งอยู่ในความเป็นผู้ทุศีล บาปอกุศลธรรมเป็นอันมากเหล่านี้ คือ มิจฉาทิฏฐิ มิจฉาสังกัปปะ มิจฉาวาจา ความเป็นปรปักษ์ต่อพระอริยะ การทำให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจผิดจากความเป็นจริง การยกตน การข่มผู้อื่น ย่อมเกิดขึ้น เพราะมิจฉาทิฏฐิเป็นปัจจัย.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ในบรรดาทิฏฐิของสมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น บุรุษผู้เป็นวิญญูชนย่อมใคร่ครวญเห็นอย่างนี้ว่า ถ้าโลกหน้าไม่มี เมื่อเป็นอย่างนี้ บุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ภายหลังจากการตายเพราะกายแตกทำลาย จักทำตนให้สวัสดีได้ ถ้าโลกหน้ามี เมื่อเป็นอย่างนี้ บุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ภายหลังจากการตายเพราะกายแตกทำลาย จักเข้าถึงอบาย ทุคติ วินิบาต นรก อนึ่ง ถ้าโลกหน้าไม่มีจริง คำของสมณพราหมณ์ผู้เจริญเหล่านั้น จะเป็นความจริงก็ตาม ถึงอย่างนั้น บุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ก็เป็นผู้อันวิญญูชนติเตียนได้ในปัจจุบันว่า เป็นบุรุษบุคคลทุศีล เป็นมิจฉาทิฏฐิ เป็นนัตถิกวาทะ3 ถ้าโลกหน้ามีจริง ความยึดถือของบุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ย่อมได้รับโทษในโลกทั้ง ๒ คือ ในปัจจุบัน ก็ถูกวิญญูชนติเตียนได้ และภายหลังจากการตายเพราะกายแตกทำลาย ก็จักเข้าถึงอบาย ทุคติ วินิบาต นรก อปัณณกธรรมนี้ ที่ผู้นั้นถือไว้ไม่ดี สมาทานไว้ไม่ดีอย่างนี้ ย่อมแผ่ไปโดยส่วนเดียว5 ย่อมตั้งอยู่เพื่อละเหตุแห่งกุศล.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ในบรรดาทิฏฐิของสมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น สมณพราหมณ์เหล่าใด มีคำกล่าวอย่างนี้ มีความเห็นอย่างนี้ว่า ทานที่ให้แล้วมี ยัญที่บูชาแล้วมี การบูชาที่บูชาแล้วมี ผลแห่งกรรมที่สัตว์ทำดีทำชั่วมี โลกนี้มี โลกหน้ามี มารดามี บิดามี สัตว์ที่เป็นโอปปาติกะมี สมณพราหมณ์ผู้ดำเนินไปโดยชอบ ปฏิบัติโดยชอบ ผู้ทำให้แจ้งซึ่งโลกนี้และโลกหน้าด้วยปัญญาอันยิ่งเอง แล้วสอนผู้อื่นให้รู้ตามก็มี ดังนี้ สมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น พึงหวังข้อนี้ได้ คือ จักเว้นจากอกุศลธรรมทั้ง ๓ ประการเหล่านี้ คือ กายทุจริต วจีทุจริต มโนทุจริต จักสมาทานกุศลธรรมทั้ง ๓ ประการเหล่านี้ คือ กายสุจริต วจีสุจริต มโนสุจริต แล้วประพฤติอยู่ ข้อนั้นเพราะเหตุอะไร เพราะสมณพราหมณ์ผู้เจริญเหล่านั้นเห็นโทษ เห็นความต่ำทราม เห็นความเศร้าหมองแห่งอกุศลธรรม เห็นอานิสงส์ในเนกขัมมะ อันเป็นความบริสุทธ์ฝ่ายกุศลธรรม ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ ความเห็นของผู้นั้นว่าโลกหน้ามีอยู่ ความเห็นของเขานั้นเป็นสัมมาทิฏฐิ ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขาดำริว่าโลกหน้ามีอยู่ ความดำริของเขานั้นเป็นสัมมาสังกัปปะ ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขากล่าวว่าโลกหน้ามีอยู่ วาจาของเขานั้นเป็นสัมมาวาจา ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขากล่าวว่า โลกหน้ามีอยู่ ชื่อว่าไม่ทำตนเป็นปรปักษ์ต่อพระอรหันต์ ผู้รู้แจ้งโลกหน้า ก็โลกหน้ามีอยู่ เขาทำให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจว่า โลกหน้ามีอยู่ การกระทำของเขานั้น เป็นสัทธัมมสัญญัตติ์ (การทำให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจตามความเป็นจริง) ด้วยสัทธัมมสัญญัตติ์ของเขานั้น เขาย่อมไม่ยกตน ไม่ข่มผู้อื่น เขาละความเป็นผู้ทุศีลในกาลก่อน แล้วตั้งอยู่ในความเป็นผู้มีศีลดี กุศลธรรมเป็นอันมากเหล่านี้ คือ สัมมาทิฏฐิ สัมมาสังกัปปะ สัมมาวาจา ความไม่เป็นปรปักษ์ต่อพระอริยะ การ ให้ผู้อื่นเข้าใจตามความเป็นจริง การไม่ยกตน การไม่ข่มผู้อื่น ย่อมเกิดขึ้น เพราะสัมมาทิฏฐิเป็นปัจจัย.
พราหมณ์และคหบดีทั้งหลาย ในทิฏฐิของสมณพราหมณ์เหล่านั้น บุรุษผู้เป็นวิญญูชนย่อมใคร่ครวญเห็นอย่างนี้ว่า ถ้าโลกหน้ามีอยู่ เมื่อเป็นอย่างนี้ บุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ภายหลังจากการตายเพราะกายแตกทำลาย จักเข้าถึงสุคติ โลก สวรรค์ อนึ่ง ถ้าโลกหน้าไม่มีจริง คำของสมณพราหมณ์ผู้เจริญเหล่านั้น จะเป็นความจริงก็ตาม เมื่อเป็นอย่างนั้น บุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ก็เป็นผู้อันวิญญูชนสรรเสริญได้ในปัจจุบันว่า เป็นบุรุษบุคคลมีศีล มีสัมมาทิฏฐิ เป็นอัตถิกวาท ถ้าโลกหน้ามีจริง ความยึดถือของบุรุษบุคคลผู้เจริญนี้ ย่อมไม่ได้รับโทษในโลกทั้ง ๒ คือ ในปัจจุบัน ก็วิญญูชนสรรเสริญ ภายหลังจากการตายเพราะกายแตกทำลาย ก็จักเข้าถึงสุคติ โลก สวรรค์ อปัณณกธรรมนี้ ที่ผู้นั้นถือไว้ดีแล้ว สมาทานไว้ดีแล้วอย่างนี้ ย่อมแผ่ไปโดยส่วน ๒ 6 ย่อมตั้งอยู่เพื่อละเหตุแห่งอกุศล. …
-บาลี ม. ม. 13/100/103.
https://84000.org/tipitaka/pali/?13//100, https://etipitaka.com/read/pali/13/100
1 อปัณณกธรรม = ธรรมที่ไม่ผิด, ธรรมที่แท้จริง.
2 โลกหน้า บางสำนวนแปล ใช้ว่า โลกอื่น.
3 ปรปักษ์ = ปรปักษ์, ศัตรู, ฝ่ายตรงข้าม.
4 นัตถิกวาทะ = คำกล่าวที่ว่า ไม่มีอะไรจริงเลย, ผู้เชื่อในทฤษฎีที่ว่าไม่มี หรือขาดสูญ.
5 ยึดถือคำพูดของตนฝ่ายเดียว.
6 ยึดถือคำพูดทั้งของตน และของผู้อื่น.
