MN 109 · The Longer Discourse on the Full-Moon Night
MN 109 · Mahāpuṇṇamasutta
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in the stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother in the Eastern Monastery.
Evaṁ me sutaṁ— ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ viharati pubbārāme migāramātupāsāde.
Now, at that time it was the sabbath—the full moon on the fifteenth day—and the Buddha was sitting in the open surrounded by the Saṅgha of monks.
Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā tadahuposathe pannarase puṇṇāya puṇṇamāya rattiyā bhikkhusaṅghaparivuto abbhokāse nisinno hoti.
Then one of the monks rose from his seat, arranged his robe over one shoulder, raised his cupped palms toward the Buddha, and said, “Sir, I’d like to ask the Buddha about a certain point, if you’d take the time to answer.”
Atha kho aññataro bhikkhu uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṁsaṁ cīvaraṁ katvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṁ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: “Puccheyyāhaṁ, bhante, bhagavantaṁ kiñcideva desaṁ, sace me bhagavā okāsaṁ karoti pañhassa veyyākaraṇāyā”ti.
“Well then, monk, take your own seat and ask what you wish.”
“Tena hi tvaṁ, bhikkhu, sake āsane nisīditvā puccha yadākaṅkhasī”ti.
That monk took his seat and said to the Buddha:
Atha kho so bhikkhu sake āsane nisīditvā bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:
“Sir, are these the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“ime nu kho, bhante, pañcupādānakkhandhā, seyyathidaṁ— rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho, saṅkhārupādānakkhandho, viññāṇupādānakkhandho”ti?
“Yes, they are,” replied the Buddha.
“Ime kho, bhikkhu, pañcupādānakkhandhā, seyyathidaṁ— rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho, saṅkhārupādānakkhandho, viññāṇupādānakkhandho”ti.
Saying “Good, sir”, that monk approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. Then he asked another question:
“Sādhu, bhante”ti kho so bhikkhu bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinanditvā anumoditvā bhagavantaṁ uttariṁ pañhaṁ pucchi:
“But sir, what is the root of these five grasping aggregates?”
“ime pana, bhante, pañcupādānakkhandhā kiṁmūlakā”ti?
“These five grasping aggregates are rooted in desire.”
“Ime kho, bhikkhu, pañcupādānakkhandhā chandamūlakā”ti.
“But sir, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”
“Taṁyeva nu kho, bhante, upādānaṁ te pañcupādānakkhandhā, udāhu aññatra pañcahupādānakkhandhehi upādānan”ti?
“Neither. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”
“Na kho, bhikkhu, taṁyeva upādānaṁ te pañcupādānakkhandhā, nāpi aññatra pañcahupādānakkhandhehi upādānaṁ. Yo kho, bhikkhu, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgo taṁ tattha upādānan”ti.
“But sir, can there be disparity in desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates?”
“Siyā pana, bhante, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavemattatā”ti?
“There can,” said the Buddha. “It’s when someone thinks: ‘In the future, may I be of such form, such feeling, such perception, such choices, and such consciousness!’ That’s how there can be disparity in desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates.”
“Siyā, bhikkhū”ti bhagavā avoca “idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa evaṁ hoti: ‘evaṁrūpo siyaṁ anāgatamaddhānaṁ, evaṁvedano siyaṁ anāgatamaddhānaṁ, evaṁsañño siyaṁ anāgatamaddhānaṁ, evaṁsaṅkhāro siyaṁ anāgatamaddhānaṁ, evaṁviññāṇo siyaṁ anāgatamaddhānan’ti. Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, siyā pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavemattatā”ti.
“Sir, what is the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates?”
“Kittāvatā pana, bhante, khandhānaṁ khandhādhivacanaṁ hotī”ti?
“Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of form. Any kind of feeling at all … Any kind of perception at all … Any kind of choices at all … Any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of consciousness. That’s the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates.”
“Yaṁ kiñci, bhikkhu, rūpaṁ—atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā, hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā, yaṁ dūre santike vā—ayaṁ rūpakkhandho. Yā kāci vedanā—atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikā vā sukhumā vā, hīnā vā paṇītā vā, yā dūre santike vā—ayaṁ vedanākkhandho. Yā kāci saññā—atītānāgatapaccuppannā …pe… yā dūre santike vā—ayaṁ saññākkhandho. Ye keci saṅkhārā—atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikā vā sukhumā vā, hīnā vā paṇītā vā, ye dūre santike vā—ayaṁ saṅkhārakkhandho. Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ—atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā, hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā, yaṁ dūre santike vā—ayaṁ viññāṇakkhandho. Ettāvatā kho, bhikkhu, khandhānaṁ khandhādhivacanaṁ hotī”ti.
“What is the cause, sir, what is the reason why the aggregate of form is found? What is the cause, what is the reason why the aggregate of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is found?”
“Ko nu kho, bhante, hetu ko paccayo rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya? Ko hetu ko paccayo vedanākkhandhassa paññāpanāya? Ko hetu ko paccayo saññākkhandhassa paññāpanāya? Ko hetu ko paccayo saṅkhārakkhandhassa paññāpanāya? Ko hetu ko paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa paññāpanāyā”ti?
“The four principal states are the reason why the aggregate of form is found. Contact is the reason why the aggregates of feeling, perception, and choices are found. Name and form are the reasons why the aggregate of consciousness is found.”
“Cattāro kho, bhikkhu, mahābhūtā hetu, cattāro mahābhūtā paccayo rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya. Phasso hetu, phasso paccayo vedanākkhandhassa paññāpanāya. Phasso hetu, phasso paccayo saññākkhandhassa paññāpanāya. Phasso hetu, phasso paccayo saṅkhārakkhandhassa paññāpanāya. Nāmarūpaṁ kho, bhikkhu, hetu, nāmarūpaṁ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa paññāpanāyā”ti.
“But sir, how does substantialist view come about?”
“Kathaṁ pana, bhante, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti?
“It’s when an unlearned ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the true persons. They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They regard feeling as self, self as having feeling, feeling in self, or self in feeling. They regard perception as self, self as having perception, perception in self, or self in perception. They regard choices as self, self as having choices, choices in self, or self in choices. They regard consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how substantialist view comes about.”
“Idha, bhikkhu, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto rūpaṁ attato samanupassati rūpavantaṁ vā attānaṁ attani vā rūpaṁ rūpasmiṁ vā attānaṁ; vedanaṁ attato samanupassati vedanāvantaṁ vā attānaṁ attani vā vedanaṁ vedanāya vā attānaṁ; saññaṁ attato samanupassati saññāvantaṁ vā attānaṁ attani vā saññaṁ saññāya vā attānaṁ; saṅkhāre attato samanupassati saṅkhāravantaṁ vā attānaṁ attani vā saṅkhāre saṅkhāresu vā attānaṁ; viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati viññāṇavantaṁ vā attānaṁ attani vā viññāṇaṁ viññāṇasmiṁ vā attānaṁ. Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.
“But sir, how does substantialist view not come about?”
“Kathaṁ pana, bhante, sakkāyadiṭṭhi na hotī”ti?
“It’s when a learned noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen true persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the true persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling as self, self as having feeling, feeling in self, or self in feeling. They don’t regard perception as self, self as having perception, perception in self, or self in perception. They don’t regard choices as self, self as having choices, choices in self, or self in choices. They don’t regard consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how substantialist view does not come about.”
“Idha, bhikkhu, sutavā ariyasāvako ariyānaṁ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto sappurisānaṁ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto na rūpaṁ attato samanupassati na rūpavantaṁ vā attānaṁ na attani vā rūpaṁ na rūpasmiṁ vā attānaṁ; na vedanaṁ attato samanupassati na vedanāvantaṁ vā attānaṁ na attani vā vedanaṁ na vedanāya vā attānaṁ; na saññaṁ attato samanupassati na saññāvantaṁ vā attānaṁ na attani vā saññaṁ na saññāya vā attānaṁ; na saṅkhāre attato samanupassati na saṅkhāravantaṁ vā attānaṁ na attani vā saṅkhāre na saṅkhāresu vā attānaṁ; na viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati na viññāṇavantaṁ vā attānaṁ na attani vā viññāṇaṁ na viññāṇasmiṁ vā attānaṁ. Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, sakkāyadiṭṭhi na hotī”ti.
“Sir, what’s the gratification, the drawback, and the escape when it comes to form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“Ko nu kho, bhante, rūpe assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṁ nissaraṇaṁ? Ko vedanāya assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṁ nissaraṇaṁ? Ko saññāya assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṁ nissaraṇaṁ? Ko saṅkhāresu assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṁ nissaraṇaṁ? Ko viññāṇe assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṁ nissaraṇan”ti?
“The pleasure and happiness that arise from form: this is its gratification. That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for form: this is its escape. The pleasure and happiness that arise from feeling … perception … choices … consciousness: this is its gratification. That consciousness is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for consciousness: this is its escape.”
“Yaṁ kho, bhikkhu, rūpaṁ paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ, ayaṁ rūpe assādo. Yaṁ rūpaṁ aniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, ayaṁ rūpe ādīnavo. Yo rūpe chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṁ, idaṁ rūpe nissaraṇaṁ. Yaṁ kho, bhikkhu, vedanaṁ paṭicca … saññaṁ paṭicca … saṅkhāre paṭicca … viññāṇaṁ paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ, ayaṁ viññāṇe assādo. Yaṁ viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, ayaṁ viññāṇe ādīnavo. Yo viññāṇe chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṁ, idaṁ viññāṇe nissaraṇan”ti.
“Sir, how does one know and see so that there’s no I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body and externally for all signs?”
“Kathaṁ pana, bhante, jānato kathaṁ passato imasmiñca saviññāṇake kāye bahiddhā ca sabbanimittesu ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā na hontī”ti?
“One truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: <em>all</em> form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ One truly sees any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: <em>all</em> consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ That’s how to know and see so that there’s no I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body and externally for all signs.”
“Yaṁ kiñci, bhikkhu, rūpaṁ—atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā—sabbaṁ rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passati. Yā kāci vedanā … yā kāci saññā … ye keci saṅkhārā … yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ—atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā—sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passati. Evaṁ kho, bhikkhu, jānato evaṁ passato imasmiñca saviññāṇake kāye bahiddhā ca sabbanimittesu ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā na hontī”ti.
Now at that time one of the monks had the thought, “So it seems, worthy sir, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then how will the deeds done by not-self affect the self?”
Atha kho aññatarassa bhikkhuno evaṁ cetaso parivitakko udapādi: “iti kira, bho, rūpaṁ anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṁ anattā; anattakatāni kammāni kamattānaṁ phusissantī”ti?
But the Buddha, knowing that monk’s train of thought, addressed the monks: “It’s possible that some futile person here—unknowing and ignorant, his mind dominated by craving—thinks he can overstep the Teacher’s instructions. He thinks: ‘So it seems, worthy sir, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then how will the deeds done by not-self affect the self?’ Now, monks, you have been educated by me in questioning with regard to all these things in all such cases.
Atha kho bhagavā tassa bhikkhuno cetasā cetoparivitakkamaññāya bhikkhū āmantesi: “ṭhānaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṁ idhekacco moghapuriso avidvā avijjāgato taṇhādhipateyyena cetasā satthu sāsanaṁ atidhāvitabbaṁ maññeyya: ‘iti kira, bho, rūpaṁ anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṁ anattā; anattakatāni kammāni kamattānaṁ phusissantī’ti. Paṭivinītā kho me tumhe, bhikkhave, tatra tatra dhammesu.
What do you think, monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“Impermanent, sir.”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?
“Suffering, sir.”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“No, sir.”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“What do you think, monks? Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, vedanā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“Impermanent, sir.”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?
“Suffering, sir.”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“No, sir.”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: <em>all</em> form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā sabbaṁ rūpaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.
You should truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: <em>all</em> consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Yā kāci vedanā … yā kāci saññā … ye keci saṅkhārā … yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati;
Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
nibbindaṁ virajjati, virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’”
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.
That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the monks approved what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of sixty monks were freed from defilements by not grasping.
Idamavoca bhagavā. Attamanā te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti. Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne saṭṭhimattānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṁsūti.
Mahāpuṇṇamasuttaṁ niṭṭhitaṁ navamaṁ.