Dependent Origination Sept. 10,1985

PaÔicca SamuppÈda - Tape One

Whenever something good happens to us, we say, This is my good kamma.” When bad things happen to us, we say, “This is my bad kamma.” When we say this is my good kamma or my bad kamma, we mean not the kamma itself, but the result of good and bad kamma. When we talk about a person being reborn, we say that he did something in the past and so he is reborn in the woeful states or he did something good in the past and so he is reborn in the blissful states.

There arises this problem: Did we really do the kamma in the past? Is it really us who did the kamma in the past? Is the present suffering or happiness the result of our doing or another? There is a Sutta about this. I don’t have the translation of the Sutta, that is, a complete translation. There is a partial translation of that Sutta by Bhikkhu ©ÈÓamoli in his book, The Life of the Buddha. He left out part of what is important. Let me read the Sutta.

“Once when the Blessed One had gone into RÈjagaha for alms, the naked ascetic Kassapa went up to him. After greeting him, he said, ‘We would ask Master Gotama something if the Master Gotama would consent to give answer’.”

Kassapa in this Sutta is not the Venerable MahÈ Kassapa that we know of. This is the naked ascetic Kassapa, who belongs to another religious group. He met the Buddha one day in the city of RÈjagaha. He greeted the Buddha and said that he wanted to ask about something if the Buddha would consent to answer.

“The Buddha said, ‘It is not the time for questions, Kassapa. We are among houses’.” That means we are in the city. “He asked a second and a third time and received the same reply.” So he asked three times and the Buddha said: No, it is not the time for questions.

“Then he said, ‘It is not much that we want to ask Master Gotama’.” I just want to a ask you a few things, not many.

“Then Buddha said, ‘Ask, Kassapa, whatever you like’.” The Commentary says something about why the Buddha let him ask three times. If he would have wanted to answer, he could have answered after being questioned just once. The Commentary explains that these people who belong to other religious groups do not have so much respect for the Buddha and his disciples. If the Buddha were to answer quickly, they would not respect much the answer. So Buddha made it a little difficult for him to get the answer. This is the technique great people use. Otherwise people may think: Gotama is easy. You can go to him and ask any question and get the answer easily. So the Buddha made him ask three times and he refused three times. Only after that did he give permission.

“Then the Buddha said, ‘Ask, Kassapa, what ever you like’.” Giving permission by the Buddha and giving permission by the disciples is different. If the Buddha’s disciple were asked a question, he would say: Ask, and after hearing the question perhaps I will know the answer. That is how disciples would respond to questions. But the Buddha’s response is different. Buddha said: “Ask whatever you like.” I will answer any question you want to ask. This is the difference between the disciples and the Buddha.

“Then the Buddha said: ‘Ask, Kassapa, whatever you like’.”

“How is it, Master Gotama, is suffering of one’s own making?” Here he did not address the Buddha very respectfully. He just said ‘Master Gotama’, not ‘Venerable Gotama’. In PÈÄi he just said ‘Bhavant Gotama’, not ‘Bhante’. Later you will see.

His question was: “How is it, Master Gotama, is suffering of one’s own making?” Is suffering done by you? Is suffering in this life done by you? Is suffering self-made? How would he answer?

Buddha said, “Do not put it like that, Kassapa.” Don’t say that. He just said that.

Kassapa went on. “Then is suffering of another’s making?” Is the suffering we suffer here done by another person, he asked.

Then the Buddha said, “Don’t put it like that, Kassapa.”

“Then is suffering both of one’s making and of another’s making?”

The Buddha said, “Don’t put it like that, Kassapa.” So there were three questions all answered in the same way.

“Then is suffering neither of one’s own making nor of another’s making, but fortuitous?”

“Don’t put it like that, Kassapa.”

So he asked is suffering neither one’s own not another’s making and is therefore causeless. The Buddha again said, “Don’t put it like that, Kassapa.”

“Then is there no suffering?”

“It is not a fact that there is no suffering. There is suffering, Kassapa.”

“Then does Master Gotama neither know nor see suffering?” Because the Buddha had said, “Don’t put it like that”, Kassapa thought that the Buddha did not know or see suffering.

The Buddha said, “It is not a fact that I neither know nor see suffering. I both know and see suffering, Kassapa.”

That is the end of the translation. For every question the Buddha said: Do not say so. Is dukkha made by oneself? Is dukkha made by another? Is dukkha made both by oneself and another? Is dukkha not made by oneself and another, but is causeless? Does Master Gotama neither know nor see suffering? Isn’t there suffering at all? These questions the Buddha answered: Don’t say so.

It is a way of making people confused. When Kassapa got these answers, he was confused. When someone becomes confused, when one does not know what the other person is saying, he has more respect for that other person. So sometimes things are stated in language that other persons do not understand.

So he said, “Master Gotama, I asked you these questions and you said, ‘Don’t put it that way’. I don’t know what you mean. Now, Bhante, please explain it to me.

He said ‘Bhante’. His pride was down. He could not make anything out of what the Buddha had said. Buddha gave him the answer. It is not in English.

The Buddha said: “If in the beginning you think that he does and he experiences the results, then you fall into the eternalist view, that everything is eternal.” You did something in the past and you exist eternally, and now you get the result of what you did in the past. If your view is that the same person does and experiences the result of action, then you fall into the eternalist view. With this if you say dukkha is done by oneself, the same, you depict or you show this eternal view and you arrive at the eternalist view. So when we say dukkha is done by oneself, that means the person who did the kamma in the past, the person who experiences the results in the present, is one and the same person. That person lives eternally from the past lives to the present life. If one thinks this way, one falls into the eternalist view.

What about ‘done by others’, two different persons? You have this view that the other person does and another person experiences the results of kamma. If you have this view, then when you are suffering pain, you say: This suffering is not done by me. This suffering is done by another person. Then you fall into the annihilationist view that everything dies at death and nothing remains. If you think that one person does the kamma and another person experiences the results of kamma, you will say: This dukkha is done by another. If you say this, you fall into the annihilationist view. If one person does an action and then another person reaps the fruit, that means the other person does not come to this life. That other person ceases to be at the end of that existence. That means that other person is annihilated at death. So you fall into the annihilationist view.

“Not approaching to these two extremes the TathÈgata (the Buddha) teaches the Middle Way.” So the Buddha did not say that dukkha is done by oneself and Buddha did not say that dukkha is done by another person. These are two extremes. One is eternalist view and the other is the annihilationist view. Not going to any of these two extremes the Buddha stays in the middle and teaches.

How did he teach? AvijjÈ paccayÈ sa~khÈrÈ and so on. Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way here is the teaching of PaÔicca SamuppÈda (the teaching of Dependent Origination).

Whether dukkha in this life is done by oneself or done by another, or done by oneself and another, or is without cause, it is to be understood according to the doctrine of Dependent Origination or Conditioned Genesis. According to this doctrine there is no person who does the action and no person who reaps the fruit of the action. Pure phenomena roll on and on and on. So everything is to be understood through or with reference to PaÔicca SamuppÈda.

Then what about when the Buddha said that he was someone in the past and he became the Buddha? It sounds like he was the same person coming from that life to this life. Even the Buddha could not avoid using these conditional terms. Therefore, I think that there is no harm in our saying you did something in the past and you get the result here. This us just for the convenience of usage that we say: You did something in the past and now you get the results. In reality there is no ‘you’ at all. There are just five aggregates, just nÈma and r|pa, just ignorance and so on. These dhammas, these five aggregates, nÈma-r|pa roll on and on depending on one another. It is to be understood in this way.

Buddha taught here both the positive method and the negative method. In PÈÄi it is called ‘reverse’, but ‘reverse’ does not mean going back from the end to the beginning.

‘Reverse’ just means cessation. Due to the cessation of avijjÈ (ignorance) there is cessation of sa~khÈra and so on.

When this was taught to the naked ascetic, Kassapa, he was very pleased with this teaching. He fully understood the teaching of the Buddha. So he expressed his joy, his appreciation of the Buddha’s teaching. He asked for ordination from him.

The Buddha said that if a person who belonged to another religious group wanted to become a bhikkhu in his dispensation, he must stay on probation for four months. Only after the probation period would he be ordained as a monk.

When this was said, Kassapa said, “Bhante, if it is required that I should be on probation for four months, I will be on probation not for four months but for four years; I am so interested in your teaching and want so much to become your disciple.”

The Buddha said, “Oh, Buddhas know the differences of people.” That means the Buddha knows if this person is worthy of the probation or if this person is not worthy of the probation. “I know you are sincere, so you do not have to stay on probation for four months.” Then the Buddha called another monk and had him ordain Kassapa as a sÈmaÓera. After that the Buddha gave him full ordination as a monk. Not long after that Kassapa, the former naked ascetic, went to a secluded place, practiced meditation and became an Arahant.

When we talk about kamma and its results, sometimes we forget about this doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda, the doctrine of Anatta. We just say that you did something in the past and you get the results here. We are to understand that as not meaning either the eternalist view or the annihilationist view. It is for the convenience of usage that we use ‘you’, ‘he’ and so on. Actually there is no doer apart from doing and there is no experiencer apart from experiencing. There is no person, no man, no woman doing the deed; there is just doing of the deed. In this way we should understand the teachings.

Is dukkha self-made? How would you answer? We cannot even answer ‘no’. That is why the Buddha did not answer ‘no’, but instead said, ‘don’t put it that way’, ‘don’t say so’. It is not done by oneself or done by another; it is not done by both oneself and another, and it is not causeless. It is not that the Buddha did not know about suffering because the Buddha saw suffering very clearly.

Now let us look as the doctrine of Dependent Origination or Conditioned Genesis. This doctrine is a very important doctrine in Buddhism. It is inter-related with kamma and its results, rebirth, and also it should be understood with reference to what is taught in the seventh book of Abhidhamma, the PaÔÔhÈna.

This doctrine of cause and effect, the doctrine of Dependent Origination or the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis is always in the world whether the Buddhas appear or not. Buddha himself declared that. “Whether the Perfect Ones appear in this world or not, this structure of causality, this reality in cause-effect relationship always remains. But a TathÈgata comes into the world and discovers it, knows it thoroughly, and makes it known to the world.” Dependent Origination is not created by the Buddha. He discovered it. After discovering it, he gave it to the world.

When did he discover this doctrine of Dependent Origination? After becoming the Buddha or before? When the Buddha-to-be was sitting under the Bodhi Tree, he made up his mind that he would not break his sitting until he reached Buddhahood. He sat all night under the Bodhi Tree. During the first watch of the night (There are three watches, so about four hours) he practiced breathing meditation. He attained the first jhÈna, second jhÈna, third jhÈna and fourth jhÈna. Also he attained the four formless jhÈnas. After that he attained the supernormal knowledge called ‘remembering past lives’ (pubbenivÈsÈnussati). During the second watch of the night he got the super normal power of the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu). With that supernormal power he could see beings dying in one existence and being reborn in other existences. That is called ‘the divine eye’. He saw that if some being did something bad that that being was reborn in hell, reborn in the woeful states. If a being had done good in the past, he saw that being was reborn in the human world or in the world of celestial beings. That is why the Buddha’s understanding of the law of kamma is very exact. So during the second watch of the night he got the knowledge or supernormal power of seeing beings dying and taking rebirth.

After that during the third watch of the night, he contemplated on Dependent Origination as a Bodhisatta. When he contemplated on Dependent Origination, he did not do it taking it from the beginning. He went backwards. He took from the end and went backwards close to the beginning. He picked up decay and death. He found out what conditions decay and death. He found that jÈti or rebirth conditions decay and death. Then he looked at why there is rebirth and saw that it was because of becoming or kamma-bhava as condition for rebirth. Then he saw grasping was the cause for kamma-bhava (becoming) and so on. So he went back until he reached nÈma-r|pa and consciousness. He saw that nÈma-r|pa was conditioned by consciousness. Then he stopped there. He did not go further. He turned back. He saw that consciousness was also conditioned by nÈma-r|pa. NÈma-r|pa is conditioned by consciousness and consciousness is conditioned by nÈma-r|pa. He went back again (through the conditions) until he reached old age and death.

He also contemplated in the negative mode. Because there is the disappearance of rebirth there is the disappearance of old age and death and so on.

Before he became the Buddha, the Bodhisatta contemplated on the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda (Dependent Origination) back and forth. After contemplating on PaÔicca SamuppÈda, he practiced vipassanÈ meditation. By the practice of vipassanÈ meditation he reached the different stages of sainthood, the different stages of attainment, one by one. At about dawn he reached the fourth stage. With the attainment of the fourth stage omniscience and the other exclusive types of knowledge of the Buddhas came to him. He became a fully enlightened one.

PaÔicca SamuppÈda was contemplated on by the Buddha even before he became the Buddha, that is, as a Bodhisatta. It is said that every Bodhisatta contemplates on PaÔicca SamuppÈda before becoming a Buddha. This is the nature of Bodhisattas and Buddhas. Nobody tells them to contemplate on PaÔicca SamuppÈda (Dependent Origination). By the force of their pÈramÊs, their past perfections, they contemplate on the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda.

After becoming the Buddha, the next day, that is, the day after he became the Buddha, he reflected on the doctrine of PaÔicca samuppÈda again. But this time he reflected as we have it now, beginning with avijjÈ paccayÈ sa~khÈrÈ (conditioned by avijjÈ sa~khÈras arise) and so on. He contemplated or reflected upon it in the positive mode and also in the negative mode. On the eighth day after his enlightenment he again reflected on this doctrine of Dependent Origination.

All through his ministry of forty-five years he taught Dependent Origination again and again to monks, to lay people, to devas and so on. This Dependent Origination is a very important doctrine in Buddhism.

This doctrine is very deep and profound. It is difficult to understand. But it looks like it is not so deep. So the Venerable Œnanda once told the Buddha even though PaÔicca SamuppÈda (Dependent Origination) is deep, yet he did not regard it as deep. He could understand it easily. Buddha said: Don’t say that. Let me read from the Sutta.

“The Exalted One was once staying among the Kurus at KammÈsadhamma, a suburb of the Kurus. Now the Venerable Œnanda went to the Exalted One, saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated the Venerable Œnanda said this to the Exalted One: ‘Wonderful Lord! Marvelous Lord! How deep is the Causal Law (Dependent Origination) and how deep it seems, and yet do I regard it as quite plain to understand’.” It is not difficult for me to understand PaÔicca SamuppÈda is what Venerable Œnanda is saying.

The Buddha said, “Say not so. Say not so. Deep indeed is this Causal Law and deep it appears to be.” There are some things which are deep but which don’t seem to be deep and there are some things which are not deep but seem to be deep and there are some things which are not deep but seem to be deep and son. So Buddha said, “Deep indeed is this Causal Law and deep it appears to be.”

“It is by not knowing, by not understanding, by not penetrating this doctrine that this world of man has become entangled like a ball of twine, become covered with mildew, become like a muÒja grass and rushes unable to pass beyond the doom of the way of woe of the four woeful states and the ceaseless round of rebirth.”

So Venerable Œnanda once thought that it was deep but that it did not seem deep to him. Buddha said: Do not say so. It is deep and difficult to understand. It is difficult to understand because we need the basic knowledge of the Buddha’s teachings to understand the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda (the doctrine of Dependent Origination).

This doctrine of Dependent Origination the Buddha sometimes put into a very short formula. It is quite short, not very long. Then it is put into even a still shorter formula. One of the first five disciples of the Buddha put it into a verse and taught it to Venerable SÈriputta, the lay person Upatissa at that time. There were five disciples to whom Buddha preached his first sermon. The youngest of them was called Venerable Assaji. At that time Venerable SÈriputta (Upatissa) was an ascetic. He had not become a disciple of the Buddha. He saw Venerable Assaji and thought that something profound might be in his heart because his behavior was so calm and serene. So he followed him. They stopped at a place and ate. After eating, Venerable SÈriputta (Upatissa), who was not yet a disciple of the Buddha, asked Venerable Assaji whose pupil he was, whose doctrine he liked and so on.

Then Venerable Assaji said, “I am new to this religion. I am new to the teachings of the Buddha, so I do not know much.”

Then Venerable SÈriputta (Upatissa) said, “Don’t worry about that. Tell me in brief or just the gist of what your teacher taught. I am able to understand it by different ways.”

So Venerable Assaji just taught him a verse. That verse became very famous and popular among Buddhists. Let me read it in PÈÄi first. Ye dhammÈ hetuppabhavÈ, tesaÑ hetuÑ tathÈgato Èha, tesanea yo nirodho, evamvÈdÊ mahÈsamaÓo. The Buddha has the causes told of all things springing from causes, and also how things cease to be, this the mighty monk has proclaimed.”

The Sub-Commentary said that this explains the law of Dependent Origination in a very brief form. “The Buddha the causes has told of all things springing from causes.” There are things that spring from causes and Buddha has told us the causes of things. He has also told us how these things cease to be. That is the negative mode of Dependent Origination.

Venerable SÈriputta was so quick in understanding that after hearing just the two lines of this verse (There are four lines.), he became a SotÈpanna. He listened to two lines as a puthujjana and the other two lines as a SotÈpanna. This is because it was his last life and he became a chief disciple of the Buddha. He was foremost among those who had great wisdom.

I told you that this verse became very popular. It was the custom of Buddhists to write PaÔicca SamuppÈda, the full formula, as well as this verse on gold plated or copper plates. They would enshrine them in pagodas or stupas. Sometimes when you visit some old pagodas, you may find these plates with inscriptions on them.

This verse was used by one of the Burmese kings for something like a decoration of Buddha images. He had many Buddha images made of clay and he had this stanza embossed on the pedestal where the Buddha sits. It is funny. He made one change in the stanza. The last line of the stanza says, “EvamavÈdÊ mahÈsamaÓo.” That means the great monk has proclaimed this. In place of great or mighty monk he put his name. So he said, “EvamavÈdÊ Sri Aniruddhadeva.” Aniruddha is his name and we call him Anawrahta. You can see many of these statues in the area of Pagan in Myanmar. They belong to the eleventh century A.D. There are many Buddhist statues with this stanza embossed on the pedestal, but with “EvamavÈdÊ Sri Aniruddhadeva.” That says the glorious King Aniruddha. He made a lot of these statues. So it is very popular. Actually every Buddhist should know this stanza.

Sometimes the Buddha put the whole of this formula as a very short one. It is something like what you have in logic. The Buddha said, “ImasmiÑ sati idaÑ hoti.” (When this is, that is.) “Imass’uppÈdÈ idaÑ uppajjati.” (This arising, that arises.) This line stands for the normal or positive mode of Dependent Origination. “ImasmiÑ asati idaÑ na hoti.” (This is not, that is not.) “Imass’nirodhaÑ idaÑ nirodhati.” (This ceases, that ceases.) That is the reverse mode.

This is a very brief form in which the whole of PaÔicca SamuppÈda is put into. When A is, B is. When A is not, B is not. When A arises, B arises. When A ceases, B ceases and so on. PaÔicca SamuppÈda like when A is, B is; when B is, C is; when C is, D is and so on. This is the shortest form in which the whole doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda (Dependent Origination) was put.

I told you PaÔicca SamuppÈda is deep, profound and difficult to understand. The Venerable Buddhaghosa wrote one whole chapter on this doctrine in his famous Visuddhi Magga. At the beginning of his Commentary on this doctrine he had something to say about the profundity of Dependent Origination. He said that it was like being thrown in an ocean. He could not find a foothold, so deep was the doctrine of Dependent Origination. Only those who have attainment and only those who are clever with the whole of the TipiÔaka could write Commentaries on it. The he said that there are the teachings of the Buddha and there is the unbroken tradition of the way of the Elders or the unbroken teachings of the Elders. Therefore, depending upon the teachings of the Buddha and the teachings of the Elders, he was going to write his Commentary on Dependent Origination. He wanted the readers to take it seriously and to have respect for this doctrine. So he said that it was very difficult to do. Even I do not find a foothold in this doctrine, but depending upon the doctrine itself and other teachings, and the Commentaries, I will write this Commentary on Dependent Origination.

Let me read from what the Commentator had to say. “Therefore considering that to commence on Dependent Origination is impossible except for those who are expert in the texts, at first I would not begin to comment on the structure of conditions. (That is PaÔicca SamuppÈda.) I find no footing on such a source. I seem to founder as in a sea. However, many modes of teaching graces the Dispensation here. Still the former teachers’ way is handed down unbroken. Therefore on both of these relying for support I now begin its meaning to elucidate. Listen therefore attentively.” Even the venerated Commentator had this to say.

He said that there are four things that are difficult to understand and difficult to teach. One is the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are difficult to understand and they are difficult to teach to other people. It is difficult to understand about being and to teach it to other people. A being is just mind and matter. In mind one part is kamma, and due to this kamma a being is reborn in different states of existence. It is difficult to know this and it is difficult to teach. The third is paÔisandhi (rebirth). To talk about rebirth is also difficult because in Buddhism although rebirth is accepted, Atman is not accepted. To explain rebirth without soul or Atman is not an easy task. So it is difficult to understand and it is difficult to teach to other people. Last the structure of conditions (That means PaÔicca SamuppÈda.) is difficult to understand and difficult to teach. So the Ancients said, “The Truth, Being, Rebirth Linking and the Structure of Conditions are four things very hard to see and likewise difficult to teach.” Then Venerable Buddhaghosa commented upon the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda.

When we study the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda, it is important that we study it also with reference to PaÔÔhÈna. The PaÔÔhÈna is the last, the seventh book of Abhidhamma where the twenty-four modes of conditions or twenty-four modes of relationships are taught. It is important to understand how each factor in PaÔicca SamuppÈda is related or conditioned by the preceding factor. It is important to understand the relationship, let us say, between the first and second factors, the second and third factors and so on. If we don’t understand the modes or relationships, we do not understand fully the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda.

Since PaÔÔhÈna, the twenty-four modes or relationships, is very difficult to understand, many authors writing in English do not write commentaries on PaÔicca SamuppÈda with reference to PaÔÔhÈna. In the translation of the Visuddhi Magga (The Path of Purification) you will find all twenty-four modes or relationships explained. Also each of the relationships between the factors in PaÔicca SamuppÈda is explained.

Even though we cannot go into all the details, we should at least understand some modes or relationships between these factors so that we understand the fully. When we say that ignorance conditions mental formations, and mental formations condition consciousness, consciousness conditions mind and matter and so on, we think that ignorance produces mental formations; mental formations produce consciousness; consciousness produces mind and matter and so on. We understand that way. In some cases that is not so. In some links the first factor and the second factor are related by way of coexistence. That means that they arise at the same time but one is called the conditioning factor and the other is called the conditioned factor. Not all the factors are related by producing cause and the product. Some are related by way of coexisting. Some are related by way of a condition that does not produce a result, but by a condition which helps something to arise. Theses modes or relationships are very helpful in correctly understanding the doctrine of PaÔicca SamuppÈda. So if you study Dependent Origination, please do not leave the twenty-four modes or relationships out of your studies. Although it is difficult, be patient and try to understand with reference to the twenty-four modes or conditions taught in PaÔÔhÈna. Only this way will you understand the Dependent Origination very well.

Tomorrow I will talk about Dependent Origination in some detail. I would like to read something. You know TheravÈda is called the Arahant ideal. We have Arahants as our ideal. I talked about how Arahants live harmoniously and peacefully the other day. Although we may not be able to follow fully the model of these Arahants, we should try to follow their model as much as possible. The more that we can follow them, the happier we will be. Today I want to read something about the Arahants.

“Once the Exalted One was staying near SÈvatthi at Jeta Grove in the monastery of AnÈthapiÓÉika. Now on that occasion the Venerable Khema and the Venerable Sumana were also staying near SÈvatthi in that wood. The Venerable Khema and the Venerable Sumana approached the Blessed One, saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated the Venerable Khema said this to the Exalted One: “Lord, a brother who is an Arahant, a destroyer of the Èsavas (‘Œsava’ means cankers or corruptions.), one who has lived the life, done the task, laid down the burden, one who has won his own salvation, one who has plucked the thorns that bind to becoming, who is by knowledge perfectly set free, such a one does not think better am I, or worse am I, or equal am I with respect to others.” This should be our ideal.

Whenever we meet some other person we try to evaluate him. We say to ourselves, “He is better than me; he is worse than me; or he is my equal.” But Arahants don’t do that. “Such a one does not think, ‘Better am I, or worse am I, or equal am I with respect to others.’ So said the Venerable Khema and the Master approved his words. Thereupon the Venerable Khema said, ‘The master approves’, arose and going by the right, went away.”

“Not long after he had gone, the Venerable Sumana addressed the Exalted One with the same words and the Master approved of his words. Thereupon the Venerable Sumana said, ‘The Master approves’. He got up, saluted the Exalted One, keeping him on the right and went away.”

“Not long after those two brothers were gone, the Exalted One said to the brethren, ‘Brethren, that is how clansmen testify to having realized. The gist of the thing is told and the self is not brought into question’.”

He said that an Arahant does not think: Better am I; or worse am I; or equal am I with respect to others. By saying that the two Venerables had testified to having realized the Dhamma. “Brethren, that is how clansmen testify to having realized. The gist of the thing is told and the self is not brought into question. But there are some deluded creatures who are ??? herein who think when they testify to having realized. Such come to discomfort later on. Not swayed by thoughts of equal, high or low are such as these. One thought is theirs, ‘Destroyed is birth. This is the holy life. Freed from the bonds that bind to birth are we’.” If we can follow these Arahants as much as we can, we will be happy. Otherwise whenever we meet a person we will say: He is better than I am; he is not so good as I am; or he is equal. When you make this evaluation and the person is definitely better than you, then you may feel something bad about yourself or about that person. Then you have akusala. So don’t think better am I, or worse am I, or equal am I with respect to others. We should remember this again and again.

SÈdhu! SÈdhu! SÈdhu!