sn22.59 — Anattalakkhaṇasutta

Ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā bārāṇasiyaṁ viharati isipatane migadāye.

At one time, the Bhagavā was dwelling at Bārāṇasī, in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

Tatra kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye bhikkhū āmantesi:

There the Bhagavā addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five:

“bhikkhavo”ti.

“Bhikkhus.”

“Bhadante”ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ.

“Venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied to the Bhagavā.

Bhagavā etadavoca:

The Bhagavā said this:

“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.

“Form [Rūpaṁ], bhikkhus, is not-self [anattā].

Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:

For if this form [rūpaṁ], bhikkhus, were self, this form [rūpaṁ] would not lead to affliction, and one could obtain of form [rūpe]:

‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my form [rūpaṁ] be thus; let my form [rūpaṁ] not be thus.’

Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:

But because, bhikkhus, form [rūpaṁ] is not-self [anattā], therefore form [rūpaṁ] leads to affliction, and one cannot obtain of form [rūpe]:

‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my form [rūpaṁ] be thus; let my form [rūpaṁ] not be thus.’

Vedanā anattā.

Vedanā is not-self [anattā].

Vedanā ca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ vedanā ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya:

For if this vedanā, bhikkhus, were self, this vedanā would not lead to affliction, and one could obtain of vedanā:

‘evaṁ me vedanā hotu, evaṁ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my vedanā be thus; let my vedanā not be thus.’

Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā, tasmā vedanā ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati vedanāya:

But because, bhikkhus, vedanā is not-self [anattā], therefore vedanā leads to affliction, and one cannot obtain of vedanā:

‘evaṁ me vedanā hotu, evaṁ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my vedanā be thus; let my vedanā not be thus.’

Saññā anattā …pe…

Saññā is not-self [anattā] …

saṅkhārā anattā.

Saṅkhāras are not-self [anattā].

Saṅkhārā ca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissaṁsu, nayidaṁ saṅkhārā ābādhāya saṁvatteyyuṁ, labbhetha ca saṅkhāresu:

For if these saṅkhāras, bhikkhus, were self, these saṅkhāras would not lead to affliction, and one could obtain of saṅkhāras:

‘evaṁ me saṅkhārā hontu, evaṁ me saṅkhārā mā ahesun’ti.

‘Let my saṅkhāras be thus; let my saṅkhāras not be thus.’

Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā anattā, tasmā saṅkhārā ābādhāya saṁvattanti, na ca labbhati saṅkhāresu:

But because, bhikkhus, saṅkhāras are not-self [anattā], therefore saṅkhāras lead to affliction, and one cannot obtain of saṅkhāras:

‘evaṁ me saṅkhārā hontu, evaṁ me saṅkhārā mā ahesun’ti.

‘Let my saṅkhāras be thus; let my saṅkhāras not be thus.’

Viññāṇaṁ anattā.

Viññāṇa is not-self [anattā].

Viññāṇañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ viññāṇaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca viññāṇe:

For if this viññāṇa, bhikkhus, were self, this viññāṇa would not lead to affliction, and one could obtain of viññāṇa:

‘evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ hotu, evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my viññāṇa be thus; let my viññāṇa not be thus.’

Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ anattā, tasmā viññāṇaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati viññāṇe:

But because, bhikkhus, viññāṇa is not-self [anattā], therefore viññāṇa leads to affliction, and one cannot obtain of viññāṇa:

‘evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ hotu, evaṁ me viññāṇaṁ mā ahosī’ti.

‘Let my viññāṇa be thus; let my viññāṇa not be thus.’

Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave,

What do you think, bhikkhus:

rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?

is form [rūpaṁ] permanent or impermanent [aniccaṁ]?”

“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.

“Impermanent [Aniccaṁ], bhante.”

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?

“But what is impermanent [aniccaṁ]—is that dukkha or sukha?”

“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.

“Dukkha, bhante.”

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ:

“But what is impermanent [aniccaṁ], dukkha, and subject to change—is it proper to regard it thus:

‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”

“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“No, bhante.”

“Vedanā …

“Vedanā …

saññā …

saññā …

saṅkhārā …

saṅkhāras …

viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?

is viññāṇa permanent or impermanent [aniccaṁ]?”

“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.

“Impermanent [Aniccaṁ], bhante.”

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?

“But what is impermanent [aniccaṁ]—is that dukkha or sukha?”

“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.

“Dukkha, bhante.”

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ:

“But what is impermanent [aniccaṁ], dukkha, and subject to change—is it proper to regard it thus:

‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”

“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“No, bhante.”

“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.

“Therefore, bhikkhus, whatever form [rūpaṁ] there is—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near—all form [rūpaṁ] should be seen as it truly is with right paññā thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattā vā bahiddhā vā …pe… yā dūre santike vā, sabbā vedanā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

Whatever vedanā there is—past, future, or present; internal or external … far or near—all vedanā should be seen as it truly is with right paññā thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Yā kāci saññā …pe…

Whatever saññā there is …

ye keci saṅkhārā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā …pe… ye dūre santike vā, sabbe saṅkhārā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

whatever saṅkhāras there are—past, future, or present; internal or external … far or near—all saṅkhāras should be seen as they truly are with right paññā thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

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.

Whatever viññāṇa there is—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near—all viññāṇa should be seen as it truly is with right paññā thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati.

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the learned noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form [rūpasmimpi], becomes disenchanted with vedanā, becomes disenchanted with saññā, becomes disenchanted with saṅkhāras, becomes disenchanted with viññāṇa.

Nibbindaṁ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti.

Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate; through dispassion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is the knowledge: ‘Liberated.’

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.

He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done; there is no more for this state of being.’”

Idamavoca bhagavā.

This is what the Bhagavā said.

Attamanā pañcavaggiyā bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinanduṁ.

Delighted, the bhikkhus of the group of five rejoiced in the Bhagavā’s statement.

Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṁsūti.

And while this exposition was being spoken, the cittas of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the āsavas through non-upādāna.

sn22.59 · Anattalakkhaṇasutta