Ven. Thanissaro (trans.) edited by Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Wisdom Quarterly, "The Water-Snake Simile" (MN 22), Alagaddupama Sutra; see also Ven. Nyanaponika (trans.)
About the sutra (translator's introduction)
This discourse is about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Buddhist Canon, the simile of the water snake and the simile of the raft.
They focus on the skillfulness needed to comprehend right views properly as a means of bringing about the complete end of suffering. But rather than taking it as an object of clinging, even with views and the Dharma that helps one to cross over to the further shore, one lets it go when it has done its job of getting beyond suffering.
In the first section leading up to the simile of the water snake, the focus is on the danger of misapprehending the Dharma in general, particularly teachings related to sensuality. The sutra does not elaborate how the offending monk, Arittha, formulated his misunderstanding of the Dharma, but the Commentary suggests this plausible scenario:
Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dharma (the teaching that leads to enlightenment and nirvana, to realization and liberation) is ultimately to be let go. In fact, one major Mahayana text -- the Diamond Sutra -- foolishly interprets the simile of the raft as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river.
However, the simile of the water snake makes the point that the Dharma first has to be correctly grasped. The trick rests on grasping it properly. When this point is applied to the simile of the raft, the implication is very clear: A Buddhist practitioner has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore -- when it has fully served its function -- can one let go of it.
Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the sutra, which focuses on the inscrutable teaching of not-self (anatta) crucial to a real understanding of Buddhism and the Buddha's message of complete liberation. The danger here is that due to its subtlety, complexity, and paradoxical nature, this teaching is one of the most easily misunderstood teachings in the entire Canon -- largely because it is possible to draw many incorrect inferences from it. (Ultimately it can only really be understood by direct realization, not by philosophy or sophistry. The Dharma is for understanding, not debating, for liberation, not for argument).
Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. (How could there NOT be a self? we naturally ask. But we must always understanding that it is said from a ultimate point of view. In a conventional sense, of course there is a self and it is often the topic of discussion. The great danger and the thing that leads to paradoxes is confusing ultimate and conventional truths).
Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on "self" and the truth of not-self to the Five Aggregates -- form (body), feelings (sensations), perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness -- he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as a "self." Or as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self [exactly the wrong view held not only by the Brahmanism the Buddha faced, but by modern Hinduism that says it accepts the Buddha as yet another incarnation (avatar) of God, and even by Mahayana Buddhism].
However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. [There is no self within or outside of the Five Aggregates, and once one understands the five, this becomes very clear, as Wisdom Quarterly has dealt with this tricky topic many times before. It is the central point of the most famous of all Buddhist discourses, the Heart Sutra.]
Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the Five Aggregates, the Buddha here focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification -- both more explicitly cosmic in their range -- (1) all that can be seen, heard, otherwise sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect, and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging.
In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular scrutiny and even some ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse. (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the entire experience of the universe that is eternal or unchanging or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."
The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, we should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.
In terms of what the Buddha teaches, he explicitly states that he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, could possibly avoid sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, or despair. He does not list all of the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:
So it is important to focus on how the Dharma is taught: Even in the Buddha's most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, he never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption [the faith, belief, or dogma] that there is no self.
Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving of a "self" and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the impermanence and suffering of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates [the groups or heaps of form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousnesses] are inconstant and painful there is no self. Instead he asks, When they are impermanent and suffering, is it correct to assume or say that they are "me, my self, what I am"?
Because the sense of self is a direct product of "I-making," the question gives rise a liberating sense of disenchantment and dispassion [to counter greed and craving] for that very I-making process and to put a stop to it. Once accomplished, the teaching fulfills its purpose of putting an end to disappointment suffering and stress. That's the safety of the further shore.
As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both formerly and now, monastics, I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering." As he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation. And as MN 140 points out, when one is truly free of agitation is nirvana experienced. The raft has reached the further shore and one can leave it there -- free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced.
 |
| Here, water snake, water snake! (Trouillebert) |
They focus on the skillfulness needed to comprehend right views properly as a means of bringing about the complete end of suffering. But rather than taking it as an object of clinging, even with views and the Dharma that helps one to cross over to the further shore, one lets it go when it has done its job of getting beyond suffering.
In the first section leading up to the simile of the water snake, the focus is on the danger of misapprehending the Dharma in general, particularly teachings related to sensuality. The sutra does not elaborate how the offending monk, Arittha, formulated his misunderstanding of the Dharma, but the Commentary suggests this plausible scenario:
"Here the monk...having gone into seclusion [to meditate], reasons as follows:
"'There are people living the household life [of a lay practitioner rather than a monastic], enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners [the first three stages of enlightenment short of the arhat, the fully enlightened person]. As for monastics, they see pleasurable forms cognizable by the eye, hear... smell... taste... touch (pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable by the body. They use soft carpets and clothing. All of this is proper.
"Then why should not the sight, sound, smell, taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!' Thus... comparing a mustard seed with Mount Sineru [Mt. Sumeru, the world mountain of incredible dimensions reaching up into space], Arittha gives rise to the pernicious view, 'Why did the Blessed One -- binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort -- formulate the first defeat (parajika) training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There is nothing wrong with that act.'"
Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: Just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dharma does not mean that that idea is either valid or useful. The Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2.25:"'There are people living the household life [of a lay practitioner rather than a monastic], enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners [the first three stages of enlightenment short of the arhat, the fully enlightened person]. As for monastics, they see pleasurable forms cognizable by the eye, hear... smell... taste... touch (pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable by the body. They use soft carpets and clothing. All of this is proper.
"Then why should not the sight, sound, smell, taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!' Thus... comparing a mustard seed with Mount Sineru [Mt. Sumeru, the world mountain of incredible dimensions reaching up into space], Arittha gives rise to the pernicious view, 'Why did the Blessed One -- binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort -- formulate the first defeat (parajika) training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There is nothing wrong with that act.'"
"Monastics, these two slander the Tathagata [the Wayfarer, the Welcome One, the Well Gone One, i.e., the Buddha]. Which two? One who explains a sutra whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And one who explains a sutra whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred..."
Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of the water snake, which in turn serves as an introduction to the famous simile of the raft. It is important to underline the connection between these two similes, as it is often missed.Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dharma (the teaching that leads to enlightenment and nirvana, to realization and liberation) is ultimately to be let go. In fact, one major Mahayana text -- the Diamond Sutra -- foolishly interprets the simile of the raft as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river.
However, the simile of the water snake makes the point that the Dharma first has to be correctly grasped. The trick rests on grasping it properly. When this point is applied to the simile of the raft, the implication is very clear: A Buddhist practitioner has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore -- when it has fully served its function -- can one let go of it.
Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the sutra, which focuses on the inscrutable teaching of not-self (anatta) crucial to a real understanding of Buddhism and the Buddha's message of complete liberation. The danger here is that due to its subtlety, complexity, and paradoxical nature, this teaching is one of the most easily misunderstood teachings in the entire Canon -- largely because it is possible to draw many incorrect inferences from it. (Ultimately it can only really be understood by direct realization, not by philosophy or sophistry. The Dharma is for understanding, not debating, for liberation, not for argument).
Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. (How could there NOT be a self? we naturally ask. But we must always understanding that it is said from a ultimate point of view. In a conventional sense, of course there is a self and it is often the topic of discussion. The great danger and the thing that leads to paradoxes is confusing ultimate and conventional truths).
Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on "self" and the truth of not-self to the Five Aggregates -- form (body), feelings (sensations), perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness -- he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as a "self." Or as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self [exactly the wrong view held not only by the Brahmanism the Buddha faced, but by modern Hinduism that says it accepts the Buddha as yet another incarnation (avatar) of God, and even by Mahayana Buddhism].
However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. [There is no self within or outside of the Five Aggregates, and once one understands the five, this becomes very clear, as Wisdom Quarterly has dealt with this tricky topic many times before. It is the central point of the most famous of all Buddhist discourses, the Heart Sutra.]
Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the Five Aggregates, the Buddha here focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification -- both more explicitly cosmic in their range -- (1) all that can be seen, heard, otherwise sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect, and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging.
In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular scrutiny and even some ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse. (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the entire experience of the universe that is eternal or unchanging or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."
The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, we should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.
In terms of what the Buddha teaches, he explicitly states that he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, could possibly avoid sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, or despair. He does not list all of the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:
I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of a self that I perceive self... It is precisely by means of a self that I perceive not-self... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive a self... or this very self of mine -- the knower that is sensitive here and there to the ripening of good and bad karma (actions) -- is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.
This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the ordinary uninstructed worldling is not freed from birth, aging, or death, not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. One is not freed, I tell you, from disappointment or suffering.
Thus the view "I have no self" is just as much a doctrine of self as the view "I have a self." Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls "I-making" -- the creation of a sense of self -- if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4.24). But as he says, the Dharma is taught for "the elimination of ALL wrong views, determinations, biases, inclinations, and obsessions; for the stilling of all formations; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions (things clung to); the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; nirvana."This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the ordinary uninstructed worldling is not freed from birth, aging, or death, not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. One is not freed, I tell you, from disappointment or suffering.
So it is important to focus on how the Dharma is taught: Even in the Buddha's most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, he never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption [the faith, belief, or dogma] that there is no self.
Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving of a "self" and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the impermanence and suffering of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates [the groups or heaps of form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousnesses] are inconstant and painful there is no self. Instead he asks, When they are impermanent and suffering, is it correct to assume or say that they are "me, my self, what I am"?
Because the sense of self is a direct product of "I-making," the question gives rise a liberating sense of disenchantment and dispassion [to counter greed and craving] for that very I-making process and to put a stop to it. Once accomplished, the teaching fulfills its purpose of putting an end to disappointment suffering and stress. That's the safety of the further shore.
As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both formerly and now, monastics, I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering." As he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation. And as MN 140 points out, when one is truly free of agitation is nirvana experienced. The raft has reached the further shore and one can leave it there -- free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced.
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, in Anathapindika's park. Now on that occasion this pernicious viewpoint (ditthigata, harmful wrong view) had arisen in the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers:
"As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not actual genuine obstructions." A large number of monastics heard, "They say that this pernicious view has arisen in the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers: 'As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not actual genuine obstructions.'"
So they went to the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers and on arrival said to him, "Is it true, friend Arittha, that this pernicious view has arisen in you -- 'As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not actual genuine obstructions'?"
"Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not actual genuine obstructions."
Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers from that pernicious view, quizzed him back and forth and rebuked him, saying, "Do not say so, friend Arittha. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts that when indulged in are actual genuine obstructions.
"The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction but much distress and despair with greater drawbacks than benefits. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much suffering, much despair, with greater drawbacks.
"The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake's head: of much suffering, much despair, with greater drawbacks" [Note 1]. And yet even though he was quizzed back and forth and rebuked by those monastics, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through stubbornness and attachment to that pernicious view, continued to insist, "Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not actual genuine obstructions."
So when the monastics were unable to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed they sat respectfully to one side. As they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened.]
So the Blessed One said to a certain monk, "Come, monk. In my name, call the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, saying, 'The Teacher calls you, friend Arittha.'"
"As you say, venerable sir," the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you, friend Arittha."
"As you say, friend," the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed, sat respectfully to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Arittha, that this pernicious view has arisen in you -- 'As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not actual genuine obstructions'?"
"Yes, indeed, venerable sir..."
"Foolish person [the Buddha is rebuking for emphasis with the word bala], from whom have you understood that Dharma taught by me in such a way? Foolish person, have I not in many ways described obstructive acts that when indulged in are actual genuine obstructions? I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction but much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks.
"I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, with greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake's head: of much suffering, much despair, with greater drawbacks. But you, foolish person, through your own wrong grasp [of the Dharma], have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time."[2]
Then the Blessed One said to the monastics, "What do you think, recluses? Is this monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm [3] in [approaching] this Doctrine and Discipline?"
"No, venerable sir. How could he be, venerable sir?"
When this was said, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.
Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Foolish person, you will be recognized for your own pernicious view. I will cross-examine the monastics on this matter."
Then the Blessed One addressed them, "Monastics, do you, too, understand the Dharma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers does when, through his own wrong grasp, both misrepresents us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself?"
"No, venerable sir! For in many ways has the Blessed One described obstructive acts to us that, when indulged in, are actual genuine obstructions. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.
"The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake's head: of much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks."
"It's good, monastics, that you understand the Dharma taught by me in this way. For in many ways have I described obstructive acts to you that, when indulged in, are actual genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks.
"I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake's head: of much distress, much despair, with greater drawbacks.
"But this monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through his own wrong grasp [of the Dharma], has both misrepresented us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself, and that will lead to this foolish person's harm and suffering for a long time. For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking, that is not possible [4].
The Water Snake Simile
"Monastics, there is the case where some foolish persons study the Dharma: sutras, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, inspired exclamations, quotations, past birth stories, amazing events, question and answer sessions. [These are the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dharma, they do not ascertain the meaning (or the purpose) of those things (dhammas) [5] with wisdom (proper discernment).
"Not having ascertained the meaning of those things with wisdom, they do not come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dharma both for arguing with others and for defending themselves in debate. They do not reach the goal for which [persons rightly] study the Dharma. Their wrong grasp of those things will lead to their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? It is because of the misapprehension (mis-grasping) of things.
"Suppose there were a person needing a water snake, seeking a water snake, wandering in search of a water snake. One might see a large water snake and grasp it by the tail or body (coils). The water snake, turning around, would bite that person on the hand, on the arm, or on some limb, and from that one would suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? It is because of the misapprehension of that water snake.
"In the same way, there is the case where some foolish persons study the Dharma... Having studied the Dharma, they do not ascertain the meaning of those things with wisdom. Not having ascertained the meaning of those things with wisdom, they do not come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dharma both for arguing with others and for defending themselves in debate. They do not reach the goal for which [people rightly] study the Dharma. Their wrong grasp of those things will lead to their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? It is because of the misapprehension of those things.
"But then there is the case where some member of the clan [a Shakya or kshatriya caste in general] study the Dharma... Having studied the Dharma, they ascertain the meaning of those thing with wisdom. Having ascertained the meaning of those things with wisdom, they come to agreement through pondering. They do not study the Dharma either for arguing with others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which [people rightly] study the Dharma. Their right grasp of those things will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that? It is because of the correct apprehension of those things.
"Suppose there were a person needing a water snake, seeking a water snake, wandering in search of a water snake. One might see a large water snake and pin it down firmly with a forked stick. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, one would grasp it firmly by the neck. Then no matter how much the water snake might wrap its coils around one's hand, arm, or any limb, one would not suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? It is because of correctly grasping the water snake.
"In the same way, there is the case where some members of the clan study the Dharma... Having studied the Dharma, they ascertain the meaning of those things with wisdom. Having ascertained the meaning of those things with wisdom, they come to agreement through pondering. They do not study the Dharma either for arguing with others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which [people rightly] study the Dharma. Their correct grasp of those things will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that? It is because of their correct apprehension of those things [6].
"Therefore, monastics, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you do not understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there and then you should cross-question me or the experienced monastics (learned monks and nuns).
The Raft Simile
 |
| My own Dharma boat is for crossing over. |
"As you say, venerable sir," they responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a person were traveling along a path. One might see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dangerous and full of peril, the further shore secure and free of risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought might occur, 'Here is this great expanse of water...What if I were to gather branches, grass, twigs, leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the further shore in dependence on the raft, making a strenuous effort with my own hands and feet?'
"Then the person, having gathered branches, grass, twigs, and leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the further shore in dependence on the raft, making a strenuous effort with one's own hands and feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, one might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making a strenuous effort with my own hands and feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, hoisting it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monastics, Would that person in doing that be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, venerable sir."
"And what should the person do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the person, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making a strenuous effort with my own hands and feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?'
"In doing this, one would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monastics, I have taught the Dharma comparable to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for clinging onto. Understanding the Dharma as taught comparable to a raft, you should let go even of good things [once their usefulness is realized and accomplished], to say nothing of harmful things."
"Monastics, there are these six wrong views (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an ordinary uninstructed worldling (an average person) -- who has no regard for noble ones [those on the stages of enlightenment], is not well-versed or disciplined in the ennobling Dharma, who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dharma -- assumes about form (this body or any material form): 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' More
No comments:
Post a Comment