Ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā vesāliyaṁ viharati mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṁ. Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā anurādho bhagavato avidūre araññakuṭikāyaṁ viharati. Atha kho sambahulā aññatitthiyā paribbājakā yenāyasmā anurādho tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmatā anurādhena saddhiṁ sammodiṁsu. Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdiṁsu. Ekamantaṁ nisinnā kho te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ etadavocuṁ:
At one time, the Blessed One was dwelling at |Vesāli::capital of the Licchavīs [vesālī]|, in the |Great Forest::name of a forest outside Vesāli; lit. great forest [mahāvana]|, in the hall with the peaked roof. Now at that time the venerable Anurādha was dwelling in a little forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then a number of wanderers of other sects approached the venerable Anurādha. Having approached, they exchanged friendly greetings with the venerable Anurādha. After the exchange of courteous and polite conversation, they sat down to one side. Sitting there, those wanderers of other sects said to the venerable Anurādha:
“yo so, āvuso anurādha, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto, taṁ tathāgato imesu catūsu ṭhānesu paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā”ti?
“Friend Anurādha, when a |Tathāgata::one who has arrived at the truth, an epithet of a perfectly Awakened One [tathāgata]| is describing a Tathāgata — a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal — does he describe him in terms of these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’?”
Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā anurādho te aññatitthiye paribbājake etadavoca:
When this was said, the venerable Anurādha said to those wanderers of other sects:
“yo so āvuso tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā”ti. Evaṁ vutte, aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ etadavocuṁ:
“Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’” When this was said, those wanderers of other sects said to the venerable Anurādha:
“so cāyaṁ bhikkhu navo bhavissati acirapabbajito, thero vā pana bālo abyatto”ti. Atha kho aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ navavādena ca bālavādena ca apasādetvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkamiṁsu.
“This bhikkhu must be recently ordained, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish and incompetent.” Then those wanderers of other sects, having disparaged the venerable Anurādha by calling him recently ordained and a fool, rose from their seats and left.
Atha kho āyasmato anurādhassa acirapakkantesu tesu aññatitthiyesu paribbājakesu etadahosi:
Then, soon after those wanderers of other sects had left, it occurred to the venerable Anurādha:
“sace kho maṁ te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā uttariṁ pañhaṁ puccheyyuṁ. Kathaṁ byākaramāno nu khvāhaṁ tesaṁ aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ vuttavādī ceva bhagavato assaṁ, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyyaṁ, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyyaṁ, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyyā”ti?
“If those wanderers of other sects were to ask me a further question, how should I answer them so that I would state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact; so that I would explain in accordance with the |Dhamma::teachings of the Buddha that point to the nature of reality, the ultimate truth [dhamma]|, and no reasonable consequence of my statement would afford grounds for criticism?”
Atha kho āyasmā anurādho yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā …pe… ekamantaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā anurādho bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: “idhāhaṁ, bhante, bhagavato avidūre araññakuṭikāyaṁ viharāmi. Atha kho, bhante, sambahulā aññatitthiyā paribbājakā yenāhaṁ tenupasaṅkamiṁsu …pe… maṁ etadavocuṁ: ‘yo so, āvuso anurādha, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato imesu catūsu ṭhānesu paññāpayamāno paññāpeti— hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā, na hoti … hoti ca na ca hoti, neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā’”ti?
Then the venerable Anurādha approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down to one side. Sitting to one side, the venerable Anurādha said to the Blessed One: “Here, venerable sir, I am dwelling in a little forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then, venerable sir, a number of wanderers of other sects approached me, and having approached, they said this to me: ‘Friend Anurādha, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, does he describe him in terms of these four cases: “After death, a Tathāgata exists,” or “after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist?”’
Evaṁ vuttāhaṁ, bhante, te aññatitthiye paribbājake etadavocaṁ: “yo so, āvuso, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto, taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā …pe… ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vāti. Evaṁ vutte, bhante, te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā maṁ etadavocuṁ: ‘so cāyaṁ bhikkhu na vo bhavissati acirapabbajito thero vā pana bālo abyatto’ti. Atha kho maṁ, bhante, te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā navavādena ca bālavādena ca apasādetvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkamiṁsu.
When this was said, venerable sir, I said to those wanderers of other sects: “Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’” When this was said, venerable sir, those wanderers of other sects said to me: “This bhikkhu must be recently ordained, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish and incompetent.” Then those wanderers of other sects, having disparaged me by calling me recently ordained and a fool, rose from their seats and left.
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhante, acirapakkantesu tesu aññatitthiyesu paribbājakesu etadahosi: ‘sace kho maṁ te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā uttariṁ pañhaṁ puccheyyuṁ. Kathaṁ byākaramāno nu khvāhaṁ tesaṁ aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ vuttavādī ceva bhagavato assaṁ, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyyaṁ, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyyaṁ, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyyā’”ti?
Then, venerable sir, soon after those wanderers of other sects had left, it occurred to me: ‘If those wanderers of other sects were to ask me a further question, how should I answer them so that I would state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact; so that I would explain in accordance with the Dhamma, and no reasonable consequence of my statement would afford grounds for criticism?’”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“What do you think, Anurādha? Is |form::a visible object such as a beautiful sight, a face, an expression, art, ornament, possession, status symbol, admired appearance, or enticing scenery—anything seen that can produce desire, attachment, or self-view [rūpa]| |permanent::stable, not in flux [nicca]| or |impermanent::not lasting, transient, unreliable [anicca]|?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.
“Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?
“And that which is impermanent—is it |unsatisfactory::uncomfortable, unpleasant [dukkha]| or |pleasant::comfortable, easy, good [sukha]|?”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.
“Unsatisfactory, venerable sir.”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“And that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and |subject to change::of the nature of alteration, decay [vipariṇāmadhamma]|—is it fitting to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Vedanā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“Are |felt experience::pleasant, neutral, or painful sensation, feeling, second of the five aggregates [vedanā]|, |perception::The mental process of recognizing and giving meaning to experience. It marks sensory information by signs, labels, or associations drawn from memory and the field of contact. Perception shapes how one experiences the world; third of the five aggregates [sañña]|, |intentional constructs::intentions, volitions, and choices expressed as mental, verbal, and bodily activities; thought formations and constructed experiences (including proliferative tendencies); processes that produce kamma [saṅkhāra]|, and |consciousness::quality of awareness — distinctive knowing that arises in dependence on the meeting of eye and form, ear and sound, nose and odor, tongue and taste, body and tangible object, mind and mind object [viññāṇa]| permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante” …pe… tasmātiha …pe… evaṁ passaṁ …pe… nāparaṁ itthattāyāti pajānāti”.
“Impermanent, venerable sir.” “And that which is impermanent—is it unsatisfactory or pleasant?” “Unsatisfactory, venerable sir.” “And that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and subject to change—is it fitting to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?” “No, venerable sir.” “Therefore, Anurādha, any kind of form, felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness, whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, deficient or refined, far or near—all form is to be seen with proper wisdom as it truly is: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Seeing thus, Anurādha, the learned disciple of the Noble Ones becomes disenchanted with form, becomes disenchanted with felt experience, becomes disenchanted with perception, becomes disenchanted with intentional constructs, becomes disenchanted with consciousness. Experiencing disenchantment, they become dispassionate; through dispassion, there is release. When released, there arises the knowledge: ‘Released.’ He understands: ‘Birth is ended, the |spiritual life::a life of celibacy, contemplation, and ethical discipline lived for the sake of liberation; oriented toward inner development rather than sensual pleasures [brahmacariya]| has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of existence.’”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard form as the Tathāgata?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Vedanaṁ … saññaṁ … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“Do you regard felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness as the Tathāgata?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpasmiṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as in form?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Aññatra rūpā tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Vedanāya …pe… aññatra vedanāya …pe… saññāya … aññatra saññāya … saṅkhāresu … aññatra saṅkhārehi … viññāṇasmiṁ … aññatra viññāṇā tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as in felt experience? As apart from felt experience? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in intentional constructs? As apart from intentional constructs? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ … vedanā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the form, felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness [taken together] as the Tathāgata?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, ayaṁ so arūpī … avedano … asaññī … asaṅkhāro … aviññāṇo tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as one who is without form, without felt experience, without perception, without intentional constructs, without consciousness?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Ettha ca te, anurādha, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘yo so, āvuso, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti— hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā … na hoti … hoti ca na ca hoti … neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā’”ti?
“But here, Anurādha, when a Tathāgata is not to be apprehended by you as real and actual in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: “After death, a Tathāgata exists,” or “after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, venerable sir.”
“Sādhu sādhu, anurādha. Pubbe cāhaṁ, anurādha, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan”ti.
“Good, good, Anurādha! Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just |suffering::discomfort, unpleasantness, discontentment, dissatisfaction, stress, pain, disease, i.e. mild or intense suffering [dukkha]| and the |end of suffering::ending of discontentment, cessation of distress [dukkhanirodha]|.”
At one time, the Blessed One was dwelling at |Vesāli::capital of the Licchavīs [vesālī]|, in the |Great Forest::name of a forest outside Vesāli; lit. great forest [mahāvana]|, in the hall with the peaked roof. Now at that time the venerable Anurādha was dwelling in a little forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then a number of wanderers of other sects approached the venerable Anurādha. Having approached, they exchanged friendly greetings with the venerable Anurādha. After the exchange of courteous and polite conversation, they sat down to one side. Sitting there, those wanderers of other sects said to the venerable Anurādha:
“Friend Anurādha, when a |Tathāgata::one who has arrived at the truth, an epithet of a perfectly Awakened One [tathāgata]| is describing a Tathāgata — a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal — does he describe him in terms of these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’?”
When this was said, the venerable Anurādha said to those wanderers of other sects:
“Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’” When this was said, those wanderers of other sects said to the venerable Anurādha:
“This bhikkhu must be recently ordained, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish and incompetent.” Then those wanderers of other sects, having disparaged the venerable Anurādha by calling him recently ordained and a fool, rose from their seats and left.
Then, soon after those wanderers of other sects had left, it occurred to the venerable Anurādha:
“If those wanderers of other sects were to ask me a further question, how should I answer them so that I would state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact; so that I would explain in accordance with the |Dhamma::teachings of the Buddha that point to the nature of reality, the ultimate truth [dhamma]|, and no reasonable consequence of my statement would afford grounds for criticism?”
Then the venerable Anurādha approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down to one side. Sitting to one side, the venerable Anurādha said to the Blessed One: “Here, venerable sir, I am dwelling in a little forest hut not far from the Blessed One. Then, venerable sir, a number of wanderers of other sects approached me, and having approached, they said this to me: ‘Friend Anurādha, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, does he describe him in terms of these four cases: “After death, a Tathāgata exists,” or “after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist?”’
When this was said, venerable sir, I said to those wanderers of other sects: “Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘After death, a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ or ‘after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’” When this was said, venerable sir, those wanderers of other sects said to me: “This bhikkhu must be recently ordained, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish and incompetent.” Then those wanderers of other sects, having disparaged me by calling me recently ordained and a fool, rose from their seats and left.
Then, venerable sir, soon after those wanderers of other sects had left, it occurred to me: ‘If those wanderers of other sects were to ask me a further question, how should I answer them so that I would state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact; so that I would explain in accordance with the Dhamma, and no reasonable consequence of my statement would afford grounds for criticism?’”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Is |form::a visible object such as a beautiful sight, a face, an expression, art, ornament, possession, status symbol, admired appearance, or enticing scenery—anything seen that can produce desire, attachment, or self-view [rūpa]| |permanent::stable, not in flux [nicca]| or |impermanent::not lasting, transient, unreliable [anicca]|?”
“Impermanent, venerable sir.”
“And that which is impermanent—is it |unsatisfactory::uncomfortable, unpleasant [dukkha]| or |pleasant::comfortable, easy, good [sukha]|?”
“Unsatisfactory, venerable sir.”
“And that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and |subject to change::of the nature of alteration, decay [vipariṇāmadhamma]|—is it fitting to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Are |felt experience::pleasant, neutral, or painful sensation, feeling, second of the five aggregates [vedanā]|, |perception::The mental process of recognizing and giving meaning to experience. It marks sensory information by signs, labels, or associations drawn from memory and the field of contact. Perception shapes how one experiences the world; third of the five aggregates [sañña]|, |intentional constructs::intentions, volitions, and choices expressed as mental, verbal, and bodily activities; thought formations and constructed experiences (including proliferative tendencies); processes that produce kamma [saṅkhāra]|, and |consciousness::quality of awareness — distinctive knowing that arises in dependence on the meeting of eye and form, ear and sound, nose and odor, tongue and taste, body and tangible object, mind and mind object [viññāṇa]| permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, venerable sir.” “And that which is impermanent—is it unsatisfactory or pleasant?” “Unsatisfactory, venerable sir.” “And that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and subject to change—is it fitting to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?” “No, venerable sir.” “Therefore, Anurādha, any kind of form, felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness, whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, deficient or refined, far or near—all form is to be seen with proper wisdom as it truly is: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Seeing thus, Anurādha, the learned disciple of the Noble Ones becomes disenchanted with form, becomes disenchanted with felt experience, becomes disenchanted with perception, becomes disenchanted with intentional constructs, becomes disenchanted with consciousness. Experiencing disenchantment, they become dispassionate; through dispassion, there is release. When released, there arises the knowledge: ‘Released.’ He understands: ‘Birth is ended, the |spiritual life::a life of celibacy, contemplation, and ethical discipline lived for the sake of liberation; oriented toward inner development rather than sensual pleasures [brahmacariya]| has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of existence.’”
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard form as the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Do you regard felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness as the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as in form?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as in felt experience? As apart from felt experience? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in intentional constructs? As apart from intentional constructs? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the form, felt experience, perception, intentional constructs, consciousness [taken together] as the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard the Tathāgata as one who is without form, without felt experience, without perception, without intentional constructs, without consciousness?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“But here, Anurādha, when a Tathāgata is not to be apprehended by you as real and actual in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata, a person of the highest kind, a supreme person, one who has reached the ultimate goal, he describes him apart from these four cases: “After death, a Tathāgata exists,” or “after death, a Tathāgata does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,” or “after death, a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Good, good, Anurādha! Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just |suffering::discomfort, unpleasantness, discontentment, dissatisfaction, stress, pain, disease, i.e. mild or intense suffering [dukkha]| and the |end of suffering::ending of discontentment, cessation of distress [dukkhanirodha]|.”
Ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā vesāliyaṁ viharati mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṁ. Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā anurādho bhagavato avidūre araññakuṭikāyaṁ viharati. Atha kho sambahulā aññatitthiyā paribbājakā yenāyasmā anurādho tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmatā anurādhena saddhiṁ sammodiṁsu. Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdiṁsu. Ekamantaṁ nisinnā kho te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ etadavocuṁ:
“yo so, āvuso anurādha, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto, taṁ tathāgato imesu catūsu ṭhānesu paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā”ti?
Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā anurādho te aññatitthiye paribbājake etadavoca:
“yo so āvuso tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā”ti. Evaṁ vutte, aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ etadavocuṁ:
“so cāyaṁ bhikkhu navo bhavissati acirapabbajito, thero vā pana bālo abyatto”ti. Atha kho aññatitthiyā paribbājakā āyasmantaṁ anurādhaṁ navavādena ca bālavādena ca apasādetvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkamiṁsu.
Atha kho āyasmato anurādhassa acirapakkantesu tesu aññatitthiyesu paribbājakesu etadahosi:
“sace kho maṁ te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā uttariṁ pañhaṁ puccheyyuṁ. Kathaṁ byākaramāno nu khvāhaṁ tesaṁ aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ vuttavādī ceva bhagavato assaṁ, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyyaṁ, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyyaṁ, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyyā”ti?
Atha kho āyasmā anurādho yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā …pe… ekamantaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā anurādho bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: “idhāhaṁ, bhante, bhagavato avidūre araññakuṭikāyaṁ viharāmi. Atha kho, bhante, sambahulā aññatitthiyā paribbājakā yenāhaṁ tenupasaṅkamiṁsu …pe… maṁ etadavocuṁ: ‘yo so, āvuso anurādha, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato imesu catūsu ṭhānesu paññāpayamāno paññāpeti— hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā, na hoti … hoti ca na ca hoti, neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā’”ti?
Evaṁ vuttāhaṁ, bhante, te aññatitthiye paribbājake etadavocaṁ: “yo so, āvuso, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto, taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vā …pe… ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti vāti. Evaṁ vutte, bhante, te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā maṁ etadavocuṁ: ‘so cāyaṁ bhikkhu na vo bhavissati acirapabbajito thero vā pana bālo abyatto’ti. Atha kho maṁ, bhante, te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā navavādena ca bālavādena ca apasādetvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkamiṁsu.
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhante, acirapakkantesu tesu aññatitthiyesu paribbājakesu etadahosi: ‘sace kho maṁ te aññatitthiyā paribbājakā uttariṁ pañhaṁ puccheyyuṁ. Kathaṁ byākaramāno nu khvāhaṁ tesaṁ aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ vuttavādī ceva bhagavato assaṁ, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyyaṁ, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyyaṁ, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyyā’”ti?
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Vedanā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
“Aniccaṁ, bhante” …pe… tasmātiha …pe… evaṁ passaṁ …pe… nāparaṁ itthattāyāti pajānāti”.
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Vedanaṁ … saññaṁ … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpasmiṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Aññatra rūpā tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Vedanāya …pe… aññatra vedanāya …pe… saññāya … aññatra saññāya … saṅkhāresu … aññatra saṅkhārehi … viññāṇasmiṁ … aññatra viññāṇā tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, rūpaṁ … vedanā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, anurādha, ayaṁ so arūpī … avedano … asaññī … asaṅkhāro … aviññāṇo tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Ettha ca te, anurādha, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘yo so, āvuso, tathāgato uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto taṁ tathāgato aññatra imehi catūhi ṭhānehi paññāpayamāno paññāpeti— hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā … na hoti … hoti ca na ca hoti … neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇāti vā’”ti?
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“Sādhu sādhu, anurādha. Pubbe cāhaṁ, anurādha, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan”ti.