Ekaṁ samayaṁ sambahulā therā bhikkhū macchikāsaṇḍe viharanti ambāṭakavane. Tena kho pana samayena sambahulānaṁ therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi:
At one time, many elder bhikkhus were dwelling at |fisherman‘s grove::name of a forest in Kāsi; lit. Macchikā‘s grove [macchikāsaṇḍa]| in the |Ambāṭaka::lit. wild mango [ambāṭaka]| forest. And on that occasion, after the meal, when those many elder bhikkhus had returned from the alms round, they gathered in the round pavilion and were seated together when this conversation arose among them:
“‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti?
“Friends, ‘|fetter::chain, bond, thing which binds [saṁyojana]|’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different in meaning and different in expression, or are they the same in meaning but different only in expression?”
Tatrekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ hoti: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti.
Then some of the elder bhikkhus answered thus: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different in meaning and also different in expression.”
Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ hoti: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
But some [other] elder bhikkhus answered thus: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning but different only in expression.”
Tena kho pana samayena citto gahapati migapathakaṁ anuppatto hoti kenacideva karaṇīyena. Assosi kho citto gahapati sambahulānaṁ kira therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti? Tatrekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti. Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
Now at that time, |Citta the householder::foremost lay disciple of the Buddha in giving Dhamma discourses [citta]| had come to |Migapathaka::name of a village; lit. deer path [migapathaka]| on some business. And Citta the householder heard that after the meal, when many elder bhikkhus had returned from alms round and were seated together in the round pavilion, this discussion arose among them: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different both in meaning and expression, or are they the same in meaning, differing only in expression?” Then some of the elder bhikkhus said: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different both in meaning and expression.” But some of the elder bhikkhus said: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning, differing only in expression.”
Atha kho citto gahapati yena therā bhikkhū tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā there bhikkhū abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho citto gahapati there bhikkhū etadavoca: “sutaṁ metaṁ, bhante, sambahulānaṁ kira therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi: ‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti? Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti. Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
Then Citta the householder approached the elder bhikkhus. Having drawn near, he bowed down to them and sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Citta the householder said to the elder bhikkhus: “Venerable sirs, I have heard that after the meal, when many elder bhikkhus had returned from alms round and were gathered seated together in the round pavilion, this discussion arose among them: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different both in meaning and expression, or are they the same in meaning, differing only in expression?’ Then some of the elder bhikkhus said: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different both in meaning and expression.’ But some of the elder bhikkhus said: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning, differing only in expression.’”
“Evaṁ, gahapatī”ti.
“That is so, householder.”
“‘Saṁyojanan’ti vā, bhante, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā ca.
“Venerable sirs, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different in meaning and also different in expression.
Tena hi, bhante, upamaṁ vo karissāmi. Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṁ ājānanti.
Venerable sirs, I shall give you a simile, for there are some wise persons who understand the meaning of a statement through a simile.
Seyyathāpi, bhante, kāḷo ca balībaddo odāto ca balībaddo ekena dāmena vā yottena vā saṁyuttā assu. Yo nu kho evaṁ vadeyya: ‘kāḷo balībaddo odātassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ, odāto balībaddo kāḷassa balībaddassa saṁyojanan’ti, sammā nu kho so vadamāno vadeyyā”ti?
Suppose, venerable sirs, a black ox and a white ox were yoked together with a single rope or a leash. If someone were to say: ‘The black ox is the fetter of the white ox, and the white ox is the fetter of the black ox’—would that person be speaking rightly?”
“No hetaṁ, gahapati. Na kho, gahapati, kāḷo balībaddo odātassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ, napi odāto balībaddo kāḷassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ; yena kho te ekena dāmena vā yottena vā saṁyuttā taṁ tattha saṁyojanan”ti.
“Certainly not, householder. The black ox is not the fetter of the white ox, nor is the white ox the fetter of the black ox. Rather, it is the rope or the leash by which they are yoked together—that is the fetter there.”
“Evameva kho, bhante, na cakkhu rūpānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na rūpā cakkhussa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanaṁ.
“In the same way, venerable sirs, the eye is not the fetter of |forms::visible objects such as beautiful sights, faces, expressions, art, ornaments, possessions, status symbols, admired appearances, enticing scenery, or objects of desire and attachment [rūpe]|, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. But rather, the |desire and attachment::desire-passion, sensual craving, intention of sensuality and lust [chandarāga]| that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there.
Na sotaṁ saddānaṁ … na ghānaṁ gandhānaṁ … na jivhā rasānaṁ … na kāyo phoṭṭhabbānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na phoṭṭhabbā kāyassa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanaṁ. Na mano dhammānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na dhammā manassa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanan”ti.
The ear is not the fetter of |sounds::auditory experiences such as speech, music, praise, blame, ambient noise, verbal expression, or melodic tones—any sound that can stir emotion, craving for praise, aesthetic delight, or attachment to communication and identity [saddā]|, nor are sounds the fetter of the ear. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The nose is not the fetter of |odors::smells and fragrances experienced through the nose, including perfumes, flowers, food aromas, earth after rain, incense, or even stench—any olfactory experience that may evoke craving, aversion, nostalgia, comfort, or sensual pleasure [gandhā]|, nor are odors the fetter of the nose. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The tongue is not the fetter of |tastes::flavors experienced through the tongue such as sweetness, bitterness, sourness, saltiness, spiciness, richness, or subtle tastes like umami or astringency—any gustatory experience that can become an object of craving, indulgence, comfort, or sensory delight [rasā]|, nor are tastes the fetter of the tongue. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The body is not the fetter of |tangible objects::tangible contact such as the feel of skin, warmth, softness, intimacy, physical affection, or sensations like massage, breath, water, air, pressure—anything felt through the body that can become an object of desire, arousal, comfort, or emotional attachment [phoṭṭhabba]|, nor are tangible objects the fetter of the body. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The mind is not the fetter of |mental objects::thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, intentions, perceptions, concepts, beliefs, mental images, or constructs—any mental phenomena that arises internally and can become an object of clinging, identity, projection, craving, or aversion [dhammā]|, nor are mental objects the fetter of the mind. But rather, it is the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there.”
“Lābhā te, gahapati, suladdhaṁ te, gahapati, yassa te gambhīre buddhavacane paññācakkhu kamatī”ti.
“It is a blessing for you, householder, it is most fortunate for you, householder, in that you have the |eye of wisdom::insight [paññācakkhu]| that penetrates the profound words of the Buddha.”
At one time, many elder bhikkhus were dwelling at |fisherman‘s grove::name of a forest in Kāsi; lit. Macchikā‘s grove [macchikāsaṇḍa]| in the |Ambāṭaka::lit. wild mango [ambāṭaka]| forest. And on that occasion, after the meal, when those many elder bhikkhus had returned from the alms round, they gathered in the round pavilion and were seated together when this conversation arose among them:
“Friends, ‘|fetter::chain, bond, thing which binds [saṁyojana]|’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different in meaning and different in expression, or are they the same in meaning but different only in expression?”
Then some of the elder bhikkhus answered thus: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different in meaning and also different in expression.”
But some [other] elder bhikkhus answered thus: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning but different only in expression.”
Now at that time, |Citta the householder::foremost lay disciple of the Buddha in giving Dhamma discourses [citta]| had come to |Migapathaka::name of a village; lit. deer path [migapathaka]| on some business. And Citta the householder heard that after the meal, when many elder bhikkhus had returned from alms round and were seated together in the round pavilion, this discussion arose among them: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different both in meaning and expression, or are they the same in meaning, differing only in expression?” Then some of the elder bhikkhus said: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different both in meaning and expression.” But some of the elder bhikkhus said: “Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning, differing only in expression.”
Then Citta the householder approached the elder bhikkhus. Having drawn near, he bowed down to them and sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Citta the householder said to the elder bhikkhus: “Venerable sirs, I have heard that after the meal, when many elder bhikkhus had returned from alms round and were gathered seated together in the round pavilion, this discussion arose among them: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—are these different both in meaning and expression, or are they the same in meaning, differing only in expression?’ Then some of the elder bhikkhus said: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different both in meaning and expression.’ But some of the elder bhikkhus said: ‘Friends, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are the same in meaning, differing only in expression.’”
“That is so, householder.”
“Venerable sirs, ‘fetter’ and ‘things subject to being fettered’—these are different in meaning and also different in expression.
Venerable sirs, I shall give you a simile, for there are some wise persons who understand the meaning of a statement through a simile.
Suppose, venerable sirs, a black ox and a white ox were yoked together with a single rope or a leash. If someone were to say: ‘The black ox is the fetter of the white ox, and the white ox is the fetter of the black ox’—would that person be speaking rightly?”
“Certainly not, householder. The black ox is not the fetter of the white ox, nor is the white ox the fetter of the black ox. Rather, it is the rope or the leash by which they are yoked together—that is the fetter there.”
“In the same way, venerable sirs, the eye is not the fetter of |forms::visible objects such as beautiful sights, faces, expressions, art, ornaments, possessions, status symbols, admired appearances, enticing scenery, or objects of desire and attachment [rūpe]|, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. But rather, the |desire and attachment::desire-passion, sensual craving, intention of sensuality and lust [chandarāga]| that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there.
The ear is not the fetter of |sounds::auditory experiences such as speech, music, praise, blame, ambient noise, verbal expression, or melodic tones—any sound that can stir emotion, craving for praise, aesthetic delight, or attachment to communication and identity [saddā]|, nor are sounds the fetter of the ear. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The nose is not the fetter of |odors::smells and fragrances experienced through the nose, including perfumes, flowers, food aromas, earth after rain, incense, or even stench—any olfactory experience that may evoke craving, aversion, nostalgia, comfort, or sensual pleasure [gandhā]|, nor are odors the fetter of the nose. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The tongue is not the fetter of |tastes::flavors experienced through the tongue such as sweetness, bitterness, sourness, saltiness, spiciness, richness, or subtle tastes like umami or astringency—any gustatory experience that can become an object of craving, indulgence, comfort, or sensory delight [rasā]|, nor are tastes the fetter of the tongue. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The body is not the fetter of |tangible objects::tangible contact such as the feel of skin, warmth, softness, intimacy, physical affection, or sensations like massage, breath, water, air, pressure—anything felt through the body that can become an object of desire, arousal, comfort, or emotional attachment [phoṭṭhabba]|, nor are tangible objects the fetter of the body. But rather, the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there. The mind is not the fetter of |mental objects::thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, intentions, perceptions, concepts, beliefs, mental images, or constructs—any mental phenomena that arises internally and can become an object of clinging, identity, projection, craving, or aversion [dhammā]|, nor are mental objects the fetter of the mind. But rather, it is the desire and attachment that arises in dependence on both—that is the fetter there.”
“It is a blessing for you, householder, it is most fortunate for you, householder, in that you have the |eye of wisdom::insight [paññācakkhu]| that penetrates the profound words of the Buddha.”
Ekaṁ samayaṁ sambahulā therā bhikkhū macchikāsaṇḍe viharanti ambāṭakavane. Tena kho pana samayena sambahulānaṁ therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi:
“‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti?
Tatrekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ hoti: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti.
Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ hoti: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
Tena kho pana samayena citto gahapati migapathakaṁ anuppatto hoti kenacideva karaṇīyena. Assosi kho citto gahapati sambahulānaṁ kira therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti? Tatrekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti. Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
Atha kho citto gahapati yena therā bhikkhū tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā there bhikkhū abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho citto gahapati there bhikkhū etadavoca: “sutaṁ metaṁ, bhante, sambahulānaṁ kira therānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkantānaṁ maṇḍalamāḷe sannisinnānaṁ sannipatitānaṁ ayamantarākathā udapādi: ‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā nānābyañjanā udāhu ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti? Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ: “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā cā”ti. Ekaccehi therehi bhikkhūhi evaṁ byākataṁ “‘saṁyojanan’ti vā, āvuso, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā ekatthā byañjanameva nānan”ti.
“Evaṁ, gahapatī”ti.
“‘Saṁyojanan’ti vā, bhante, ‘saṁyojaniyā dhammā’ti vā ime dhammā nānatthā ceva nānābyañjanā ca.
Tena hi, bhante, upamaṁ vo karissāmi. Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṁ ājānanti.
Seyyathāpi, bhante, kāḷo ca balībaddo odāto ca balībaddo ekena dāmena vā yottena vā saṁyuttā assu. Yo nu kho evaṁ vadeyya: ‘kāḷo balībaddo odātassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ, odāto balībaddo kāḷassa balībaddassa saṁyojanan’ti, sammā nu kho so vadamāno vadeyyā”ti?
“No hetaṁ, gahapati. Na kho, gahapati, kāḷo balībaddo odātassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ, napi odāto balībaddo kāḷassa balībaddassa saṁyojanaṁ; yena kho te ekena dāmena vā yottena vā saṁyuttā taṁ tattha saṁyojanan”ti.
“Evameva kho, bhante, na cakkhu rūpānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na rūpā cakkhussa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanaṁ.
Na sotaṁ saddānaṁ … na ghānaṁ gandhānaṁ … na jivhā rasānaṁ … na kāyo phoṭṭhabbānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na phoṭṭhabbā kāyassa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanaṁ. Na mano dhammānaṁ saṁyojanaṁ, na dhammā manassa saṁyojanaṁ; yañca tattha tadubhayaṁ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taṁ tattha saṁyojanan”ti.
“Lābhā te, gahapati, suladdhaṁ te, gahapati, yassa te gambhīre buddhavacane paññācakkhu kamatī”ti.