SN 12.61 Assutavant Sutta: The Spiritually-Unlearned (1)

SN II.1.7.1 Assutavant Sutta (1): The Spiritually-Unlearned (1) (SN 12.61; PTS S II, 94)
Thus it has been heard by me. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthi in the Jeta Forest in the private park owned by Anāthapiṇḍika. There the Blessed one addressed the monks thus: “Monks!” Those monks responded thus: “Blessed One!” The Blessed One said this:

“Monks, the ordinary person [puthujjana], unlearned in spiritual knowledge [assutavant], might grow weary of, might become detached from, might become released from this physical body made up of the four great elements. What is the reason for this? Because, monks, apparent are the increase and the decrease, the taking up and the putting down,* of this physical body made up of the four great elements. For that reason, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, might grow weary, might become detached, might become released [from the physical body].

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called citta, or mano, or viññā'ṇa,**''' the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released. What is the reason for this? Because for a long time, monks, [that which is called citta, or mano, or viññāṇa] of the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, (has been) clung to, (has been) cherished, (has been) grasped (thus): “This is mine, this I am, this is my self”. Because of that, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released [from that which is called citta, or mano, or viññāṇa].

“Better, Monks, to let the ordinary person, in all ways unlearned in spiritual knowledge, proceed from (the assumption that) the self [attato] is this body made up of the four great elements, rather than mind [citta]. What is the reason for this? This physical body, Monks, comprising the four great elements, is seen standing for one rainy season, standing for two rainy seasons,. . . for three. . . four. . . five. . . ten. . . twenty. . . thirty. . . forty. . . fifty. . . standing for a hundred or more rainy seasons.

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called citta, manas, or viññā'ṇa, that by night and by day as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases [aññadeva uppajjati añña'ṃ nirujjhati]. Just as, monks, a monkey in the mountain-side forests, moving itself [caramāno***], grasps a branch, then releasing that, grasps another, then releasing that, grasps another; even so, indeed, Monks, that which is called citta, or manas, or viññāṇa: that, by night and by day, as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases.

“Therein, monks, the noble disciple, learned in spiritual knowledge, properly and legitimately cognises**** just dependent co-arising, thus: ‘In the event of the being of this, there is (also) this; from the arising of this, this (also) arises. In the event of the non-being of this, there is (also) not this. From the cessation of this, this (also) ceases.’

“Which is this: ‘From ignorance as condition, the formative functions [saṅkhārā]; from the formative functions as condition, sensory consciousness; from sensory consciousness as condition, name-and-form; from name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; from the six sense bases as condition, contact; from contact as condition, sensation; from sensation as condition, craving; from craving as condition, clinging; from clinging as condition, being; from being as condition, birth; from birth as condition, old age and death, grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation all together come to be. Thus there is the rise of this whole complex of suffering.

“But from the fading away and cessation, without any trace remaining, of ignorance, (there is) the cessation of the formative functions; from the cessation of the formative functions, the cessation of sensory consciousness; from the cessation of sensory consciousness, the cessation of name-and-form; from the cessation of name-and-form, the cessation of the six sense bases; from the cessation of the six sense bases, the cessation of contact; from the cessation of contact, the cessation of sensation; from the cessation of sensation, the cessation of craving; from the cessation of craving, the cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation of being; from the cessation of being, the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth, old age and death, grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation cease. Thus there is the cessation of this whole complex of suffering.

“Seeing thus, monks, a noble disciple, learned in spiritual knowledge, grows weary and turns away [nibbindati] from material form; grows weary and turns away from feelings; grows weary and turns away from perceptions; grows weary and turns away from formative functions; grows weary and turns away from sensory consciousness. Having grown weary and having turned away, he detaches; from detachment, he is released; from being released, there is the knowledge: ‘Released.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth; the holy life has been fulfilled; what had to be done has been done; no coming back again to being-here [itthatta]’.”

Translator’s Notes:
* Ādānampi nikkhepanampi. Ādāna means taking up, grasping; nikkhepana means putting or laying down, discarding. The meaning of these terms here becomes much clearer if one sees how the same contrasting pair of terms is used in the very important and somewhat controversial sutta, SN III.1.3.1 Bh'ā'ra Sutta (SN 22.22; PTS S III, 25), in which the Buddha defines the expressions bhāra-ādāna'ṃ, ‘taking up the burden’, and bhāra-nikkhepana'ṃ, ‘putting down the burden’. In this sutta, the Buddha says that the bhāra, the ‘burden’, is the pañcupādānakkhandhā, the ‘five clung-to aggregates’, and that the bhārahāra, the ‘burden-bearer’, is the puggala, the ‘person’. While the Buddha certainly denied the existence of any permanent, unchanging entity such as a core ‘self’ (attā), his teaching concerning the relationship between the continuity of consciousness and its various inter-related functions, modes and forms, was extremely subtle, sophisticated and complex. The process of consciousness continues from one embodiment to another. While it is not a separable ‘self’ or ‘soul’ (attā), neither can it be reduced merely to the ‘stream’ of its momentary ‘contents’ or ‘components’ (which is what, in essence, the later scholastic Abhidhamma tried to do): in a certain sense, ‘something’ makes the ‘movement’ of ‘consciousness’ possible. That is to say, in order to be ‘ignorant’, to ‘crave’, to ‘grasp’, to ‘move’, ‘consciousness’ must always already possess the inherent capacity to be conscious or aware. To interpret the Buddha’s teaching on ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ in a reductionist manner is to contradict its sense and thus to lose sight of its very deep and beautiful meaning.

** “Yañca kho eta'ṃ, bhikkhave, vuccati citta'ṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññā'ṇa'ṃ itipi.. .” I leave these three key terms untranslated here, because they require a very detailed and deep discussion. For temporary convenience, however, the reader may temporarily translate them for himself or herself thus: citta as ‘subjective mind’, manas as ‘cognitive faculty’, and viññā'ṇa as ‘sensory consciousness’ (i.e., consciousness when it is functioning in the mode of the six sense bases (sa'ḷāyatana)). This statement is very frequently cited – in isolation and out of context – by proponents and commentators of the Abhidhamma and of Abhidhamma-influenced schools, in support of the Abhidhamma view that the terms citta, manas, and viññāṇa are somehow ‘synonymous’. Only one other similar passage can be found in the Suttanta Piṭaka, in DN 1 Brahmaj'ā'la Sutta (PTS D I, 1), at PTS D I, 21: “Ya'ṃ' ca kho ida'ṃ' vuccati cittanti vā mano'ti vā 'viññā'ṇanti vā. . .” There, in DN 1, it is put in the mouth of the kind of ‘reasoner’ (takkī) who wrongly argues that ‘mind’ is a permanent, eternal, unchanging ‘self’ (attā). It is therefore very interesting and very important to note that here, too, in SN 12.16, this formula occurs in the context of a description of the way of thinking of the “tatrāssutavā puthujjano”, the ‘in every way spiritually-unlearned ordinary person’. This crucial matter is too detailed and complex to discuss here in a brief footnote, but it may hopefully be addressed in detail and in depth on a different occasion. Suffice it to say that I am not asserting that citta, manas, and viññāṇa are distinct and separate 'things', but that they refer to quite distinct and non-inter-reducible functions of ‘mind’ as such. To claim that they are ‘mere synonyms’ is, very crudely speaking, rather like claiming that the words ‘steam’, ‘liquid’, and ‘ice’ are all ‘mere synonyms’. To be sure, they are all forms of ‘water’; but it would be simply wrong to claim that they are merely ‘synonyms’.

*** Caramāno: reflective present participle of carati, ‘to move, to live and move, to behave’.

**** This must serve as a provisional rendering of the phrase sādhukaṃ yoniso manasikaroti. The expression manasi-karoti is traditionally translated as ‘he or she attends’. More literally, however, it means ‘to do or make in the manas (the cognitive faculty)’. It suggests not a merely passive ‘attending to’, but a specific and fundamental kind of cognitive activity. Yoni means ‘womb, origin’, such that yoniso connotes something that is rightly or legitimately related to or derived from its source or origin. Unfortunately, it is just not possible to discuss these matters in any detail in a brief footnote.