Thus have I heard: at one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Then a reasoning of mind arose to the venerable Māluṅkyāputta as he was meditating in solitary seclusion, thus: “Those (speculative) views that are not explained, set aside and ignored by the Lord: the world is eternal, the world is not eternal, the world is an ending thing, the world is not an ending thing; the life-principle is the same as the body, the life-principle is one thing, the body another; the Tathāgata is after dying, the Tathāgata is not after dying, the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; the Lord does not explain these to me. That the Lord does not explain these to me does not please me, does not satisfy me, so I, having approached the Lord, will question him on the matter.

If the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord. But if the Lord will not explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I, disavowing the training, revert to secular life.”

Then the venerable Māluṅkyāputta, emerging from solitary meditation towards evening, approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Māluṅkyāputta spoke thus to the Lord: “Now, revered sir, as I was meditating in solitary seclusion, a reasoning of mind arose to me thus: ‘Those (speculative) views that are not explained, set aside, ignored by the Lord: the world is eternal, the world is not eternal, the world is an ending thing, the world is not an ending thing; the life-principle is the same as the body, the life-principle is one thing, the body another; the Tathāgata is after dying, the Tathāgata is not after dying, the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; the Lord does not explain these to me. That the Lord does not explain these to me does not please me, does not satisfy me, so I, having approached the Lord, will question him on the matter.

If the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord. But if the Lord will not explain to me either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then will I, disavowing the training, revert to secular life.”

If the Lord knows that the world is eternal, let the Lord explain to me that the world is eternal. If the Lord knows that the world is not eternal, let the Lord explain to me that the world is not eternal. If the Lord does not know whether the world is eternal or whether the world is not eternal, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the world is an ending thing, let the Lord explain to me that the world is an ending thing. If the Lord knows that the world is not an ending thing, let the Lord explain to me that the world is not an ending thing. If the Lord does not know whether the world is an ending thing or whether the world is not an ending thing, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the life-principle is the same as the body, let the Lord explain to me that the life-principle is the same as the body. If the Lord knows that the life-principle is one thing, the body another, let the Lord explain to me that the life-principle is one thing, the body another. If the Lord does not know whether the life-principle is the same as the body or whether the life-principle is one thing, the body another, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata is after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata is after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata is not after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying. If the Lord knows that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, let the Lord explain to me that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying. If the Lord does not know that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, then, not knowing, not seeing, this would be honest, namely to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

“But did I ever speak thus to you, Māluṅkyāputta: ‘Come you, Māluṅkyāputta, fare the Brahma-faring under me and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying?” “No, revered sir.”

“Or did you speak thus to me: ‘I, revered sir, will fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord if the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying’?” “No, revered sir.”

“So it is agreed, Māluṅkyāputta, that neither did I say: ‘Come you, Māluṅkyāputta, fare the Brahma-faring under me and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, and that neither did you say: ‘I, revered sir, will fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord if the Lord will explain to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the world is an ending thing, or that the world is not an ending thing; that the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying’.”

This being so, foolish man, who are you that you are disavowing? Whoever, Māluṅkyāputta, should speak thus: ‘I will not fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord until the Lord explains to me whether the world is eternal, or whether the world is not eternal, or whether the world is an ending thing, or whether the world is not an ending thing; whether the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; or whether the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; this man might pass away, Māluṅkyāputta, or ever this was explained to him by the Tathāgata.

Māluṅkyāputta, it is as if a man were pierced by an arrow that was thickly smeared with poison and his friends and relations, his kith and kin, were to procure a physician and surgeon. He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me whether he is a noble or brahman or merchant or worker.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who pierced me.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me whether he is tall or short or middling in height.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me, whether he is black, or deep brown, or golden skinned.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the man who pierced me, to what village, or market town, or town he belongs.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the bow from which I was pierced whether it was a spring-bow, or a cross-bow.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow, until I know of the bow-string from which I was pierced whether it was of swallow-wort, or of reed, or sinew, or hemp, or a tree.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft by which I was pierced whether it was of reeds of this kind or that.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft from which I was pierced what kind of feathers it had: whether those of a vulture, or heron, or hawk, or peacock, or some other bird.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the shaft from which I was pierced with what kind of sinews it was encased: whether those of a cow, or buffalo, or deer, or monkey.’ He might speak thus: ‘I will not draw out this arrow until I know of the arrow by which I was pierced whether it was an (ordinary) arrow, or some other kind of arrow.’ Māluṅkyāputta, this man might pass away or ever this was known to him.

In the same way, Māluṅkyāputta, whoever should speak thus: ‘I will not fare the Brahma-faring under the Lord until the Lord explains to me whether the world is eternal, or whether the world is not eternal, or whether the world is an ending thing, or whether the world is not an ending thing; whether the life-principle is the same as the body, or that the life-principle is one thing, the body another; or whether the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; this man might pass away, Māluṅkyāputta, or ever this was explained to him by the Tathāgata.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the world is eternal. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the world is not eternal. Whether there is the view that the world is eternal, or whether there is the view that the world is not eternal, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the world is an ending thing. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the world is not an ending thing. Whether there is the view that the world is an ending thing or whether there is the view that the world is not an ending thing, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the life-principle is the same as the body. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the life-principle is one thing, the body another. Whether there is the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, or whether there is the view that the life-principle is one thing, the body another, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

The living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata is after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata is not after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Māluṅkyāputta, be said to depend on the view that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying. Whether there is the view that the Tathāgata is after dying, or that the Tathāgata is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, or that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, there is birth, there is ageing, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the suppression of which I lay down here and now.

Wherefore, Māluṅkyāputta, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me. And what, Māluṅkyāputta, has not been explained by me? That the world is eternal has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is not eternal has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is an ending thing has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the world is not an ending thing has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the life-principle is the same as the body, has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the life-principle is one thing, the body another has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata is after dying, has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta; that the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta. And why, Māluṅkyāputta, has this not been explained by me? It is because it is not connected with the goal, is not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening nor to nibbāna. Therefore it has not been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta.

And what has been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta? ‘This is anguish’ has been explained by me, Māluṅkyāputta. ‘This is the arising of anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the course leading to the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. And why, Māluṅkyāputta, has this been explained by me? It is because it is connected with the goal, is fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and conduces to turning away from, to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening and nibbāna. Therefore it has been explained by me.

Wherefore, Māluṅkyāputta, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me.”

Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, the venerable Māluṅkyāputta rejoiced in what the Lord had said.

Lesser Discourse to Māluṅkya(putta): The Third