Linked Discourses
1. The Chapter on the Undeclared Points

With Ānanda

Saṁyutta Nikāya
1. Abyākatavagga
Ānandasutta
Linked Discourses
1. The Chapter on the Undeclared Points
With Ānanda
Saṁyutta Nikāya
1. Abyākatavagga
Ānandasutta

Vacchagotta asks the Buddha whether a self exists, but the Buddha is silent. When Ānanda later asks him why he didn’t answer, the Buddha replied that it was to avoid misunderstanding.

Ruta suttaSN 44.10Sutta PiṭakaSaṃyutta Nikāya4. Saḷāyatanavaggasaṁyutta44. Abyākatasaṁyutta1. AbyākatavaggaĀnandasutta
← Suttas
Vista:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the BuddhaBuddhaEl nombre dado a quien redescubre por sí mismo el sendero liberador del Dhamma, tras un largo período de haber sido olvidado por el mundo. Según la tradición, una larga línea de Buddhas se extiende hasta el pasado distante. El Buddha más reciente nació como Siddhattha Gotama en la India alrededor del año 500 a.e.c. Un joven bien educado y acomodado, renunció a su familia y su herencia principesca en la flor de la vida para buscar la verdadera libertad y el fin del sufrimiento (dukkha). Después de siete años de austeridades en el bosque, redescubrió el «camino medio» y alcanzó su meta, convirtiéndose en el Buddha.Ver en el glosario and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:

Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṁ sammodi. Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him.
Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṁ sammodi.
When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him. Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṁ sammodi. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha: Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

“Worthy Gotama, does the self survive?” *For “does the self survive” (atthattā, resolving to atthi attā), compare “my self survives” (atthi me attā, MN 2:8.2) and “do gods survive” (atthi devā, MN 90:13.2). In each case the question is whether the self continues to exist (atthi) or not (natthi) after death. We find a similar usage in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.20, where Naciketa wonders what happens to a man after he dies, as “some say he survives, while others say he does not survive” (astīty eke nāyam astīti caike).But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.

“kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti? Evaṁ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.

“Worthy Gotama, does the self survive?” *For “does the self survive” (atthattā, resolving to atthi attā), compare “my self survives” (atthi me attā, MN 2:8.2) and “do gods survive” (atthi devā, MN 90:13.2). In each case the question is whether the self continues to exist (atthi) or not (natthi) after death. We find a similar usage in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.20, where Naciketa wonders what happens to a man after he dies, as “some say he survives, while others say he does not survive” (astīty eke nāyam astīti caike).
“kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti?
But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
Evaṁ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.

“Worthy Gotama, does the self survive?” *For “does the self survive” (atthattā, resolving to atthi attā), compare “my self survives” (atthi me attā, MN 2:8.2) and “do gods survive” (atthi devā, MN 90:13.2). In each case the question is whether the self continues to exist (atthi) or not (natthi) after death. We find a similar usage in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.20, where Naciketa wonders what happens to a man after he dies, as “some say he survives, while others say he does not survive” (astīty eke nāyam astīti caike).“kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti? But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. Evaṁ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.

“Then does the self not survive?” But for a second time the Buddha kept silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and left. *Compare the behavior of Mogharāja at Snp 5.16. He has asked his question twice, but the Buddha was silent. Patiently, he asks a third time, and is answered at last. We have seen ample evidence of Vacchagotta’s relentless questioning. Here it is not the Buddha who loses patience, but Vacchagotta, who is so used to getting the answers he wants. It seems he is at some sort of crisis point.

“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti? Dutiyampi kho bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkāmi.

“Then does the self not survive?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti?
But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.
Dutiyampi kho bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and left. *Compare the behavior of Mogharāja at Snp 5.16. He has asked his question twice, but the Buddha was silent. Patiently, he asks a third time, and is answered at last. We have seen ample evidence of Vacchagotta’s relentless questioning. Here it is not the Buddha who loses patience, but Vacchagotta, who is so used to getting the answers he wants. It seems he is at some sort of crisis point.
Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkāmi.

“Then does the self not survive?” “Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti? But for a second time the Buddha kept silent. Dutiyampi kho bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and left. *Compare the behavior of Mogharāja at Snp 5.16. He has asked his question twice, but the Buddha was silent. Patiently, he asks a third time, and is answered at last. We have seen ample evidence of Vacchagotta’s relentless questioning. Here it is not the Buddha who loses patience, but Vacchagotta, who is so used to getting the answers he wants. It seems he is at some sort of crisis point.Atha kho vacchagotto paribbājako uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkāmi.

And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:

Atha kho āyasmā ānando acirapakkante vacchagotte paribbājake bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:
Atha kho āyasmā ānando acirapakkante vacchagotte paribbājake bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha: Atha kho āyasmā ānando acirapakkante vacchagotte paribbājake bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” *The Buddha gives four answers. In the first pair he explains his theoretical objections: a straight yes/no answer would have aligned him with the eternalists or annihilationists. In the second pair, he considers what would have been helpful for Vacchagotta in his current state.

“kiṁ nu kho, bhante, bhagavā vacchagottassa paribbājakassa pañhaṁ puṭṭho na byākāsī”ti?

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” *The Buddha gives four answers. In the first pair he explains his theoretical objections: a straight yes/no answer would have aligned him with the eternalists or annihilationists. In the second pair, he considers what would have been helpful for Vacchagotta in his current state.
“kiṁ nu kho, bhante, bhagavā vacchagottassa paribbājakassa pañhaṁ puṭṭho na byākāsī”ti?

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” *The Buddha gives four answers. In the first pair he explains his theoretical objections: a straight yes/no answer would have aligned him with the eternalists or annihilationists. In the second pair, he considers what would have been helpful for Vacchagotta in his current state.“kiṁ nu kho, bhante, bhagavā vacchagottassa paribbājakassa pañhaṁ puṭṭho na byākāsī”ti?

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. *Things that atthi (“exist”, here to “continue to exist” or “survive”) were truly real and hence immortal. Thus “existence” or “survival” of the self implies eternalism. See SN 12.15:2.1 and note.When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. *That is to say, there is currently a self that will cease to exist.

“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa. *tesametaṁ saddhiṁ → tesametaṁ laddhi (bj)Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa.

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. *Things that atthi (“exist”, here to “continue to exist” or “survive”) were truly real and hence immortal. Thus “existence” or “survival” of the self implies eternalism. See SN 12.15:2.1 and note.
“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa. *tesametaṁ saddhiṁ → tesametaṁ laddhi (bj)
When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. *That is to say, there is currently a self that will cease to exist.
Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa.

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. *Things that atthi (“exist”, here to “continue to exist” or “survive”) were truly real and hence immortal. Thus “existence” or “survival” of the self implies eternalism. See SN 12.15:2.1 and note.“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa. *tesametaṁ saddhiṁ → tesametaṁ laddhi (bj)When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. *That is to say, there is currently a self that will cease to exist.Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa.

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’, would that have facilitated the arising of the knowledge that *The existence or survival of the self is incompatible with the Buddha’s teaching of not-self.all things are not-self?”

Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, api nu me taṁ, ānanda, anulomaṁ abhavissa ñāṇassa uppādāya: ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti?

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’, would that have facilitated the arising of the knowledge that *The existence or survival of the self is incompatible with the Buddha’s teaching of not-self.
Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, api nu me taṁ, ānanda, anulomaṁ abhavissa ñāṇassa uppādāya:
all things are not-self?”
‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti?

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’, would that have facilitated the arising of the knowledge that *The existence or survival of the self is incompatible with the Buddha’s teaching of not-self.Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, api nu me taṁ, ānanda, anulomaṁ abhavissa ñāṇassa uppādāya: all things are not-self?” ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti?

“No, sir.”

“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“No, sir.”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“No, sir.” “No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’” *That is, he would have taken it for the annihilationist view.

“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, sammūḷhassa, ānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa bhiyyo sammohāya abhavissa: ‘ahuvā me nūna pubbe attā, so etarahi natthī’”ti.

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking:
“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, sammūḷhassa, ānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa bhiyyo sammohāya abhavissa:
‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’” *That is, he would have taken it for the annihilationist view.
‘ahuvā me nūna pubbe attā, so etarahi natthī’”ti.

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: “Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, sammūḷhassa, ānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa bhiyyo sammohāya abhavissa: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’” *That is, he would have taken it for the annihilationist view.‘ahuvā me nūna pubbe attā, so etarahi natthī’”ti.

Dasamaṁ.

Dasamaṁ.

Dasamaṁ.