Evil Consequences of Stinginess

1. One who acts with stinginess in dwelling (āvāsa-macchariya) is reborn as a demon or hungry spirit, and due to the meanness about his living quarters, he is destined to carry the filth of that dwelling place on his head wherever he goes.

2. One who is stingy about relatives and followers (kula-macchariya) feels painful to see his relatives and lay supporters making offerings to other monastics. The greater the degree of stinginess, the greater the pain there is. In extreme cases, thinking his relatives and lay supporters have turned away from him, the stingy monastic suffers heart-burn to such an extent that he may vomit blood, or his entrails may come out.

3. Stinginess about monastic requisites (lābha-macchariya), whether in respect of those of the Saṅgha or of a sect of the Saṅgha, not sharing them with fellow monastics, leads to rebirth as a demon or a hungry spirit or as a python.

4. Stinginess about personal appearance or attributes (vaṇṇa-macchariya), that makes one self-admiring and deprecating of others, leads to ugliness in appearance in future existences.

5. Stinginess regarding one’s learning (pariyatti-dhamma-macchariya), keeping one’s knowledge to oneself, leads to rebirth as a [953] dullard, an ignoramus, a stupid person.

Or, explained in another way:

1. One who acts with stinginess in dwelling (āvāsa-macchariya) leads to rebirth in the Niraya hell where the stingy one is baked on hot iron sheets. This is because he had prevented others from enjoying the peace and comfort of the living quarters.

2. One who is stingy about relatives and followers (kula-macchariya) results in a dearth of good fortune in future existences. This is the result of denying others their rights, or receiving offerings at the homes of the lay supporters.

3. Stinginess about monastic requisites (lābha-macchariya) leads to rebirth in the Niraya hell where the stingy one wallows in human excreta. This Niraya is particularly nauseating. This kind of result follows the stingy one because he had deprived others of the pleasure of the enjoyment concerning the monastic requisites.

4. Stinginess about personal appearance or attributes (vaṇṇa-macchariya) results in a complete lack of presentable appearance and good attributes in future existences. A detestable appearance and an abominable reputation is what he inherits for his past meanness. Whatever good he might do, goes unnoticed by anyone like arrows shot in the dark night.

5. Stinginess regarding one’s learning (pariyatti-dhamma-macchariya) sends the monastic down to the hell of hot ashes.

Envy

Envy arises from consideration of other people’s property. Stinginess arises from consideration of one’s own property. Since the object of thought differs, envy and stinginess cannot arise together.

In the world enmity, punishment and antagonism between persons arise due to envy and stinginess which are two evil fetters. These fetters are eliminated only by Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-magga). Unless envy and stinginess have been eliminated by Stream-entry knowledge, people’s wish for freedom from enmity and so on will never be fulfilled; they will live miserably surrounded by enmity and so on. This is the explanation to the Buddha’s answer to the first question. Why is it that all beings live in enmity and danger amidst enemies, sorrow and anger although they have an earnest desire to be free from them?

On hearing the Buddha’s answer Sakka was delighted and said: “Venerable sir, that indeed is so. Fortunate One, that indeed is so. Having learnt the Fortunate One’s answer, all my doubts are cleared, all uncertainties have left me.”

The Second Question on Envy and Stinginess

After receiving with delight the Buddha’s answer, Sakka put his next question thus: “Venerable sir, what is the cause of envy and stinginess? What is their origin? What is their genesis? What is their source? When what factor is present, do envy and stinginess arise? When what factor is not present, do envy and stinginess not arise?”

To this question the Buddha replied as follows: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, envy and stinginess have objects, like living beings or conditioned formations that one likes and objects that one dislikes as their cause, as their origin, as their genesis, as their source. When objects that one likes and objects that one dislikes are present, envy and stinginess arise. When objects of like and dislike are not present, envy and stinginess do not arise.”

Herein, a living being or conditioned formation that one wants to possess is an object of one’s liking, irrespective of its intrinsic nature of disagreeableness. This is because defilements delude the mind into liking something that is of a disagreeable nature. A living being or conditioned formation belonging [954] to another person is an object of one’s dislike even though it is a good thing. This is because for one who looks at it in anger, with a biased mind, that good thing appears hateful.

Stinginess arises on account of objects that one likes. Envy arises on account of objects that one dislikes. In another mode of explanation, both envy and stinginess arise out of likes and dislikes. This will be elucidated as follows: For a monastic, a co-resident pupil or some living thing of his fancy may be there as an object of his liking. For a lay person, there are his children and his possessions, such as elephants, horses or cattle, which are objects of his liking. When the monastic or the lay person is away from them, even for a short time, he feels uneasy. When the monastic or the lay person sees someone else having similar objects, there arises in that monastic or lay person envy against the other person. If some other person were to come and ask that monastic or lay person to loan him that favourite pupil of the monastic, or the children or elephant or horse of the lay person, for some purpose, even for a short time, the monastic or lay person would refuse, saying: “I cannot loan him to you. He will get tired or feel bored.” In this manner, there arises both envy and stinginess on account of some object of one’s liking.

Again, for monastics, there are monastic requisites, such as alms bowl or robes, which are objects that he likes. For lay persons, there are various possessions, such as clothing and ornaments, which are objects that he or she likes. When that monastic or lay person sees someone else having similar objects of that other person’s liking, that monastic or lay person has an evil thought: “Oh it would be well if that person did not have those agreeable things!” This is envy. If someone were to ask that monastic or lay person to loan, for a short time, that property of his fancy, the monastic or lay person would refuse, saying: “Ah! That is not possible. I value that thing so much that I very seldom use it myself.” This is how an object of one’s liking gives rise to stinginess.

Furthermore, whether for a monastic or a lay person, there are persons or things such as a wayward pupil or child, or an inferior article in his or her possession. Although those persons and things are actually not likeable persons or things, yet, due to the deluding nature of defilements, these very persons and things become objects of their liking. That monastic or lay person feels satisfaction about those persons or things. “Who else can have such valuable assets?” they think. Thus entertaining thoughts of self-admiration on account of greed (lobha) for these possessions, envy, the evil desire to deny others of those kinds of possessions, arises. This is envy that springs from self-esteem and that arises due to the likelihood or possibility of other persons coming into possession of the kind of things one possesses.

In another way: As in the aforesaid case where one entertains thoughts of self-admiration on account of greed for their possessions of no intrinsic worth, one wishes: “May that person not have those things!” Thus envy arises. This is envy that springs from what other people already possess.

This latter explanation is not given in detail since it has already been shown in the commentary. The former explanation is made in an inferential way which is suitably modified to be in line with the sub-commentary thereto, and the sub-commentary to the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA). If someone came and asked for a loan of these persons or things of one’s liking even for a short time, the owner is not willing to part with them. This is how persons or things that ought not to be cherished can also become a source of envy and stinginess.

The Third Question on Like and Dislike

Sakka received with delight the Buddha’s answer and asked the next question: “Venerable sir, what is the cause of like and dislike? What is their origin? What is their genesis? What is their source? When what factor is present, do [955] like and dislike arise? When what factor is not present, do like and dislike not arise?”

And the Buddha answered thus: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, like and dislike have greedy craving (chanda-taṇhā) as their cause, as their origin, as their genesis, as their source. When greedy craving is present, like and dislike arise. When greedy craving is not present, like and dislike do not arise.”

Herein, chanda is synonymous with desires or wishes. Chanda is used in two ways: wishing to see, hear, smell, taste, touch or to know, and craving for sense objects. The former is a wholesome factor called desire to do (kattu-kamyatā chanda) which has the mental concomitant desire (chanda), a wish to do. The latter is craving (taṇhā) which has the mental concomitant greed (lobha), hankering after various sense objects. What is meant here is the latter type, greedy craving (lobha-taṇhā-chanda).

Five Kinds of Craving

1. Craving developed while seeking objects of sense pleasure (pariyesana-chanda).

2. Craving developed while acquiring objects of sense pleasure (paṭilābha-chanda).

3. Craving developed while enjoying objects of sense pleasure (paribhoga-chanda).

4. Craving developed while storing and securing sense pleasures (sannidhi-chanda).

5. Craving developed while bestowing rewards or gifts (visajjana-chanda), i.e., giving out one’s property with expectation of reciprocal gain, as the bestowing of salaries and awards by rulers upon their men in the belief that these men will render them service by attending upon them and safeguarding them.

Greedy craving causes likes or dislikes. When one gets what one craves for, one likes and has a fondness for the thing acquired. When one fails to get what one craves for, one hates that object of one’s craving, and dislike arises in him.

The Fourth Question on Greedy Craving

After listening with delight to the Buddha’s answer, Sakka put his next question thus: “Venerable sir, what is the cause of greedy craving (chanda-taṇhā)? What is its origin? What is its genesis? What is its source? When what factor is present, does craving arise? When what factor is not present, does craving not arise?”

The Buddha gave the answer: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, greedy craving has deliberation (vinicchaya-takka) as its cause, as its origin, as its genesis, as its source. When there is deliberation (vinicchaya-takka), greedy craving arises. When there is no deliberation, greedy craving does not arise.”

In this matter, thinking (vitakka) is not mere thinking about something in general. It is making up the mind about something after due deliberation (vinicchaya-vitakka). In making up the mind, the Buddha has pointed out the decision may be made in two ways: 1) A decision that is influenced by kinds of craving (taṇhā-vinicchaya) and 2) judgment made through the 62 wrong views (diṭṭhi-vinicchaya).

A decision influenced by craving cannot come to a judgment as to good or bad, agreeable [956] or disagreeable. That is because, as the saying goes, one man’s food is another man’s poison. For example, an earth-worm is a delicacy for certain rulers of the remote regions whereas it is nauseus to those of the middle region or kingdoms. Venison is a delicacy for rulers of the middle region whereas it is disagreeable to those of the remote regions. Decisions influenced by craving are not correct decisions. After having acquired something, whether it relates to a visible object, a sound, an odour, a taste, a tangible object, one considers how much will go to others and how much will be kept for oneself. This manner of making a decision is the function of deliberation (vinicchaya-vitakka).

Where one makes up one’s mind about something that has been acquired after deliberating on it, and becomes attached to whatever is decided on by oneself, craving arises in respect of that object. That is the explanation of the Buddha’s answer that deliberation is the cause of greedy craving.

The Fifth Question on Deliberation

Having learnt with great satisfaction the Buddha’s answers, Sakka put another question thus: “Venerable sir, what is the cause of deliberation (vinicchaya-vitakka)? What is its origin? What is its genesis? What is its source? When what factor is present, does deliberation take place? When, what factor is not present, does deliberation not take place?”

And the Buddha replied: “Sakka, Lord of the Devas, deliberation has illusory perceptions (saññā) associated with proliferation (papañca-dhamma), which tends to prolong Saṁsāra, as their cause, as their origin, as their genesis, as their source. When there are illusory perceptions, deliberation takes place. When there are no illusory perceptions, deliberation does not take place.”

There are 3 types of craving: Craving for sense pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming; or, alternatively, craving for sense pleasure, craving for form and craving for the formless. ¹ As each type of craving arises with respect to six objects of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, mind, it expands to 18 types. Again as each of them is concerned with 3 moments of past, present and future, it becomes 18 x 3 = 54 in number, which, when considered for both internal and external aspects, multiplies to 108.

¹ For details, see the translation of the Book of Analysis (Vibhaṅga) by Ashin Thiṭṭhila.

Herein, there are three kinds of illusion that tend to proliferate in the mind, they are, craving (taṇhā), conceit (māna) and wrong views (diṭṭhi). They are called proliferations (papañca-dhamma), because they tend to prolong the round of rebirth, and one who is under their spell, is called one who is attached to the world, who is egoistic, who is deluded. In other words, these three factors are hindrances that make one conceited and forgetful. In our present context, the illusion of craving is meant. There are six kinds or categories of illusory perceptions (saññā), according to the six sense objects, viz., perceptions about visible objects (rūpa-saññā), perceptions about sounds (sadda-saññā), perceptions about odours (gandha-saññā), etc. Deliberation or reason is developed based on those illusory perceptions.

The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Questions on Meditation

Then having learnt with much delight the Buddha’s answer, Sakka asked further: [957] “Venerable sir, by what practice does a monastic destroy the proliferating perceptions (sañña-papañca), and get to Nibbāna where all perceptions cease?”

Contemplation of Sensations

1. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I declare that mentally agreeable sensations (somanassa-vedanā) are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.

2. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I declare that mentally disagreeable sensations (domanassa-vedanā) also are of two types: that which should be resorted to and that which should not be resorted to.

3. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I declare that mentally neutral sensations (upekkhā-vedanā) are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not he resorted to.

1. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said earlier: ‘I declare that mentally agreeable sensations are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.’ The reason for this statement is this: If you understand that in resorting to a certain pleasant sensation, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not resort to that pleasant sensation. Mentally agreeable sensations that tend to increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness should not be resorted to. The same should be understood to apply to the two other kinds of sensation.

Of the two types of mentally agreeable sensation, if you understand that in resorting to a certain pleasant sensation, demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases, you should resort to that mentally agreeable sensation. Mentally agreeable sensations that tend to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness should be resorted to. The same should be understood to apply to the two other kinds of sensation.

Of the type of mentally agreeable sensations that should be resorted to, there is one that arises together with initial application of the mind and with sustained application of the mind (savitakka-savicāra-somanassa); and there is also the one that arises without initial application of the mind and without sustained application of the mind (avitakka-avicāra-somanassa). Of these two the one without sustained application of the mind (avitakka-avicāra-somanassa) is superior.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, it is for this reason that I have said: ‘I declare that mentally agreeable sensations are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.’

2. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said earlier: ‘I declare that mentally disagreeable sensations (domanassa-vedanā) are of two types: that which should be resorted to and that which should not be resorted to.’ The reason for this statement is this: If you understand that in resorting to a certain mentally disagreeable sensation, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not resort to that unpleasant sensation.

Of those two types of mentally disagreeable sensations, if you understand that in resorting to a certain unpleasant sensation, demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases, you should resort to that unpleasant sensation.

Of the types of mentally disagreeable sensations that should be resorted to, there is the one that arises together with initial application of the mind and with sustained application of the mind (savitakka-savicāra-domanassa); and there is one that arises without initial application of the mind and without sustained application of [958] the mind (avitakka-avicāra-domanassa). Of these two, the one without initial application of the mind and without sustained application of [958] the mind is superior.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, it is for this reason that I have said: ‘I declare that there are two types of mentally disagreeable sensations that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.’

3. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, I have said earlier: ‘I declare that mentally neutral sensations (upekkhā-vedanā) are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.’ The reason for this statement is this: If you understand that in resorting to a certain mentally neutral sensation, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not resort to that mentally neutral sensation.

Of those two types of mentally neutral sensations, if you understand that in resorting to a certain mentally neutral sensation, demeritoriousness increases and meritoriousness decreases, you should not resort to that neutral sensation.

Of those two types of mentally neutral sensation, if you understand that in resorting to a certain mentally neutral sensation, demeritoriousness decreases and meritoriousness increases, you should resort to that neutral sensation.

Of the type of mentally neutral sensations that should be resorted to, there is one that arises with initial application of the mind and with sustained application of the mind (savitakka-savicāra-upekkhā); and there is also one that arises without initial application of the mind and without sustained application of the mind (avitakka-avicāra-upekkhā). Of these two, the one that arises without initial application of the mind and without sustained application of the mind is superior.

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, it is for this reason that I have said: ‘I declare that mentally neutral sensations are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.’

Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, a monastic, who practises thus, is one who works for the extinction of proliferating perceptions, the group of perceptions associated with the proliferation factor (papañca) that leads to Nibbāna where all perceptions cease.”

When the Buddha answered thus giving an analytical exposition of meditation of sensation, Sakka was delighted and said, expressing his approval: “Venerable sir, that indeed is so. Fortunate One, that indeed is so. Having learnt the Fortunate One’s answer, I am rid of all doubts about this question, all uncertainties have left me.”

In this connection, the commentary discusses, as follows, some interesting points on the subtleties of the Dhamma.

In the present question, Sakka asks the Buddha about the practice that leads to Nibbāna in a subjective manner. The Buddha answers in an objective way about the three kinds of sensation, that is, the method of insight-development through contemplation of agreeable (somanassa-vedanā), disagreeable (domanassa-vedanā) and neutral sensations (upekkhā-vedanā). Since the Buddha’s answer consists of contemplation of three sensations, the commentary speaks of three questions: Questions about agreeable sensations (somanassa-paṇhā), questions about disagreeable sensations (domanassa-paṇhā), and questions about neutral sensations (upekkhā-paṇhā), one on each of the three sensations.

The question asked by Sakka was: “By what practice does a monastic work towards Nibbāna?” The Buddha does not give a straight answer, such as: “In this way, a monastic practices the way leading to Nibbāna.” Instead he replied: “Sakka, agreeable sensations are of two types: that which should be resorted to, and that which should not be resorted to.” This might strike as incongruent to those not conversant with the Buddha’s various methods of teaching.

The commentary elucidates this problem in the following way: [959] In this sixth question of Sakka, is the Buddha’s answer relevant to Sakka’s question, one might ask? The answer: Yes, it is.

And the explanation is this: Sakka asks subjectively about a practice towards attaining Nibbāna. It is a personal question. The Buddha gives the answer to suit the temperament of Sakka for working towards Nibbāna. The answer revolves around contemplation of the mind, which is suited to Sakka’s mental make-up. The Buddha opens up the subject of meditation of mental phenomena with contemplation on the three kinds of sensations. Therefore, the answer is a relevant answer.

To expand this: For Devas, the mind is a more appropriate subject for contemplation than the body. Amongst the mental aggregates, sensations are the most vivid to perceive. The physical composition of Devas is more subtle than that of human beings. Being a result of superior deeds (kamma), their digestive capacity is also remarkably greater than that of human beings so that very rich Deva nutriment can easily be digested. This means a need for regular feeding. When a Deva misses a meal, he feels the pangs of hunger very acutely. In fact, it can lead to dissolution of the body like a lump of butter placed on a heated slab.

This shows that, to a Deva, the truth of painful sensation (dukkha-vedanā) is very easy to perceive. Similarly, pleasant sensation is due to superior kinds of Deva; pleasures that may be indulged in to greater and greater degree are also easy to perceive. This also holds true for neutral sensation (upekkhā-vedanā) which is peaceful and wholesome. That is why the Buddha chooses the contemplation of the three kinds of sensations, agreeable sensations, disagreeable sensations and neutral sensations as a suitable practice for Sakka.

This will be elaborated further: There is meditation for insight (vipassanā) into the physical aspect of one’s body and meditation for insight (vipassanā) into the mental aspect of one’s body. Of these two main methods, the Buddha prescribes the former to those who have the capacity to perceive physical phenomena. It may be taught briefly or in an elaborate way. Usually, the essential nature of the four primary elements is taught in detail as the meditation subject (catu-dhātu-vavatthāna-kammaṭṭhāna) on physical phenomena. To those who have the innate capacity to perceive mental phenomena, a suitable subject on mental phenomena is taught. In such a case, the physical basis of the mind has to be contemplated first before proceeding to the contemplation of mental phenomena. In the case of Sakka too, this was the procedure: physical phenomena was first touched upon briefly. However, in the recorded text of the teaching that preliminary aspect is not specified and the discourse on mental phenomena alone is recorded.

With Devas, mental phenomena are better perceived. So the three kinds of sensation are taught first. When mental phenomena is contemplated at the outset, there are three approaches:

1. Through contact (phassa).

2. Through sensation (vedanā).

3. Through mind (citta).

The three approaches are adopted only at the initial stage of meditation. Once the nature of mental phenomena is grasped and when the impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and unsubstantiality (anatta) of mental phenomena is contemplated upon, all mental phenomena are comprehended. To explain this further:

1. With some yogis, after contemplation of the body has been mastered in a brief manner or in an elaborate manner, contact (phassa), which is a mental phenomenon, falls on the physical phenomena that is under contemplation and becomes evident.

2. With some yogis, the sensation experienced in respect of the physical phenomena, which is under contemplation, becomes evident.

3. With some yogis, the consciousness which cognizes the physical phenomenon under contemplation, becomes evident. In these three ways, the interrelationship between mind and body comes to be understood by the yogi. [960]

Comprehending Contact

1. Contact, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are a group of five key mental concomitants that arise together. In the discussion on the three types of yogis, the one who vividly perceives contact (phassa) between mind and matter does not comprehend contact alone. Rather, he comes to realize the sensation (vedanā), which experiences the contact, is also there; that perception (saññā), which perceives the object of contemplation, is also there; that volition (cetanā), which brings into play all associated mental factors, is also there; that consciousness (viññāṇa), which cognizes the object of contemplation, is also there. Thus the five closely related mental factors headed by contact are comprehended.

2. The yogi, who perceives sensation, does not comprehend sensation alone. Rather, he comes to realize that, along with the arising of that sensation, there arises contact between the mind and the physical phenomena under contemplation; he also realizes that there also arises perception which perceives it; that there also arises volition which motivates the associated mental factors; and that there also arises consciousness which cognizes the object of contemplation. Thus the five mental factors headed by contact are comprehended.

3. The yogi, who perceives consciousness, does not comprehend consciousness alone. Rather, he understands that besides the consciousness, there also arises contact whereby the mind meets the object of contemplation; that there also arises sensation which experiences the contact; that there also arises perception which perceives the object; and that there also arises volition that motivates the associated mental factors. Thus the five mental factors headed by contact are comprehended.

Having comprehended contact and its four associated mental factors (phassa-pañcamaka), the yogi contemplates on what is the basis of their arising. Then he discerns that the five mental factors have the corporeal body as their basis. The body, in the ultimate sense, is the corporeality that has arisen, made up of the primary four elements (bhūta-rūpa) and secondary elements (upādāya-rūpa). Thus, the truth that contact and its associating four mental factors arise dependent on the body is understood. The basis, where the mental factors arise, is seen in its reality as physical phenomena or matter (rūpa); and that the five associated factors headed by contact is mental phenomena or mind (nāma); and that there is just mind and matter (nāma-rūpa) and nothing else. Between the two interrelated phenomena, matter comprises the aggregate of corporeality; mind comprises the four mental aggregates. Thus, there are just the five aggregates (khandha). Indeed, there is no aggregate apart from mind and matter; there is no mind or matter apart from the five aggregates.

The yogi then contemplates: “What is the cause of the arising of the five aggregates?” He understands fundamentally and truly that the five aggregates arise due to ignorance (avijjā), craving (taṇhā) and deeds (kamma). Thus, he understands that the continued phenomenon of the five aggregates is the effect of this cause: Ignorance, craving and deeds, and that apart from cause and effect there is nothing that can truly be called a person or a being, and that all are aggregates of conditioned phenomena. Thus, having comprehended that mind and matter arise from a cause, the yogi continually contemplates on the impermanence, suffering, and non-self (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of mind and matter, thereby gaining insight into the mind-matter complex stage by stage. This effort and its rewards indicate strong insight (balava-vipassanā).

The yogi, who has advanced to this high level of insight, becomes very eager to attain the paths and fruitions. He strives for the development of insight, encouraging himself with the thought: “I am going to achieve the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna even today.” When four appropriate factors: weather, associates, food, and discourse that are conducive to his Awakening are present together, he attains path-knowledge. And even at one sitting of meditation, the culmination of insight development may be realized and he becomes an Arahat.

In the above manner, the Buddha has already shown how a yogi, to whom contact is [961] comprehended, or sensation is comprehended, or consciousness is comprehended, may gain Awakening through proper insight development.

In the Discourse about Sakka’s Questions the Buddha discourses on contemplation of mental phenomena, concentrating on sensation (vedanā) as the meditation subject appropriate for Sakka. This is so because Devas, including Sakka, will not find either contact (phassa) or consciousness (viññāṇa) as comprehensible as sensation (vedanā). Therefore, sensation is an appropriate subject of meditation for Devas for gaining insight into mental phenomena.

To explain this further: The arising of pleasant sensation (sukha-vedanā) and unpleasant sensation (dukkha-vedanā) is very evident. When pleasant sensation arises, the whole body is permeated with it. One gets excited. There is a feeling of ease, as if being fed with butter refined 100 times over, or being applied on the skin with oil refined 100 times over, or relieving heat by taking a bath with cool clear water contained in 1,000 pots. It causes the person who experiences it to exclaim: “Oh! This is pleasant, really pleasant!”

When unpleasant or painful sensation arises also, it pervades the whole body causing great agitation and discomfort. It is as though lumps of red hot iron were inserted into the body, or as though molten iron were poured down over one’s body, or as though a bundle of burning faggots were thrown into a forest of dried trees and grass. It causes the person experiencing it to groan painfully: “Oh! This is painful, really painful!” Thus, the arising of pleasant sensation and unpleasant sensation is quite evident.

This is not the case with neutral sensation (upekkhā-vedanā), which is not so evident. It is as though hidden by darkness. In the absence of any pleasant sensation or painful sensation, the yogi can only use his reason to understand the neutral sensation which is neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant. It is like a hunter chasing a deer, making a reasoned guess where the deer’s hoof prints appear at one end of a slab of rock as ascending it, and appear at the other end while descending therefrom, and coming to the conclusion that the deer must have walked across the rock. Where pleasant sensation has been clearly noted in the yogi’s awareness, and later unpleasant sensation also has been clearly noted, the yogi can, by applying his reason, judge that during the moments when two kinds of sensation are not felt, there has arisen in him a neutral sensation that is neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant. In this way the yogi comprehends neutral sensation (upekkhā-vedanā).

Thus, the Buddha first taught Sakka contemplation of physical phenomena and then proceeded to the subject of the three sensations as a method of contemplating mental phenomena. This method, whereby a discourse on the contemplation of physical phenomena is followed by a discourse on the three sensations as a meditation subject, is a common method used by the Buddha to suit the hearer in each situation. It can be found, besides the present discourse to Sakka, in many other discourses, including: the Long Discourse about Steadfast Mindfulness (Mahā-sati-paṭṭhāna-sutta, DN 22), the Discourse about the Ways of Attending to Mindfulness (Sati-paṭṭhāna-sutta, MN 10), the Short Discourse on the Destruction of Craving (Cūḷa-taṇhā-saṅkhaya-sutta, MN 37), the Long Discourse on the Destruction of Craving (Mahā-taṇhā-saṅkhaya-sutta, MN 38), the Short Discourse giving an Elaboration (Cūḷa-vedalla-sutta, MN 44), the Long Discourse giving an Elaboration (Mahā-vedalla-sutta, MN 43), the Discourse to Ratṭhapāla (Raṭṭhapāla-sutta, MN 82), the Discourse to Māgaṇḍiya (Māgaṇḍiya-sutta, MN 75), the Discourse giving an Analysis of the Elements (Dhātu-vibhaṅga-sutta, MN 140), the Discourse on what is Conducive to the Imperturbable (Āneñja-sappāya-sutta, MN 106) and the whole of the Thematic Discourses about Feeling (Vedanā-saṁyutta, SN 36).

The commentary says: “In the Discourse about Sakka’s Questions (Sakka-pañha-sutta), meditation on the physical phenomena, being simply an object of sensation, is not expressly mentioned. Probably this is why it is not on record in the Pāḷi text.” This statement is rather terse and obscure. Its purport will, therefore, be brought out here: The commentary means: “The Fortunate One taught Sakka and other Devas contemplation of physical phenomena first and then proceeded with contemplation of mental phenomena through the three sensations which was the way they could understand the Dhamma, considering their capacity to comprehend.” This statement might be challenged by certain persons pointing out the fact that there is no mention in the text that the Buddha taught contemplation of physical phenomena to Sakka. The answer lies in the fact that Devas are highly perceptible to mental phenomena, and among all mental phenomena, sensation is best understood by them. It is the Buddha’s method in teaching those with a strong capacity to understand mental phenomena, to make a preliminary [962] discourse on physical phenomena just to provide a grounding for understanding mental phenomena, on which latter subject he would dwell at length. In the present case, Sakka and his company had a strong capacity to understand mental phenomena and so the Buddha mentioned physical phenomena simply as an object of sensation, showing them what constitutes physical phenomena. And having stated it in a most brief manner, the Buddha taught the three kinds of sensation in an elaborate manner. Therefore, it must be noted that physical phenomena forms just a preliminary subject as object of sensation, and hence this is not recorded in the text. This is the purport of the terse commentarial statement referred to above.

[An elaborate section of the meditation of feelings has been removed to the Further Explanations as it breaks the flow of the text too much.]

The Story of the Elder Mahāsīva

Monastics should also practice the meditation of sensations, or feelings, but if, even after very rigorous practice, a monastic still does not attain the Arahat fruition, despondency sets in his mind. He reflects: “Alas, I am still not one of those who are invited to assemble at the yearly congregation where the Invitation of the Pure (Visuddhi-pavāraṇā) is performed.” He feels very sad like the monastic elder Mahāsiva of Gāmantapabbhāra, and tears may flow down his face.

In Śrī Laṅkā, there once lived a monastic elder named Mahāsīva who had eighteen groups or sets of monastics learning at his feet. Thirty thousand of his pupils had become Arahats under his tutorship. One of the 30,000 Arahats thought to himself: “I have acquired infinite qualities in terms of morality, and so on. How about the qualities attained by my teacher Mahāsīva?” And he knew that his teacher was still a worldling. He reflected thus: “Alas, our teacher Mahāsīva has been the support of others, but is not the support for himself. I will now admonish our teacher.” So thinking, he travelled through psychic power in the air, descended near the elder’s monastery, and went to Mahāsīva, who was sitting in a secluded place. He made obeisance to the teacher and sat down at a suitable distance.

The teacher said to this pupil: “Observer of the ascetic practice of eating from one bowl only, what calls you here?”

This is a term of endearment used by elders of the past to monastics who practise insight-meditation.

The pupil said: “Venerable sir, I come to learn from you a discourse of appreciation (anumodanā) for use at an offering ceremony.” [966]

“It is not possible to learn it here, friend.”

“May I learn it at the place where you usually stop and consider the direction you should make for the day’s alms gathering?”

“Other monastics will be putting their questions to me there.”

“May I learn it on the alms round?”

“There too, other monastics will be putting their questions.”

“May I learn it where the venerable elder robes himself fully with the upper robe, or while rearranging the robes for going into the village, or where the alms bowl is made ready for alms gathering, or at the place of taking the gruel meal at the rest house after the alms round?”

“At those places, monastic elders will be asking questions to clear up their doubts concerning the commentarial literature.”

“May I ask you on your return from the alms round?”

“Then also other monastics will be asking questions.”

“May I ask on the way from the village to the monastery?”

“Then also other monastics will be asking questions.”

“May I ask after your meal at the monastery? Or at the place of seclusion when the venerable elder washes his feet? Or at the time the venerable elder washes his face?”

“At those times, also other monastics usually ask questions, friend. From this time till the next day’s dawn, there are monastics coming to me endlessly without a moment’s break, friend.”

“May I then ask at the time the venerable elder is cleaning his teeth and washing his face?”

“Impossible friend, other monastics will be asking their questions.”

“May I ask when the venerable elder enters the monastery and sits there?”

“Then also, there will be other monastics asking questions.”

“Venerable sir, as a matter of fact, there should be a moment to spare when the venerable elder sits in meditation in the monastery after having washed his face, during the moments of shifting the sitting posture for three or four times. From what the venerable elder says, would there be no time to die too? Venerable sir, you are like the leaning board providing others support, but not being one’s own support. My real purpose in coming to you is not to learn a discourse from you.” So saying, he disappeared.

Mahāsīva Retires into the Forest

Ven. Mahāsīva then saw the real purpose of that monastic’s visit: “This monastic does not want to learn the teaching. He came here to admonish me. But this is not the time for me to go out into seclusion in the forest. I must wait till morning,” he said to himself. He made ready to leave with his bowl and robes which he kept handy. He taught the whole day and the first and middle watches of the night. When, in the third watch of the night, one of the pupils was leaving, he slipped out together with him, letting everyone think he was one of the pupils. Other pupils awaiting the next class thought that the teacher was out to answer the call of nature. The student monastic who went out together also took the teacher for a co-student.

Ven. Mahāsīva was confident that the Arahat fruition should not take more than a few days to attain, and he would come back from forest seclusion after becoming an Arahat. So he did not bid farewell to his pupils when he left the monastery on the thirteenth day of Visākha, and went to a cave known as Gāmantapabbhāra, a cave which was in the vicinity of a village. By the full moon day, he had not became an Arahat. “I thought I could attain the Arahat fruition in a few days,” he thought, “but the Rains Retreat (Vassa) period has arrived. I will spend the Rains Retreat (Vassa) here and will accomplish my task by the end of the Rains Retreat (Vassa), by the Invitation day (Pavāraṇā).” So, regarding three months as though it were three days, he went into ardent practice. But at the end of the [967] three months he was still unable to attain the Arahat fruition. Mahāsīva reflected: “I had come here hoping to attain the Arahat fruition in three days, but three months have passed without my attaining it. My fellow monastics have joined the Saṅgha congregation of Arahats now.” He felt miserable and tears streamed down his face.

Then he pondered: “Perhaps I have been indulgent: I have alternated the four bodily postures: lying, sitting, standing and walking, in my meditation work. I will now renounce the lying posture and will not wash my feet until I attain the Arahat fruition.” So he put away his cot in a corner and resumed meditation. Another Rains Retreat (Vassa) passed by, and no Awakening was at hand. Each Rains Retreat (Vassa) ended not with Awakening but with tears, tears of noble desire unfulfilled. In this way, 29 years marked by 29 assemblies of the Arahats at the end of each Rains Retreat went by.

Young boys from the village noticed the ruptures that had developed on both of the Mahāsīva’s feet and they tried their best to patch them up with thorns. Then they joked among themselves: “Oh, how I envy those ruptured feet.”

A Devakaññā Comes to the Rescue

On the full moon day, in the month of the October (Assayuja), in the thirtieth year of his ardent practice, Mahāsīva sat leaning against a board and took stock of the situation. “I have been trying for 30 years, and the Arahat fruition is still beyond my reach. Clearly, Awakening is not for me in this life. How I miss the opportunity of attending to the congregation of Arahats together with my fellow monastics.” An unpleasant sensation (domanassa-vedanā) overwhelmed him. Tears came rolling down his face.

At the time, a Devakaññā stood before him sobbing. The monastic elder asked: “Who is there weeping?”

“I am a Devakaññā, venerable sir.”

“Why do you weep like this?”

“Venerable sir, I think weeping is the way to attainment of path and fruition and I am weeping following your example in the hope of attaining one path and fruition or two.”

At this, the old monastic’s pride was rudely shaken. He said to himself: “Now, Mahāsīva, you have made yourself the laughing-stock of a young Devakaññā. Does it become you?” A strong feeling of spiritual urgency (saṁvega) overtook him. He redoubled his endeavour and soon became an Arahat along with the four discriminative knowledges (paṭisambhidā-ñāṇa).

Now that he felt relaxed mentally, he thought of stretching himself awhile. He cleaned up his cot, filled his water pots, and sat at the head of the walkway, reminding himself of the need to wash his feet that he had neglected for these 30 years.

Sakka Washes Mahāsīva’s Feet

Ven. Mahāsīva’s pupils remembered their teacher in the thirtieth year of his departure and saw by their special powers that he had become an Arahat. Knowing what had crossed in the teacher’s mind, they said: “It is ridiculous to let our teacher trouble himself to wash his own feet while pupils like ourselves are living.” Thinking thus, all 30,000 Arahat-pupils travelled in the direction of the cave where Ven. Mahāsīva was sitting, all of them vying with one another to get the opportunity of washing their teacher’s feet.

Ven. Mahāsīva however insisted that he must do the job, which he had neglected for 30 years himself. At that juncture, Sakka thought to himself: “The monastic elder is insisting on washing his feet himself, refusing to have them washed by his 30,000 Arahat pupils. It is absurd that the revered one should bother to wash his own feet while a lay supporter like myself is living. I will go there and do the job.” He took his Queen Sūjā with him and appeared at the scene. Putting his queen in front, he announced to the 30,000 Arahat monks: “Make way, venerable sirs, a woman is coming.” He then made obeisance to Ven. Mahāsīva and sat squatting before him, and said: “Venerable sir, let me wash [968] your feet.”

“Sakka of the Kosiya clan, I have left my feet unwashed for 30 full years. Human bodies smell bad by nature. The smell is so pungent that even for a Deva staying 100 leagues away from a human body, its smell is as obnoxious as carrion tied around his neck. So leave the washing to me.”

Sakka replied: “Venerable sir, as for us the natural smell of the human body is obscured by the fragrance of your morality, which rises beyond the sense sphere Deva realms (kāmāvacara) and reaches the topmost realm of the Brahmas. Venerable sir, there is no fragrance that surpasses the fragrance of morality. Your morality has compelled us to render personal service to you.” Then Sakka took firm hold of the elder’s ankle with his left hand and washed his soles with his right hand till they glowed like the soft soles of a child. After doing this personal service to the elder, Sakka made obeisance to him and returned to his celestial abode.

In this way, a yogi, who finds himself unable to become an Arahat, feels, as in the case of Ven. Mahāsīva: “Ah, how I miss the opportunity of holding congregation with fellow monastics who are Arahats.” He becomes despondent suffering disagreeable sensations (domānassa-vedanā). When he attains meditation or insight knowledge or path and fruition as the outcome of, or caused by, that unpleasant feeling which he considers either as associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, or not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind. Such attainment is called, figuratively, unpleasant sensation with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, or unpleasant sensation without initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind. It should be noted that the Buddha termed these attainments as figures of speech, taken from the point of view of result or that of cause.

Thus, according to the yogi’s view of the unpleasant sensation, either as associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, or as not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, when in due course the unpleasant sensation leads to meditation or insight knowledge, or the paths and fruitions, these attainments are called, figuratively, unpleasant sensation with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, or unpleasant sensation without initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind.

In this context, where a monastic contemplates the meditation, whether neighbourhood absorption (upacāra-jhāna) or the first absorption (paṭhama-jhāna), called unpleasant sensation with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind (savitakka-savicāra), as impermanent, suffering and unsubstantial, he considers: “Where does this unpleasant sensation originate?” He comes to understand that it has its origin in the body as its base. From this understanding, he progresses, stage by stage, to Awakening.

If there is another monastic who contemplates the second absorption (dutiya-jhāna), the third absorption (tatiya-jhāna), etc. which are called unpleasant sensation which is not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind (avitakka-avicāra), as impermanent, suffering and unsubstantial, by stages he becomes an Arahat.

In the above two cases, both have unpleasant sensation as the object of insight meditation but the unpleasant sensation, which is not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, is superior to the unpleasant sensation which is associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind. Regarding the insight knowledge gained from the meditation also, the former is superior to the latter. Regarding the fruition of the final path-knowledge (Arahatta-phala) also, the former is superior. That is why the Buddha says that, of the two types of unpleasant sensation, the one that is not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind is superior. These are points to note concerning unpleasant sensation (domanassa-vedanā). [969]

3. The neutral sensation (upekkhā) which tends to increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness, and is therefore not to be resorted to, means home-dependent neutral sensations (geha-sita-upekkhā). It means strong attachment to sense-pleasures. When some agreeable object arises at the six doors: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind, one is unable to overcome the defilements and falls prey to that sense object just as a fly is caught by a piece of jaggery. One who relishes sense-pleasures is imprisoned by them.

Repeated resort to home-dependent neutral sensations tends to increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness. That is why the Buddha said that home-dependent neutral sensations should not be resorted to.

The neutral sensation which tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness, and should, therefore, be resorted to, means neutral sensations that depend on renunciation (nekkhamma-sita-upekkhā). It is a neutral attitude to both agreeable and disagreeable objects arising at the six sense spheres: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Agreeable sense objects are not attached to. Disagreeable objects do not cause anger or vexation. Neither-agreeable-nor-disagreeable sense objects do not cause delusion (moha) due to having an unbalanced attitude. The yogi contemplates all the six sense objects as impermanent, suffering, and subject to change and thus discerns all of them as they really are. This neutral attitude is a form of neutral sensation which arises with wisdom in the mental process of the yogi. In other words, this evenness of attitude is also called indifferent feeling or specific neutrality (tatra-majjhattatā). It means having a detached attitude to both agreeable and disagreeable sense objects. Neutral feeling (vedanupekkhā) and having a balanced attitude, or specific neutrality (tatra-majjhattatā), are taken as neutral (upekkhā).

That being so, resorting to the six kinds of neutral sensation inclined to renunciation, six neutral sensations that rely on renunciation, at all times, i.e., from the time of becoming a monastic, throughout all the stages of monastic practice beginning with the practice of the ten reflections (anussati), till the attainment of meditation, up to the fourth absorption (jhāna), decreases demeritoriousness and increases meritoriousness. Therefore the Buddha said neutral sensations that rely on renunciation should be resorted to.

Of the two types of neutral sensations that rely on renunciation: the one associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind (savitakka-savicāra-upekkhā), the neutral sensation that arises at all times, from the time of becoming a monastic throughout all the stages of insight-development through various contemplations, up till the attainment of the first absorption (paṭhama-jhāna) and the one not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind (avitakka-avicāra-upekkhā), at the attainment of the second absorption (dutiya-jhāna), the first one is superior to the second.

The above passage compares the Arahat fruition attained by two monastics, in two ways of monastic practice:

The first monastic, in contemplating a neutral sensation associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, considers: “On what does this neutral sensation depend?” And he comes to the right understanding that it arises dependent on the body. From that understanding, he proceeds to gain insight knowledge, stage by stage, until he becomes an Arahat.

The second monastic, contemplating the neutral sensation not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind that arises at the second, the third, and the fourth absorptions (jhāna) gains insight knowledge, stage by stage, until he becomes an Arahat.

Of those two monastics, the neutral sensation that serves as the object of meditation of the second monastic, being not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, is superior to the neutral sensation that serves as the object of meditation of the first monastic which is associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind. Regarding the thoughts that arise in the two monastics during their meditation, the thoughts that arise in the second monastic, being not associated [970] with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, are superior to the thoughts of the first monastic which are associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind. Regarding the attainment of the Arahat fruition won through contemplation of the neutral sensation, the attainment of the second monastic, being not associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind, is superior to that of the first monastic which is associated with initial application of the mind and sustained application of the mind.

Sakka Established in Stream-Entry

Having discoursed on pleasant sensation, unpleasant sensation and neutral sensation that lead to Awakening, the Buddha concluded the teaching with these words: “Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, a monastic, who practises thus, is one who works out the extinction of proliferating perceptions associated with craving (taṇhā), conceit (māna) and wrong view (diṭṭhi) that prolongs the suffering in Saṁsāra leading to Nibbāna where all perceptions cease.” At that moment, Sakka attained the fruition of Stream-entry.

The benevolent desire of the Buddhas is the noblest intention to bestow the highest blessing, the superior or exalted mind, never of inferior or lower type. Wherever the Buddhas make a discourse to an individual or to a congregation, they always show the way to becoming an Arahat. Amongst the hearers, some attain Stream-entry, some become Once-returners, some become Non-returners, and some become Arahats, according to the sufficing condition, or, the ripeness of their past merit.

To bring in a simile here: The Buddha is like the royal father, the hearers of his teaching are like the princelings. The father makes morsels of food in the size that he usually takes, and feeds them into the mouths of the princelings. The princelings take in as much food, only of what as their mouths can receive. Similarly, the Buddha disseminates the Dhamma in the highest level of becoming an Arahat, then from amongst the hearers some attain the first fruition, some the second, some the third, and some the fourth, according to their capacity for understanding.

Sakka Is Reborn as Sakka a Second Time

After attaining Stream-entry, Sakka passed away in the presence of the Buddha and was reborn as Sakka for a second time.

There is an important point to note in this connection: When a Deva passes away no corpse remains as is the case with a human being. The body ceases to exist and disappears just like a flame disappears. Whereas, when a human being dies, the corporeality born of productive deeds (kammaja-rūpa) disappears first. Seventeen thought-moments after the disappearance of corporeality born of productive deeds, mind-born corporeality (cittaja-rūpa) disappears. Within a few moments, nutriment-born corporeality (āhāraja-rūpa) disappears since no external nutriment sustains it. Temperature-born corporeality (utuja-rūpa) however stays on for a long time, taking its own process. With Devas it is totally different. This is so because Devas have a type of rebirth quite different from human beings. They are born instantly as adults. When their corporeality born of productive deeds dissolves, the remaining kinds of corporeality, i.e., mind-born, temperature-born, and nutriment-born corporeality, all these dissolve simultaneously. The result is that there are no physical remains when a Deva passes away. The body vanishes there and then.

The difference in the fact of the presence of the human dead body and the absence of the Deva dead body at their passing away is a matter that requires some basic understanding ² of the arising of the aggregates of a human being and those of a Deva at the [971] moment of conception.

² Readers could enhance their understanding of this chapter by studying A Manual of Abhidhamma by Nārada Thera, Chapter Six, which deals with an Analysis of Matter, containing sections on the enumeration of matter, the classification of matter, the manner of the arising of material phenomana, etc.

At the moment of conception or rebirth (paṭisandhi) of a human being, three corporeality units (kalāpa), each a mere speck of an atom, come into being: the body decad (kāya-dasaka-kalāpa), the sex decad (bhāva-dasaka-kalāpa) and the base decad (vatthu-dasaka-kalāpa). The corporeality born of productive deeds and the mind-born corporeality, temperature-born corporeality and nutriment-born corporeality arise at the due moment. Whenever these four types of corporeality advance to the stage of static moment (ṭhiti-khaṇa), each unit of the element of heat (tejo-dhātu) inherent in those corporeal units continuously produces temperature-born corporeality, resulting in a multiplication of temperature-born clusters (utuja kalāpa) and the growth of the human body.

This continuous increment of the temperature-born corporeality has the effect of constituting most of the bulk of the human body so much so it is virtually the owner of the house of the human body, turning the three other types of corporeality: kamma-born, mind-born, and nutriment-born corporeality into mere guests at the house. This is the nature of corporeality in human beings as well as all other womb-born beings. When they die, the corporeality born of productive deeds, the mind-born corporeality and the nutriment-born corporeality in them vanish away, like guests in the house leaving the body; but temperature-born corporeality, which is like the owner of the house, remains for a comparatively long time.

In the case of Devas, corporeality born of productive deeds, arising at the moment of instant rebirth, constitutes the whole of the Deva body which is three miles long, and is like the owner of the house while the three other types of corporeality: Mind-born, temperature-born, and nutriment-born corporeality are like guests at the house, sharing space within the Deva body.

Therefore, Devas and Brahmas, who are reborn instantly as adults, do not leave behind any remains of their body at death. The three types of corporeality other than corporeality born of productive deeds, like guests who cannot stay on in the house when the house is no more, vanish when the corporeality born of productive deeds dissolves at death. This is a profound matter. It is intelligible only to those who have a grounding in the phenomenal processes of mind and matter.

Since Sakka passed away and was reborn as Sakka even while listening to the discourse, no one among his celestial company knew that it was not the same Sakka. Only Sakka himself knew it, besides him the Buddha knew it by his all-knowing wisdom.